The Decline of Historic Bible Protestantism

___________________________________________________________________________________________

WHY NO BIBLICAL EVALUATION TODAY?

Leonard Ravenhill, in his best seller "WHY REVIVAL TARRIES"
made a very piercing observation when he wrote: "Evangelists
today are wide-eyed to the might of Communism, but tightlipped at
the menace of Romanism. "This statement was made about twenty
years ago. Times have changed since then. And evangelists for
the most part today (at least the famous ones) are not even
concerned about the might of Communism. However, it is still true
that most evangelists and most ministers and most Americans are
completely silent when it comes to a Biblical evaluation of
Romanism or any false religion today.

One of the reasons for this is the great ignorance of the Bible that
exists in Protestantism today. One dear lady in a service the writer
conducted in a good, fundamental church confessed that she did
not know enough to ask a question. The meeting had been thrown
open for questions at the end. She was honest enough as she
shook my hand to say, "I didn't know enough to ask a question."
This was in a good, separated, fundamental church. So although
there is much preaching about the Bible today, the great truths of
the Scriptures, as they pertain to justification and redemption, are
seldom mentioned.

Another reason is the rise of secularism and humanism. As J.
Sidlow Baxter points out while writing on another subject:
There can be no doubt that the holiness movement became
eclipsed by a bigger issue. That issue was the grim battle to preserve
the validity of Christianity as a whole against the deadly
assaults of nineteenth and twentieth century rationalistic criticism...
in all denominations those holding to the evangelical faith were
compelled to sink minor differences...and join hands in common
cause against the one common deadly for.1 Biblical evaluation has
also been eclipsed by a bigger issue. With the rise of humanism
many feel that all church differences should be dropped and that all
should unite to defeat this one common deadly foe.

Therefore, it is considered not only bad taste but a journey into
the unnecessary to evaluate other religions today. Because of this
tolerance anyone who dares to even timidly question the antics of
those who compromise the great truths of the Gospel is in for a
veritable roasting by the leading lights of modern Christian
journalism.

It is difficult to biblically evaluate another religion. Yet the Bible
cuts across man-made religions of all kinds, and to be a true
minister of the Word calls for biblical evaluation of error and
heresy.

We live in a generation which is uncritical in the area of religion.
According to CHRISTIANITY TODAY, David McKenna, President
of Seattle Pacific University, said that today's students tend to be
uncritical, and George Brushaber of Bethel College observed:
"They don't have much recognition of the traditions of history from
which they come...no sense of the historical church."2 In other
words, the ignorance of a theological perspective is monumental
today.

So it is considered passe to biblically evaluate the modern
church. If an aggressive church hires Bozo the Clown for $10,000
to boost its Sunday School attendance for that Sunday, no one is
supposed to raise so much as a whisper. If Jerry Lewis, the
unconverted Jew, appears on Oral Roberts' television show as
the star, no one dare question such a practice. When Billy Graham
applauds the visit of the Pope to Poland and visits and preaches in
Roman Catholic churches prior to that himself, no one is supposed
to biblically evaluate such conduct. If one dares to even question
such antics, he is immediately branded as a hatemonger, one who
is playing into the hands of the Communists, and the enemies of
religion, and is therefore subject to be relegated to the dustbin of
history. He may even be called something worse! One incensed
minister in Scotland said in reference to some who had the temerity
to question Dr. Billy Graham's inclusion of modernists on his
platform in his Scotland crusade that when the guttersnipes had
crawled back into the sewers from which they had emerged. Dr.
Graham's ministry would continue. So we can readily see that to
biblically evaluate the. spirit of our times—the Zeitgeist, as the
sociologists would call it — is fraught with peril and misunderstanding.
Actually we should welcome biblical evaluation as Christians.
Spurgeon said, "If I am wrong, correct me. and I will bear it
cheerfully, and you expect the same from me." Faithful are the
wounds of a friend, the Scriptures tell us. but the kisses of an
enemy are deceitful. Every man is fallible; therefore, every man
should welcome biblical evaluation.

However, it is strange in the midst of the ecumenical spirit which
does not allow biblical evaluation that it is all right to criticize
certain things. Our leading evangelical magazines can and do
criticize quite severly certain areas of modern religion. MOODY
MONTHLY, for instance, in its July-August issue of 1979 biblically
evaluates no less than 77 cults and false religions. Now this is a
very commendable effort on the part of this magazine as far as it
goes. But there is no evaluation given of the Roman Catholic cult,
the largest cult of all in Christendom; even though it does expose
the little known liberal Catholic church!

Van Baalen, in his standard work, CHAOS OF CULTS, thought it
necessary to biblically evaluate some of the better known cults of
today. Walter R. Martin, in a recent monumental study, KINGDOM
OF THE CULTS, surpasses Van Baalen and brings his work up-todate.
His work is an excellent effort again as far as it goes and was
widely praised by leading evangelical magazines, ministers and
scholars.

So apparently it is accepted by the higher echelons of
evangelicalism to biblically evaluate Mormonism, the Jehovah
Witnesses, and the Seventh Day Adventists, but not the largest cult
of all—the Roman Catholic cult. Neither of these writers thought it
necessary to deal with the cult of Rome.

The Reformers called the Roman Catholic religion a sect and not
a true church because they had the Pope as the head and not the
Lord Jesus Christ. It is interesting to notice the trend away from the
thinking of the Reformers today even on the part of those who claim
to follow them to the letter.

In a recent issue of the PRESBYTERIAN JOURNAL readers
were asked to give their opinion of a modern revision of the
Westminster Confession of Faith. It was very revealing of the
ignorance of reformed doctrine to notice that several people
wanted the reference to the Pope as antichrist removed from any
modern reworking of the Westminster Confession. They all
assumed with equal ignorance that such a thought was
preposterous! That the Pope is an antichrist is not at all preposterous
but an actual fact and that a Pope could be the antichrist is
certainly not unthinkable.

Romanism has always been considered a counterfeit religion by
historic Bible Protestants of all denominations. While Protestants
have differed among themselves in certain areas, they have
historically been united on salvation by grace through faith. This
great doctrine has been the common denominator of all Protestant
groups. So that a line of demarcation was always made between all
Protestant denominations and the counterfeit of Romanism. Today
this line of demarcation no longer exists.

When well known fundamental and evangelical speakers on radio
and television speak of denominations, they frequently include the
Roman cult in their inclusive statements. In recent days we listened
to a leading fundamental television preacher make the statement
that there are believers in all denominations—Presbyterian,
Methodist, Baptist, Catholic, etc. He included the great counterfeit
giant of Romanism with other Protestant denominations. This is
done, we believe, to keep the money flowing from as wide a source
as possible, but it is a reckless course to follow in the light of
eternal truth and in the light of eternal judgment.

Why, if we can be so generous in our inclusive statements, do we
not include Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons, and other cults
where believers might be residing? If we can boldly assert that
there are believers in apostate Protestantism, idolatrous Romanism,
why not in misguided Mormonism or non-real Christian Science or
Mrs. White's Seventh Day Adventism? For it is certainly true that
there is more Bible studied in erroneous Adventism than there is in
apostate Protestantism or sacramentarian Romanism.

So while some may glibly assert that there are believers in all
denominations, the true minister of the Gospel cannot be so glib.
The true minister realizes that truth is paramount. Where truth is
repudiated, can true faith exist? Historically, if people were saved
in the Roman cult, they repudiated it and left it. Therefore, no true
minister should ever give any solace to any disobedient person
who claims to be a believer but who remains in company with those
who deny the Lordship of Christ and the truth of the Bible.

There may be disobedient believers in some of these groups, but
upon whose authority can we glibly announce this as fact? We are
far too glib and nonchalant with the truth of the Word today. This
glib attitude contributes to the lack of self-examination and to the
presumption evident in many churches today. "We are one in the
Spirit, and we are one in the Lord" is the theme of the ecumenical
church today, and it is sung by many misguided and flippant
church members who pat themselves on the back for their great
tolerance of those who differ with them.

This false pride is very evident today. Many "Christians" seem to
be more concerned about being thought tolerant and open than
about being true and stedfast. Tolerance is all right in nonessentials,
but it causes eternal loss when we tolerate those who
propagate salvation by works.

The whole area of tolerance needs to be studied today. It is one
thing to tolerate all kinds of dissent in society and allow men to be
free in their consciences, but it is quite another to tolerate
everything in the Church of the living God, which is supposed to be
the pillar and ground of the truth! Biblically ignorant Christians
parade their ignorance under the guise of tolerance, and the result
of this foolish parade is devastating in the area of Biblical Christianity.
The decline of biblical Protestantism is obvious today. The very
term "Biblical Protestant" is a term of opprobrium and defamation
today, generally reserved for the Protestants of the North of
Ireland. The decline of historic Christianity is real today. To be a
true believer a person must understand the Gospel. He must
recognize the Word of God as authoritative, that is, that its teachings
and precepts are binding upon him. No one can be a believer and
exist in a spiritual vacuum; yet this apparently is what some seem
to think today. The Word seems to have lost its authority in the lives
of many professing Christians today.

Divorce has reached epidemic proportions, not only in society
but among Christians and even among those in the Christian
ministry. Ministers calmly divorce their wives and marry another
woman and carry on in the minstry even in fundamental,
separated, Bible-believing churches. As this book is being written,
the PITTSBURGH PRESS carries the story of Bob Herrington, the
Chaplain of Bourbon Street. It tells of his divorce, and then his
quick remarriage to his secretary. One of Herrington's famous
records was, "It's Fun Being a Christian." We can imagine what the
cynics are saying now. On the sports page we read of Alvin
Dark's testimony, and we learn that he also was recently divorced
and remarried. Another story tells us that Craig Morton of the
Denver Broncos is picked up for drunken driving, and the article
goes on to say that Morton is a born-again Christian. What in the
world are we producing? When Christian leaders—at least they are
sought out as speakers by many church and youth groups—calmly
talk of divorce and remarriage as if they were discussing mere
temporary peccadilloes. Now we understand that in rare cases
there may be grounds for divorce, but it is the quick remarriage
which disturbs us greatly. We know of couples who have been
divorced and then have had their lives straightened out and have
come back together again. The quick remarriage destroys any
possibility of a future reconciliation or at least seriously complicates
such a hope.

It is one thing to thump the pulpit as we declaim with verve the
inspiration of the Bible; it is quite another to make that inspired
Word the rule for our lives. The reason that the great spiritual
vacuum exists today and why conduct is so lax no doubt stems
from an ignorance of the Bible. People are urged to turn to Christ
today by cheap psychological tricks. Some who claim to turn to
fundamental and Bible-believing teach their congregations that the
way to be an aggressive soul-winner is to ask the persons ten
questions that they can answer yes to, then ask them do they want
to receive Christ. The person, who has been psychologically
prepared, then answers the eleventh question with a yes, too, and
is then considered won to Christ. It should not surprise us then that
so much confusion reigns in the church today.

We seem to have a difficult time realizing that although it is
possible to mass produce just about everything today, we cannot
mass produce Christianity. When one famous super-aggressive
church pastor openly boasts that even the FBI couldn't find 75% of
his church members on Sunday morning, it is obvious that there is
something seriously wrong even though he makes a joke of it. What
he is saying is that 4,000 of those whom he baptized, told they were
eternally secure, no longer come to Church. Yet they are
considered Christians and considered as sure candidates for glory,
according to the teaching of this man.

How far we have strayed from the New Testament is not easily
measured. But it is obvious that what some men preach as the
Gospel is as far removed from the truth as Heaven is from Hell. The
New Testament never speaks of it being fun to be a Christian, nor
does it teach that it is easy to become a Christian. The Lord Jesus
Christ, and I would to God that Christian leaders would listen to
what the Lord Jesus savs, said that unless a person sits down and
counts the cost, he could not be His disciple. The Lord Jesus states
three times in the fourteeenth chapter of Luke that we CANNOT be
His disciple unless we meet His stringent demands.

Biblical evaluation is absolutely essential today if one is to
remain a Biblical Christian. There is so much hypocrisy and
presumption in the Church today that unless one evaluates
everything one reads by the Scriptures, one is sure to be led astray
or if not led astray, completely neutralized in the Battle for Mansoul.
For instance, many books and articles have come out against Dr.
Moon's Unification Church. He has been thoroughly dissected and
examined and exposed. He has even been blasted by the major
networks on several occasions. Millions of Americans thought this
was necessary. The tragedy of this whole scenario is apparent to
those who regard the Bible as not only inspired, infallible, and inerrant,
but also authoritative. For while it is true that the Moon cult
has ensnared thousands of Biblically ignorant young people, the
Roman cult has ensnared seven hundred million precious souls.
One of the criticisms leveled at the Moon cult was that Mr. Moon
set himself up as another Christ. This was rightly declared to be
blasphemous. However, the silence was deafening concerning the
worship and veneration which the Pope blasphemously arrogates
to himself. This writer has yet to see one word condemning this
perennial blasphemy in any of the books or papers or magazines
that so boldly speak out against the Moon Cult. The Moon Cult, in
its official publication, claims 30,000 followers in the U.S. and 2
million worldwide. Yet this little insignificant cult comes in for all
kinds of articles, books and news media propaganda directed
against it. The Roman Cult, which is far more insidious, far more
powerful, and which is also directed by a "Foreigner" (one of the
allegations made against the Moon Cult is that it is Korean and not
American) receives every kind of favorable coverage in evangelical
magazines, fundamental papers and the news media at large. It
even received unprecedented free coverage when the major
networks carried half-hour specials on the Pope's visit to Poland.
The Black Madonna was beamed into an estimated fifty million
homes, and the celebration of the Mass was given full exposure.
Yet there was no public outcry such as was directed against poor
little Mr. Moon, who is really no threat to America at all compared
with the Pope of Rome.

Is this disparity between the exposure of Mr. Moon and the lack
of exposure of Romanism ever explained? It is not. Our evangelical
magazines, which carry articles many times that are not worth
reading, never seek to explain what is happening in America today
concerning the biggest cult of all. They will dissect the Satanists,
the Moonies, the despised cults, and in the case of some fundamental
papers fight over baptism, hair, or some other picayune
subject but totally ignore the complete takeover of our networks,
news media, and country by the counterfeit propaganda of a false
religion of monumental proportions! When one realizes what is
happening, it can be said without exaggeration that such a
situation is incredible. The Scriptures tell us that the "God of this
world" BLINDS the minds of those who believe not. His blinding
potential seems to be working on a much wider range today.
Romanism makes every other cult pale into insignificance
beside its massive power base, its international financial empire,
its cosmopolitan aura, its universal appeal, its accumulation of
error, and its enduring persecution against those who disagree
with its dogmas. The question that needs to be answered today is:
"Why do evangelicals, fundamentalists, and those who claim to be
following the Reformers no longer look upon Romanism as a cult?"

A writer in CHRISTIANITY TODAY while dealing with the Roman
Catholic terror campaign in Ulster blasted Dr. Ian Paisley for being
so intransigent when dealing with those who differ from him only in
the matter of "churchmanship." Now the kindest thing that can be
said about such a writer is that he is a spiritual ignoramus. For if he
is not an ignoramus, then he is an outright deceiver. Romanism to
the Biblical Christian differs completely from the Biblical faith for
which Paisley contends, and there is obviously much more than
mere "churchmanship" which is at stake.

Cornelius Van Til, one of the most profound thinkers in America
today, obviously recognizes that there is much more than mere
churchmanship at issue between Romanism and Biblical Christianity.
Van Til says: "The philosophy with which Romanism has made
its alliance is no more and no less anti-Christian than is the philosophy
of Sartre or any of the modern existentialists. "3 He goes on to
point out that: "The Reformation sought to set Christianity free from
any form of alliance with apostate philosophy. It called men back to
the God and the Christ of the Scriptures and therefore to the Scriptures
as the direct revelation of this God and this Christ. Only thus,
the Reformers knew could they identify themselves as creatures and
as sinners and find assurance of salvation through the grace of
God in Christ. Only thus could they have forgiveness of sins
through the merits of the Redeemer through his death on the
cross. Only thus could there be a transition from wrath to grace in
history."4 He adds:

Those who live in the camp of "historic Protestantism" may well
agree that the Barthian and the Roman Catholic systems are alike
because they are "open." But this is true because they are closed
to God's revelation through Christ in the Scripture.5 It is apparent to
a theologian of Van Til's stature that Romanism is closed to God's
revelation of Christ in the Scripture. That there is something more
than mere churchmanship or vestments which is at stake, that
Rome is wrong at its very foundation.

The alliance of Rome with apostate philosophy demonstrates the
overall ambivalence of the Roman Catholic system. On the one
hand Rome claims to be reviving Biblical studies; on the other it
affirms the restrictions of the Council of Trent on the right of private
judgment and sets up the "fathers" as the true interpreters of
Scripture. It claims to be re-examining the doctrine of justification
by faith while stressing the necessity of salvation by works. It
announces to the world the primacy of Scripture but at the same
time enforces the anti-scriptural teachings of the councils and the
infallibility of the Pope. As William C. Standridge points out in his
book, "WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE ROMAN CHURCH?": The
fact that the church has succeeded in keeping within its confines
hundreds of religious orders — conservatives, liberals
and progressives, people who promote the distribution of the
Bible, and those who oppose it, charismatics and non-charismatics,
those who remove statues from their churches and
others who pay out millions to promote the beatifation of
new saints, is ceretainly not a sign of weakness but of
strength."

He goes on to conclude:

It is a well-known fact that in every religious and political crisis
that has shaken Europe for centuries, the Vatican has been able
to rely upon priests devoted to both sides of each question, and
thus able to protect the interests of the church no matter who
might come out the winner.

This is demonstrated today as well, by the fact that there are
priests operating full-time anti-communist campaigns, and other
priests openly professing Marxist economic doctrine. Anyone who
believes that these differing opinions within the church prove that
the church is falling apart, just doesn't understand the basic
principles of how the church really operates.6 Rome's ambivalence
is carefully orchestrated so that she will be able to wind up on the
winning side. Her strategy is certainly working well in today's
uncritical, passive and apathetic atmosphere.

Rome is not just in error on some points of doctrine. She is
opposed to the authority of the Scripture. Hans Kung, one of
Romanism's profound ecumenical scholars, was according to Van
Till "compelled at every major point to introduce a polemical note
against the teachings of the Reformers. "7

Van Til sums up this section of his masterful work by pointing out
that the Council of Trent could not hold back a radical
CONDEMNATION of the Reformation and that even today those
who think like the Reformers must engage in a conflict with Rome.
Few, if any, are engaging in a conflict with Rome today; rather,
Romanists are now welcomed on an equal basis into many
Protestant gatherings, especially since the advent of the modern
Charismatic movement.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

THE NEWS MEDIA AND ROMANISM TODAY

The amazing gains which Romanism has made in the past few
years are nothing short of spectacular. One hundred years ago
Romanism was a despised religion in America. Slowly the climate
changed, and the suspicious air of American Protestants gave way
to the irenic dialogue and ecumenism.

Paul Blanshard in speaking of the change which has come about
in the news media toward Romanism in the last one hundred years
uses Vatican II for an example. He says that Vatican II was a spectacular
triumph. He elaborates:

It was made possible, of course, by the willingness of the
world's news media to give the church something better than an
even break... The Pope suddenly became for many the most
prestigious individual alive.1

Blanshard then contrasts the way the American news media
reported Vatican II with the way their journalistic counterparts
reported Vatican I in 1870. Surely the difference reflects the
dramatic change which has taken place in the American religious
scene in the last generation.

Blanshard quotes "Father" Ryan Reiser: "In general the New York
press was opposed to everything Catholic... The press wanted
Roman control to be discredited and broken. "2 He goes on to point
out that "the critical language used by editors in 1870 would be
quite inconceivable in today's journals. "3 Blanshard then gives an
example of the journalism of that time. The New York Tribune,
ridiculing some of the alleged relics displayed in Roman
Churches—the wing of angel Gabriel, the rope used by Judas, the
beard of Noah, etc.—published (what Blanshard calls) an ugly jibe
at the council in the form of a prayer, handed about by Americans
at Rome.

Our Father who art in the Vatican: Infallible be thy Name: Thy
temporal sovereignty come: Thy will be done in Europe and
America as it is in Ireland. Give us this day our tithes and titles,
and forgive us our trespasses as we give plenary indulgences to
those who pay penitently unto us: lead us not into Ecumenical
Councils, but deliver us from thinking: for thine is the Crozier, the
Key, and the Tiara, Rome without end. Amen.4 Blanshard then
asks, "Can anyone imagine such overt anti-catholic ridicule in an
American newspaper today? Or can anyone imagine an American Broadcasting Company in this century showing fundamental
disrespect for a pope, either pictorially (in reference to a cartoon jibe published in 1870) or in words?"5 The answer, of course, is no. Modern American journalists have been too well propagandized to ridicule
or refute the errors of Rome.

Blanshard draws his own conclusion.

The distance between the broad malicious journalistic anticatholicism
of 1870 and the respectful almost reverent approach
to papal personalities during Vatican II is a yardstick for the
measurement of Catholic triumphs in American public opinion.6
Certainly any thinking person would have to agree with Paul
Blanshard's assessment of contemporary journalism. From the
most liberal secular paper to CHRISTIANITY TODAY to the
SWORD OF THE LORD, Romanism gets good coverage and a
sympathetic press.

Fundamental Christians could always in the past be counted to
point out the errors of Romanism (See THE FUNDAMENTALS as
they were originally written for corroboration of this point.) But the
fundamentalists and conservatives of the present do not follow in
the same train
.
A question not raised by Blanshard in his assessment of the
changes is this: "Why should Romanism be accorded a respectful
or reverent press?" It is the only North American Church with the
exception of the Moon cult whose headquarters are not in America.
Every other church severed national ties and became American
except Romanism.

Has any of its original goals changed? Has any of its erroneous
dogmas changed since 1870? Has any of its idolatrous practices
changed? Has the blasphemy of the Mass been abolished? The
answer to all these questions is an emphatic no! In fact, other
errors have been added since 1870 so that Romanism is now
further from the truth than when it was lampooned by the
knowledgeable writers of another century.

Modern writers, however, with but few exceptions, continue to
present Romanism in an ever increasing better light than it has
ever been presented since the Reformation. The modern
newspapers, network television and the radio all combine to
present Romanism as a beautiful and wonderful religion and a
great bulwark against Communism. All news media sources
constantly refer to Romanism as Christianity. It is not even referred
to as Roman Christianity, but in speaking of Romanism they continually
allude to it as Christianity. A good example of this was seen
on the ABC television network on June 7, 1979, when this network
did a special half-hour program on the Pope's visit to Poland. The
word "Christianity" was used often during this half-hour program.
The Pope was shown celebrating the blasphemy of the Mass; he
was shown in conjunction with the Black Madonna which was an
example of gross idolatry, superstitution and Mariolatry; yet this
was all referred to as "Christianity." True Christianity is as far
removed from this blasphemy and idolatry as Heaven is from Hell
but not to our modern newsmen!

Our newsman quoted some European thinker as saying, ''Euro-
Communism is dead; Euro-Catholicism is on the march," and then
he added, "While the first half of the statement is exaggerated, the
second part is not. "So the ABC newsman agreed that Euro-
Catholicism is on the march. References were made also to Mary
being the Queen of Poland. So Rome has not in any way softened
Its stand on Mariolatry, but in fact has begun to play up the
importance of Mary more in recent years than formerly.

When Cardinal Wright died, the news media again gave full
coverage to this event. Pictures of the Cardinal and lengthy first
page articles appeared in the leading newspapers of the U.S.
Again to show what the leaders of Romanism believe concerning
their religion, let us hear what Cardinal Wright said: "/ love the
Catholic Church as / love nothing else. I don't think of the church as
an organization, an institution. To me, it's the personal presence of
Christ in history. "7 So the Mother of the Horrows of the Inquisition,
and the Matrix from which came the gross immoralities of the
Middle Ages, and the institution that "Father" Lucien Vinet
described as riddled with sexual perversion in the Twentieth
century is said to be the personal presence of Christ in history!
Never was there a more flagrant euphemism, never a grosser
misrepresentation, sent out nation wide by our modern news
media.

The continual bombardment of Roman Catholic propaganda in
the American news media is certainly unprecedented in American
history. Even after the overwhelming presence of the Pope in the
news media during and immediately after his visit to Poland, he
was again thrust into the limelight. His picture was published in
many leading newspapers showing him placing a crown on the
image of the Virgin Mary during his outdoor general audience in St.
Peters Square 8. Following that he was kept in the limelight by the
constant reports of his upcoming visit to the U.S.

Television news told of a platform upon which he was to stand
with a cross one hundred feet above him while he would address
hundreds of thousands in Dublin and celebrate the Mass.
Immediately following this piece of news came the announcement
that in the U. S. the Pope would have a concelebrated Mass with
hundreds of priests assisting him, and then he would visit and
speak to the United Nations while in New York.

The one piece of encouraging news came when it was
announced that the Pope had decided not to visit the North of
Ireland. Whether men believe it or not that which the Pope blesses,
God curses. One scholar has traced the calamities that have
followed the blessings of the Pope. Showing how men like John F.
Kennedy, Richard Nixon, and others were blessed by the Pope,
and then what happened after the papal blessing. God will not give
His glory to another, and only God can give or withhold blessings.
Personally, we are glad that the Pope is not going to the land of
Ulster. Eire will suffice to demonstrate the value of the Papal
presence and blessing.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

THE CONFUSION OF FUNDAMENTALISM

"If the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself
for the battle." I Cor. 14:8

Romanism receives excellent coverage in the news media today.
But even more to the point Romanism is now accorded a
sympathetic press in many areas of what was once militant Protestism.
The practice of quoting from modern Roman Catholic writers
and using Roman Catholic leaders as examples of great protagonists
of freedom has become widespread in fundamental circles
today. Unthinking Protestants (many of them good men) have been
caught up in a movement which, if it succeeds, cannot help but
make America "Catholic."

Tom Anderson, a leading spokesman for politically conservative
Christians, in his work "FOR CHRISTIANS" says: "Thousands of
Wurmbrands, Popovs and Mindzentys are still being tortured; why
can't the neutrals feel the pain?"1 While much of what he says in
this regard is good, there is a disastrous blurring of the acute
distinctions between Biblical Christianity and Romanism. He also
speaks of "so-called 'Christian pastors and priests'."2

The whole issue of the Reformation is at stake here. It a Roman
Catholic Cardinal or priest who denies every major doctrine of the
Reformation is to be linked with Protestant ministers just because
he is an anti-communist, then surely something drastic has
happened to Biblical truth in this generation. No true Christian
wants to see a Roman Catholic Cardinal tortured, nor for that
matter does he want to see a Jewish Rabbi tortured or a Buddhist
Monk. But no true Biblical Christian is going to equate Romanism,
Judaism or Buddhism with true Christianity.

Mr. Anderson also relates the following story. De)mar Dennis, a
major co-ordinator for the John Birch Society, tells of a fundamentalist
preacher he recently recruited into the Society. Delmar says
that preacher told him, "I'm joining the John Birch Society because
I am certain that these are the last days and when Christ comes I
want him to see me fighting on his side."3 It is amazing that a
fundamental preacher could make this statement. For if it is true,
then fighting on Christ's side includes linking up with Roman
Catholic priests such as "Father" Fenton, who is a prominent
writer for the society.

In one of his booklets "Father" Fenton states:

With regard to the current Roman Catholic Church, its identity
has been obscured in recent years... that even its central act of
worship, the Mass, is now in such a state of "updatedness" and
"relevancy" and "meaningfulness" that some Protestant ministers
have been quoted as saying that they could offer up this "new
Mass" without any qualms of conscience on their part.2

Of course, Fenton is advocating a return to the old Mass. It is
necessary then that every true Bible-believer knows something
about this whole subject of the Roman Catholic Mass. For there is
obviously much pretense and humbug swirling around the subject
of the Mass today. Fenton condemns the "updated" Mass as
something to be shunned. Why, it is so bad that even some Protestant
ministers could offer it up. Surely then, indeed it must be rotten
to the core while the old mass, that is Roman's historic Mass, is set
forth as the true sacrament.

Romanism, no doubt, has deceived many at this point. Setting
herself up as the great defender of truth and the great anticommunist
bulwark, she has succeeded in convincing even

Protestant fundamentalists of her honest and integrity. Is it not a
little strange how much is being written about the devilish nature of
"Black Masses" and the depraved rites which accompany such
practices? Certain cultists are carrying these secret rites out in
various parts of the country, we are told, with grim faced solemnity.
In all this plethora of popish propaganda about the awfulness of the
Black Masses, it should be pointed out—but never is—that the true
Bible believer opposes the old historic Mass of Romanism. Not just
the Marxist priest's updated Mass or the Black Mass, but the
conservative Roman Catholic Mass of "Father" Fenton.

The Reformers were one in calling the historic mass a
blasphemous fable. For this they were burned at the stake by the
conservative Church of Rome! Bishop J. C. Ryle says:

Great indeed would be our mistake if we supposed that they
suffered for the vague charge of refusing submission to the
Pope...Nothing of the kind. The principal reason why they were
burned was because they refused one of the peculiar doctrines
of the Romish Church. On that doctrine in almost every
case, hinged their life and death, if they admitted it, they might
live; if they refused it they must die. The doctrine in question was
the real presence of the body and blood of Christ...in the Lord's
Supper.5

Ryle goes on then to recount the experiences of John Rogers,
Bishop Hooper, Rowland Taylor, Bishop Farrar, John Bradford,
Bishop Ridley, Bishop Latimer, Archdeacon Philpot, and Cranmer,
showing how every last one of them was burned to death by the
Roman Catholic cult for his refusal to acknowledge that Christ was
actually, corporally, locally or materially present in the forms of the
bread and wine. Ryle then goes on to say:

Whatever men please to think or say, the Romish doctrine of
the real presence, if pursued to its legitimate consequences,
obscures every leading doctrine of the gospel and damages and
interferes with the whole system of Christ's truth. You spoil the
blessed doctrine of Christ's finished work when he died on the
cross. A sacrifice that needs to be repeated is not a perfect and
complete thing. You spoil the priestly office of Christ. If there are
priests that can offer an acceptable sacrifice of God besides
Him, the great High Priest is robbed of His glory. You spoil the
scriptural doctrine of the Christian ministry. You exalt sinful men
into the position of mediators between God and men. You give to
the sacramental elements of the bread and the wine an honor
they were never meant to receive and produce an idolatry to be
abhorred of faithful Christians.

I cannot doubt for a moment that our martyred Reformers saw
and felt these things even more clearly that we do. Rather than
admit the doctrine of the real presence of Christ's natural body
under the forms of the bread and wine, the Reformers of the
Church of Englad were content to be burned.6 So much then tor all
this nonsense about various masses. The Reformers were burned
for their opposition to the regular mass of Romanism, which to true
Protestants and to them, was every bit as blasphemous as any
other mass that might be invented. It is the ordinary Roman
Catholic Mass which will bring the judgment of God upon America.
God judges blasphemy and idolatry whether men realize it or not.
So much also for fighting on Christ's side. Those who embrace and
champion the cause of Romanism are on the side which has burned
some of Christ's noblest servants and has never apologized for their
tortures, massacres, or executions to this very day.

When Czechoslovakia planned a national celebration in honor of
John Huss, the Vatican protested demanding that the government
not offend the Catholic Church by honoring a heretic.7 The Roman
Catholic cult had treacherously burned Huss to death at the
Council of Constance after guaranteeing him safe conduct. The
modern Vatican must still consider it just that Huss was burned.
True Protestants who are engaged in spiritual warfare are
battling the counterfeit religion of Rome as well as opposing
Communism. They are truly fighting on Christ's side when they
oppose all Satanic errors.

The uncertain sounds proliferate. Richard Wurmbrand, another
world famous anti-communist, completely blurs the distinction
between Biblical truth and idolatrous Romanism. In his paper he
says:

A Colombian brother writes, "I am sad that I cannot help financially;
I am very poor." A monk possesses nothing. But a
friend sent him five dollars which he forwarded to us. From
another abbey we get news that our literature is read in the
refectory. Other Christians, etc.8

Wurmbrand here includes monks and abbey dwellers with other
Christians although the whole enforced celibate system of Rome is
condemned in the Bible as a doctrine of demons.9

On speaking of the visit of Gromyko to the Vatican, Wurmbrand
asks:

Why did not the Pope and his minister of state, Casaroli, each
take an arm of Gromylo and drag him to evening prayer...Perhaps
he could have been converted... The Pope has missed an
occasion to be a profitable servant of the Lord. Who could ever
have taken away from him the joy of having brought Gromyko to
Christ or of being reproached for this eadeavor.10 it is obvious, in
answer to Wurmbrand's question, that the reason why the Pope
could not be a profitable servant of the Lord is because he is not a
servant of the Lord at all. How could the Pope or Casaroli lead
Gromyko to Christ when they represent an anti-christian system?
That Wurmbrand could make such a statement

demonstrates beyond all doubt that the man is either a Biblical
ignoramus or an outright deceiver. His anticommunist movement
now grosses more than a million a year. This shows that many
Americans must like his stance. It seems to prove that as long as a
man can say he is anti-communist, he is assured of the support of
millions of Americans today. No matter what other errors he may
embrace and promulgate.

The Rev. Kenneth Lee, an outspoken fundamental minister
educated in the Reformed faith, demonstrates that for all his
outspokenness an uncertain sound is being given. Lee in his
pamphlet, which was a reprint taken from the Boston Herald
American, states:

You know that Cardinal Wysinsky in Poland is treated as an
international burglar and is not allowed to leave his country.
How can you imagine that Communists will allow evangelists
to attend a World Congress? Their evangelists are in prison.11

In this context Roman Catholic Cardinals are equated with Protestant
evangelists. This equation is not scriptural. It is one thing to
warn about Communist aggression and duplicity; it is quite another
to make sure that when we do, we do not sacrifice the heritage of
the Protestant Reformation. Both Communism and Romanism are
wrong. Both are repressive. Both have martyred some of the
noblest and choicest of God's servants. Therefore, we should
never, never equate Roman Catholic Cardinals with Biblical
Protestants no matter what we are trying to prove. It is a tragic
blurring of necessary distinctions upon which hinge the destiny of
immortal souls.

Dr. John R. Rice also did the Papacy a great favor in his recent
book on the popes. He intimates that Pope John seemed to be a
true believer. His book is perhaps the greatest corroboration of the
thesis of this chapter that has so far appeared in print, namely that
a large section of American fundamentalism is at sea when it
comes to dealing with the error and deception of Rome.

Dr. Criswell, the leading conservative spokesman of the
Southern Baptist Convention, also joined the bandwagon of
modern fundamentalists who speak well of the Pope. He received
some recognition from the Pope, and he rejoiced in it like a baby
with a new toy. It is an indictment of any Protestant's ministry to
receive anything in the way of recognition from the Pope, and any
such recognition should be repudiated by anyone with even a
modicum of respect for the Martyrs of the Protestant Reformation,
but what do some modern preachers care about them? They can
sell such a bloodbought heritage for something even less than a
bowl of lentils.

The extent to which the conservative Christians of America will
go to preserve the irenic dialogue with Rome was demonstrated by
what happened to the former President of Asbury College. This
man, who as a good man, saw that a publication put out by the
college showed an Asburian receiving an award from the Pope. He
ordered all 15,000 copies to be burned. He said that while some
lone Asburian may receive an award from the Pope, that did not, as
far as he was concerned, represent the majority of Asburians. He
was fired by a rump board and refused to leave office. Thank God
there are still some Americans who understand the issues and are
willing to pay the price of their convictions in this sugary sweet era
of modern ecumenism.

The man finally had to step down as his tenure in office became
embroiled in more and more controversy, charges and countercharges,
all of which showed that Asbury College was not what she
used to be. The Board, in other words, knuckled under to the power
of the ecumenical spirit and the man of God was sacrificed to avoid
more controversy
.
Dr. Billy Graham's most recent foray into the morass of sacramentarianism
was made when he gave an exclusive interview to
the Star Newspaper. In it he hailed the Pope's visit to Poland as a
sign of the great religious revival going on in the world today. It is
too bad that our modern leaders do not see the difference between
a revival of religion and a genuine spiritual awakening! Many other
examples could be given to show that the irenic dialogue of the
Roman cult is winning the day among the apathetic and ignorant
heirs of the Protestant Reformation.

Even the so-called scholarly community has jumped on the
bandwagon of the irenic dialogue. One contemporary evangelical
scholar wrote that in fellowshipping with a Roman Catholic priest
their differences did not really matter, for they had wonderful
fellowship around their living Lord. Again we must point out that
even our reputed evangelical scholars are ignorant of Biblical truth.
Is there a continuing priesthood today? Most assuredly not! Has
the book of Hebrews been removed from the Canon of the New
Testament? Most assuredly not! The Book of Hebrews needs to be
studied today. In it we learn of the finished work of Christ, of his
continuing mediatorial work, and of the end of the Aaronic
priesthood. We are now all priests under our great High Priest, the
Lord Jesus Christ. Anyone who pretends to be a priest of a priestly
caste is both deceived and deceiving. Christ ended the run of the
priestly caste. He ended the shadow and brought in the substance.
Shame and double shame on anyone who disguising himself as a
priest of the Most High God should reintroduce us to the shadow
and remove us from the substance. Shame and double shame on
every "Protestant" who knowing his great birthright in the liberty of
Christ should fellowship with a poor, deceived shadow-bound
priest without ever enlightening him to the glorious position which
the true Christian enjoys in the heavenlies with Christ His risen and
exalted Lord.

The crucifix, the central image of Romanism, demonstrates that
Rome's priests are still on the wrong side of the Resurrection.
Anyone who is still lingering in the earthly sanctuary and still in an
earthly priesthood has missed the central teaching of the Book of
Hebrews and indeed the central teaching of the New Testament!
How can the earthly fellowship with the heavenly? The earthly
priesthood was done away when the heavenly priesthood was
introduced. If one is in operation, the other is not. As Andrew
Murray points out in his commentary on Hebrews: "Heaven is the
sphere of Christ's ministry. He represents us there...and in the
power of an endless life enables us to workship in spirit and in
truth. "12 The old earthly priesthood has been done away for ever.

Anyone who claims to be a priest in the sense of the Aaronic
priesthood today is a pious fraud. For he claims to usurp the place
of our living Lord in the lives of Christians and to take over his
priestly office. Anyone who can glibly fellowship with such error
and the enforced celibate system which is called in the Scriptures a
doctrine of demons must be on the same level of ignorance and
error.

It is time we faced the issues squarely for the true Church's
existence and testimony is at stake. The mediatorial work of our
Lord Jesus Christ is at stake, and the whole system of truth as it is
revealed in the Word of God is at stake. This is not storm in a
teacup as many ignoramuses seem to think today; it is the same
continuing battle for Mansoul that Bunyan wrote about three
hundred years ago.

If those who claim to be Biblical scholars are so confused and so
neutralized by papal propaganda, the error of the Charismatic
movement and the irenic dialogue, so as to fail to distinguish
clearly between grace and works, truth and error, then surely
America is in dire need of a spiritual awakening. It just won't do to
say that people do not know their Bibles today. They had better get
them out, dust them off, and start studying them again, for we are
to buy the truth and sell it not, for upon that truth depends our
eternal destinies.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

FALSE RELIGION IS THE OPIATE OF THE PEOPLE

The emphasis on religion today in America is not a good omen
for the future. The Puritans viewed man as depraved. In other
words they did not trust the so-called innate goodness of men. Nor
did they speak of a building as a church. They simply called it a
meeting place. In other words the people who settled America, for
the most part, were people who were suspicious of any kind of
religious power vested in any group. And when the laws of this
country came to be written, the whole system of checks and
balances, which were inserted, came from the Puritan suspicion of
religious or political power, and also from the fact that the Puritans
believed in original sin, nor original righteousness.

Today as religion is considered a good thing no matter what is
taught or believe, Communism is set up as the EVIL of the world. It
is apparent, or it should be, to every true Bible-believer that the
battle for truth is waged on a much broader front than anticommunism.
If a person knows anything about the Bible and the Gospel of
redeeming grace, then he knows that he is fighting not merely
systems but Satan. Jesus said we were either serving Him or
Satan. Communism is but one arm of Satanic error. If a person
thinks that is the only evil, then he is sure to be deceived at many
points. Christianity is an exclusive revelation. Vital Christianity is
based upon the Word of God. Any system which manufactures
another bible is false. Whether it is Mary Baker Eddy's Key to the
Scriptures, the Book of Mormon, or the tradition of Romanism,
whenever anything is added to the revelation which God has given,
error and heresy are the result.

Romanism is the largest and closest counterfeit to Christianity. It
has its counterfeit high priest, the pope, replacing the Lord Jesus
Christ. It has its counterfeit sacrifice, the Mass, replacing our Lord's
death. It has its counterfeit mediators in the Virgin Mary and the
Saints, replacing the only Mediator between God and men, the
Man Christ Jesus. It has its counterfeit authority in the Councils
and Popes, replacing the true authority of the Bible. Millions are
deceived by the counterfeit system of Romanism and by the
promises of popery. Even promises that are based upon the Word
of God are vain unless a person is in Christ. John Wesley White in
speaking of the funeral of the late President John F. Kennedy tells
of Cardinal Cushing reading from I Thessalonians four. White gives
the impression that Kennedy was a believer. But the promises of
God are only meaningful in a context of regeneration. Anyone can
read I Thessalonians four at a funeral, but that does not guarantee
either the reader or the person being buried a place in heaven.
Only those who are saved by grace through faith are bound for
heaven. We repeat, the promises of heaven are meaningless when
set in the context of an apostate religion.

Sweepstake tickets, which have as their prize so many years less
in Purgatory, are still sold by Rome in the 20th Century. When the
writer was a student at Talbot Seminary in Los Angeles, a fellow
student showed such a ticket to the student body. Surely it is
indeed eternally tragic that the so-called Bible-believing church of
today, instead of offering a clear cut message of Christ which
distinguishes clearly between salvation by grace, and the
pernicious teachings of popery, now makes little or no distinction
between Billy Graham and Cardinal Terence Cook.

At a recent Charismatic extravaganza the modern mood was
amply displayed. When Pat Roberson, Pat Boone, Johnny Cash,
Rex Humberd, David Wilkerson, Charles Colson, Billy Graham,
Cardinal Terence Cook, Jimmy Carter and others all blended
together in one ecumenical gathering. That such a gathering could
take place should awaken those who cherish Biblical truth. But
apparently it hardly causes a ripple on the surface of modern
Christianity. It is hailed as a wonderful gathering and a
demonstration that Christianity is enjoying a remarkable
resurgence.

True Christianity is as unpopular as ever, but false religion is
certainly enjoying a remarkable resurgence in America today. It is
too bad that Bible-believers are not more discriminating in matters
that concern eternal truth and immortal souls.

Salvation by grace is the only hope of mankind. Salvation by
grace and a religion of works (and works are the basis of ALL false
religions) are mutually exclusive. The more reactionary Roman
Catholic leaders seem to be clearer at this point than the modern
evangelical Protestant. For the late Cardinal Conway, the Primate
of Ireland, stated a short time ago in Ireland while commenting on
the Roman Catholic attacks on Protestants in Ulster: "There is no
common meeting place between Bible Protestantism and Roman
Catholicism and there never will be. " This is a true statement. One
system leads to Hell; the other to Heaven, and the Bible makes it
clear which is right.

"For by grace are you saved through faith and that not of yourselves.
It is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast."
If a person is truly saved, he can never endorse a works religion.
Sir Robert Anderson, in speaking on the subject of religion,
should surely cause this lax generation to think again by his wellchosen
words.

Among common men, however, a prophet might pass unharmed;
religious men alone would persecute and murder him! In
every age, indeed, religion has been the most relentless
persecutor of His people. Witness the tombs of the prophets!
Witness the blood-stained pages of the Church's history! The
Christian martyrs in unnumbered millions—for though their names
are written in heaven, earth has kept no record of them—the best
and purest and noblest of mankind, have been tortured and done to
death in the name of religion.1 Anderson, at the beginning of this
work, describes some of the most atrocious crimes perpetrated on
the Armenian Christians by the fanatics of Islam. Several million
Armenian Christians were massacred by the Turks who were a
very religious people. So religion without the Biblical Christ is as
bad or worse than communism.

Religion is the opiate of millions of people, and while they adhere
to their works religion, they remain in a state of rebellion against
the Gospel and are of their father the Devil, just like the ancient
Pharisees. The works of conservative writers about Satan and
Satan worship leave much to be desired. The extreme forms of
Satanism are stressed and sensationalized while the most
common forms of Satan worship are completely ignored. The idea
that Satanism is limited to the San Francisco freaks and others of
their ilk, is just another gross error of this generation.

Every time a modernist minister, who denies the Deity of Christ
and so attempts to dethrone Christ from His rightful place of
worship, leads a congregation, there Satan is worshiped. Every
time the Mass is celebrated Satan is worshiped. Every idol and icon
worshiper is a Satan worshiper. Every cultist who denies the
sacrifice of Christ is a Satan worshiper. Every Masonic man who
takes his masonry seriously is a Satan worshiper. Every John
Bricher who accepts the humanism of the Blue Book and its
ignoring of the Deity of Christ is a Satan worshiper. Every Hindu,
every Buddhist, every Moslem, every Communist, every humanist
is a Satan worshiper.

The person who denies Christ's deity is an antichrist and a Satan
worshiper. This generation that gets so alarmed at the occult rites
of the Manson clan and the Satan freaks of San Francisco needs to
look a little deeper into the Biblical picture of Satan who transforms
himself into an angel of light and his ministers into ministers of
righteousness. (II Cor. 11:14, 15) Where Christ is not enthroned
and worshiped, there Satan is enthroned and worshiped. Jesus
said to the most religious people of His day, "You are of your father
the devil."2 The Pharisees thought that they were the only true
religionists alive. Instead, according to Christ who was the
Personification of the Truth, they were of their father, the devil. So
many may not realize themselves that they are worshiping Satan.
It is surely instructive to all to notice that Satan's activity is one of
replacement. He wants to replace Christ as the ruler of the world
and to receive the worship which is due alone to Christ. The Satan
of the Bible claimed to meet our Lord on equal terms. He led Him
up and gave Him the mysterious view of earthly sovereignty and
told Christ that He could have the authority and glory of them if He
would bow down and worship him. As Sir Robert Anderson says: Is
this no more than the raving of irresponsible madness of impious
profanity? It is the bold assertion of a disputed right. Satan claims
to be the first-born, the rightful heir of creation, the true Messiah,
and as such he claims the worship of mankind. Men dream of a
devil horned and hoofed—a hideous and obscene monster—who
haunts the squalid slums and gilded vice-dens of our cities, and
tempts the depraved to acts of atrocity or shame. But according to
Holy Writ, "he fashions himself as an angel of light" and "his
ministers fashion themselves as ministers of righteousness." And
this prepares the way for the further statement that it is the
RELIGION of the world that he controls and not its vices and
crimes. "The god of this world" is his awful title—a title Divinely
accorded the Evil One, not because the Supreme has delegated
His Sovereignty, but because the world accords him its homage.3
Surely Anderson's words are particularly apt today. On television
and in the movies the devil is pictured in the occult and the
macabre. The Exorcist and other similar movies dominated by
Roman priests and romish superstitions have majored on the sensational
and the weird. Many professing Christians could tell you
more about this Hollywood nonsense than they could about the
Satan of the bible. They seem to be aware only of the grosser forms
of Satanism: they fail to recognize that Satan is called the "god" of
this world. They need to mark it and mark it well that the ONLY
people NOT worshiping Satan are those justified by the blood of
the Lord Jesus Christ. Everyone else in the world is worshiping
Satan; he is the god of this world; he is not the god of just a few
freaks in San Francisco and elsewhere; he is the god of this world
of people! We repeat, for this point must be made clearly;
EVERYONE not truly worshiping the Lord Jesus Christ, is
worshiping Satan. There are only two masters: Christ or the
Devil—we certainly cannot serve both; so all those not serving
Christ serve the Devil. There are only two spirits, the Spirit of Truth
and the Spirit of Error, people are either following one or the other.

Satan is out for one thing and one thing only; that is the worship
that belongs alone to Christ. When one understands this, his whole
outlook is changed. The idea that the devil is out to make man as
licentious as a beast is not found in the Scripture. The first chapter
of Romans catalogues man's sin without ever mentioing the Devil
once. Man's depraved nature brings upon him the fruit of his
rebellion against God. While it is true the Devil is behind the scenes
as the originator of evil, it is also true that the Devil would rather
have a nice moral social drinker who professes religion than a
drunken sot who is a bad advertisement for him.

Yet many ministers thunder against pornography and immorality
while remaining in the congregation of apostasy. They fail to see
that their spiritual adultery and spiritual immorality are under a
greater judgment of God than the moral degenerates that they
blister from their pulpits. This comes from a complete
misunderstanding of the goal of Satan.

Satan is out to be worshiped. Satan controls all false religions.
The worshipers in false religion commit a greater sin than the most
heinous sexual perversion imaginable! Listen to the Word of God:
"For the punishment of the iniquity of the daughter of my people is
GREATER than the punishment of the sin of SODOM. (Lam. 4:6)"

The religious people of Jeremiah's day were considered worse
than the ancient peoples of Sodom and Gomorrah who were guilty
of sexual perversion. This sin caused God to rain fire and
brimstone upon the ancient civilization. It caused God to give them
up to their own depraved lusts as mentioned three times in the first
chapter of Romans. (This perversion which brings man down to a
lower level than the animal world, lower than the beasts of the field
is not homosexuality. It is a perversion. Homosexuality is a term
coined by the modern psychologists who are advocating that the
pervert is not really perverted in his lust, but is what he is by a freak
of nature; he is a homosexual, not a hetero-sexual. He cannot help
himself being what he is. The Bible knows nothing of this type of
teaching.) But the thing that is to be learned from this is that God
punished spiritual adultery, spiritual fornication, spiritual perversion
more than he punished Sodom and Gomorrah. Certainly
something to think about in the light of the compromise of millions
of Christians who think physical immorality is terrible but who do
not give a second thought to spiritual adultery as is evidenced by
their remaining in the organizations of apostasy and supporting
them.

For instance, the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in
Atlanta refused to endorse the campaign of Anita Bryant against
the sexual perverts of today. This demonstrated the inroads of the
great apostasy in the Southern Baptist Convention. New Orleans
Baptist Seminary is so apostate that a Southern Baptist pastor told
this writer that he was told by a "friendly" professor to leave, for he
would never be able to receive his advanced degree because he
believed in the Genesis account of creation and sin and the flood.

The "friendly" professor told him that he did not want him to
waste his time and them come up for oral examinations and be
turned down because of his answers. Yet, millions of professing
Christians, who think more of the organizations of apostasy, i. e.
their denominations, than they do about the express commands of
the Word of God, continue to support such blatant error. They also
fail to realize that they are engaging in spiritual adultery and
fornication which rates higher on the Richter scale of God
Almighty's judgments than physical immorality.

A spokesman for the National Council of Churches, a spokesman
for Roman Catholicism, and a spokesman for American Jewry
all combined to warn the American people about the Unification
Church, as reported on NBC news December 28, 1976. Nobody
however thought it necessary to warn the American people about
these three groups. For there are still some Americans who would
not want their children to follow the Pope, a Rabbi, or a spokesman
for the National Council of Churches. These three groups to
the true Christian represent anti-Christianity and as such as of their
father, the Devil, every bit as much as the little Moon cult that they
so strenuously warn every American against.

It is apparent to many Americans that as long as a group is large
enough and respectable enough, then someone is sure to claim for
them a position of authority on religion. However, it should be
obvious to the true Bible believer that millions of adherents prove
nothing concerning the truth of any group or cult. Mormonism has
millions of adherents and yet it is based on the idiotic story of magic
spectacles that enabled Joseph Smith to become a translator!
Nice men may warn us about the brainwashing of the Moon cult,
but unless they preach the true Gospel themselves, the people
should be warned about them also. The emissaries of all false
religions preach and teach a works religion and as such are under
the anathema of a Holy God, according to Paul's Galatian epistle.
Good works and human kindness will never merit heaven. Mother
Teresa was glowingly praised by everyone from Billy Graham to
Cardinal Terence Cook when she attended the Eucharistic
Congress in Philadelphia. The public was told of her self-sacrificing
labor with the dying outcasts of Calcutta. But all the
kindheartedness of a million Mother Teresas will never merit
heaven or atone for one sin. Only the merits of the Lord Jesus
Christ's blood and righteousness will ever be sufficient to meet the
guilty sinner's need. Nothing else will suffice! Nothing else!

The Lord Jesus Christ Himself makes it abundantly clear that
many good religious people who have done many wonderful works
in His name will be sent away when they stand before Him. "Many
will say unto me in that day, Have we not done many wonderful
works in your name"; notice the "many" and the solemn fact that
they were done in Jesus' name; yet the Lord goes on to say to
these wonderful workers and kindhearted souls that He never knew
them - "Depart from me." So the true follower of Christ is not going
to give any solace to the Mindzentys, the Mother Teresas, the
Wyzinskys or anyone else who is trusting in good works as a means
of salvation. Salvation is by grace through faith and that not of ourselves.
If there is one great message of the Scriptures which needs
to be preached today, even in fundamental churches, it is this: Man
is justified without the deeds of the Law!

He is justified by the works of another—the Lord Jesus Christ.
He is declared righteous in Christ. He has no righteousness of his
own about which to boast. As Sir Robert Anderson tersely
summarizes it:

Grace is the characteristic truth of Christianity. According to
the great doctrinal treatise of the New Testament, we are "justified
by grace," "justified by faith," "justified by blood," that is in its
application to us, for such is the meaning of the sacrificial figure
of which the blood is the expression in the New Testament.
Grace is the principle on which the benefit is received; and the
death of Christ is the ground on which alone all this is possible—
we are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is
in Christ Jesus.

There is absolutely no room for human merit or good works in the
salvation which is taught in the Bible. However, today Biblical
Christianity is under attack by those who promote a works religion.
Ecumenical Protestantism wedded to Roman Catholicism is
bidding fair to overthrow the great truths of the Bible which were
rediscovered at the time of the Reformation.

The Bible-believer who really loves the souls of men will warn
those who are depending upon a works religion to get to heaven.
He will faithfully point out that works religion is the gateway to Hell
and that no one is going to Heaven whether he is Protestant,
Roman Catholic, Jewish, or Buddhist, unless that one is saved by
grace through faith in the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Anti-communists talk as if there is a special place reserved in
Heaven for them. When in the light of the Bible they are bound for
the same lost eternity as the Communist unless they are justified by
aith in the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is interesting to
notice, and it happens time and time again, that when a Roman
Catholic priest appears on the PTL television program or some
other Charismatic forum, he usually speaks glowingly and with
considerable charm and wit about the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.
However, they never speak of justification by faith in the finished
work of Christ. Is it not a little strange how little we hear of the Holy
Spirit in connection with Justification? All that is ever spoken of
today seems to be the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, and very little of
that is from a Biblical perspective. Protestant preachers who
should know better and do better fail miserably in proclaiming the
central truth of the Gospel. The great objective truth of the Gospel
which deals with how a person is able to come to a Holy God and
have right standing before Him is almost never dealt with by the average
preacher. While the writer was working with Sharon Construction Company
of Sheridan, Indiana, he used to listen to a Christian radio station from
morning until night, five days a week. In all that plethora of "Gospel"
preaching by many different shades of evangelicals, conservatives and
fundamentalists, he never heard one sermon on Justification by
faith....not one! Now, my dear reader, there is something radically
wrong with our preaching today. The bulk of today's preaching is
subjective, and this subjective note has increased since the
Charismatic Movement has made its impact and input into modern
evangelicalism. The Reformation set forth three great truths among
others.

1. Sola-Scriptura—The Scriptures alone are authoritative in all
matters.

2. Sola Gratia—that is, salvation is by grace alone

3. Sola Fide—that is, we are justified by Faith alone.

Add to these the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, and
you have the Bible teaching on salvation. We live in dark days
because these great truths are not only denied by Romanism, but
they have been forgotten by a large section of Protestantism.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

SAVING AMERICA FROM WHAT TO WHAT

It should be of interest to every true Bible-believer that the
Purftans who first came to America staunchly opposed Roman
Catholicism. An indication of this strong opposition to anything
popish was the early settlers' refusal even to acknowledge
Christmas as a holiday. Christmas smacked so strongly of
everything which they opposed that it was not officially celebrated
in Massachusetts until 1856.1

So when modern political conservatives with Pro-Romanist
leanings talk about saving America, the question that naturally
comes to mind is: "Saving America from what to what?" The more
this question is examined, the more it is apparent that the salvation
of America is envisioned by many in terms of Roman Catholicism.
Former President Nixon came very close to becoming a convert to
Romanism, according to the Christian Science Monitor. One of his
close associates talked him out of it by telling him that his
conversion would be misconstrued politically. However, Nixon still
praised Romanism as being a bulwark against Communism. He
also praised the Catholic school system, and he also thought that
Roman Catholics were great patriots. Nixon, at one time in his
political career, gave his personal testimony at a Billy Graham rally.
So he must have had some light at one time, but apparently he
became ensnared with the false system of Romanism almost to the
point of embracing it as his religion.

Nixon was not the only Protestant leader in recent times to
become enamored with Romanism. One of the leading Generals in
Vietnam went there as a Methodist but came back as a convert to
Roman Catholicism. His whole religious experince was fully
recounted in Readers' Digest. He went into the details of his
conversion to Romanism. So it is obvious that men in places of
authority have been sold on the idea that Roman Catholicism is
THE hope for America.

The reason, of course, that Romanism has done so well in recent
years in America—as Blanshard has so graphically demonstrated,
is that it has adopted a strong anti-communist stance. Roman
Catholics are looked upon as sound patriots who will fight to the
death with Communism, and therefore, many Protestants see
Romanism as an ally instead of an enemy.

However, the real picture of Rome's stance toward Communism
is much closer to rapprochement than to confrontation. Marxism
and Romanism are now so intertwined in many areas of the world
as to be insidtinguishable. Toronto priest Harvey Steele told
Canadian Catholics in the Catholic in the Catholic Register
recently:

The future of Latin America lies in the marriage of Christianity
and Marxism (by Christianity here Steele obviously means
Romanism)..the Catholic Church has placed the emphasis on
charity. (Only a Roman Catholic priest could say this with a
straight face after all the uncharitable massacres of history) while
the Marxists stress justice. (Only a Marxist could say that with a
straight face after all the unjust massacres of Marxism) But it is a
fact neither of these virtues can flourish without producing gross
distortion. They NEET EACH OTHER. The people who have
almost a monopoly on justice are the disciples of Karl Marx and if
Christians are to move in the front ranks of those seeking justice
they have to realize who it is they are joining.2

It is obviously clear then that Roman Catholicism is now seeking
to unite the Marxism. Perhaps a better way of putting it would be to
say that Romanism is now incorporating into her system another
error. For Romanism has ever been a syncretistic faith from the
days when the pagans were incorporated with their pagan beliefs
into the Roman church of the fifth century until now when present
day Marxists are also being incorporated. (Romanism has always
had something for everyone. As long as the person will remain in
the fold of the sect, he can do just about anything and hold to just
about any philosophy. There are holy wars for those who want to
fight. El Salvador and Ulster are two of the most recent with
Ulster's still continuing.) There are pilgrimages for those who like
them; hospitals for the kindly; monasteries for the recluses;
universities for the learned; even the Mafia for the gangster
element. The worst gangster of this decade was recently buried,
and he received a full Roman Catholic burial even as the mad
butchers of Ireland also do. Prendegast, the man who succeeded
Al Capone as head of the Mob, received the Mass in his jail cell at
Leavenworth for years.

Pierre Teilhard Du Chardin, a French priest who died in 1955, had
his writings banned by the church while he was alive. Marxism was
a dirty word then. However, as the Vatican watched the rise of
Marxism it sought to bring that ideology under the aegis of
Romanism. So a reversal of its former position was proclaimed,
Teilhard Du Chardin's writings were taken off the proscribed list. So
now we have the dialectical thought of Pierre Teilhard Du Chardin
invading the Vatican cult. He states that the "synthesis of the
Christian 'God-up-above' and the Marxist 'God-up-a-head' is the
only God whom we can worship today in spirit and in truth."3 Add to
this the anguished cry of none other than "Father" Fenton himself
as he writes about the rise of Marxism within Romanism.

The situation is worse, perhaps far worse, in a number of South
American countries where under the Marxist leadership of such
"Catholic" prelates as Archbishop Helder Camara of Brazil, Bishop
Antulio Parilla-Bonilla of Puerto Rico and Paul Cardinal Silva
Enriquez of Chile, revolutionary priests are a "dime a dozen." In far
too many countries in Latin America the Catholic Church is, from
all indications, a very significant ally of the Communist Conspiracy.
And the situation is growing worse.4 The Marxist conspiracy in Latin
Amerca has good Roman Catholic credentials as it does also in
Ireland today! Where one conspiracy begins and the other ends in
impossible to say. They are indistinguishable.

Certainly in Ireland there is no difference between the Roman
Catholic revolutionaries and the Marxists. The I.R.A. (The Irish
Republican Army) is pro-Marxist and pro-catholic. The I.R.A. men
are all good Catholics in good standing in their "church." They
receive the Mass, and when killed in action in their holy war (so
called by Roman Catholic priests in England and Ireland) receive a
Roman Catholic burial in hallowed ground. So they are both
Marxist and Roman Catholic, and this position does not seem to
conflict with the Bishops of Latin America, Harvey Steele, Pierre
Teilhard Du Chardin or those contemporary European Roman
Catholic leaders who took his writings off the Index. In Nigeria,
which was colonized by Protestant England, Roman
Catholic priests smuggled in and supplied arms to the Ibo revolutionaries.
The rest of the world was told via the Papal propaganda
machine that the Ibo people had a right to rebel. But where Rome
ruled to the south in Angola, colonized by Roman Catholic
Portugal, and where only 3 per cent of the people could read and
write after 400 years of Roman Catholic domination, the world was
told it was wrong for the Angolans to rebel.

Angola and Mozambique both fell to the Communists; both were
ruled by Roman Catholic Portugal, and the loss of both of these
giant countries was lamented by the conservative press in the U. S.
What the U. S. people were not told, however, was that the Roman
Catholic Archbishop of Mozambique stated before the fall of
Mozambique that of the two great dangers facing Africa,
Protestantism and Communism, the greater danger was
Protestantism! So Roman Catholic countries would rather be Communistic
than Protestant, according to this Archbishop.

America has become increasingly identified with Romanism in its
foreign policy so much so that those who make policy do not seem
to grasp the fact that where Rome rules, Communism or Marxism
flourishes. The examples of Angola and Mozambique followed by
Vietnam should alert even the most befuddled leaders, but the
message never seems to come across like it should. Romanism
can never defeat Communism; it can only join forces with it, and
this seems to be the present policy of the Vatican. The anticommunist
Pope was murdered and replaced by a pro-communist
Pope. Overtures have been made to Moscow, and NBC news
March 19, 1979, reported that for the first time since 1949, the
Jesuits had been invited back to China. So the opening of China to
the U.S. was quickly accompanied by the entrance of the Jesuits
into China. Anyone who does not see the significance of this is
blind in one eye and sightless in the other.

Romanism can and will work with Marxism, for both systems are
opposed to freedom. Only under historic Bible Protestantism have
men ever been truly free. The loss of the Protestant ethic also
means the loss of personal freedom. It cannot be otherwise.

Romanism with her great propaganda machine backed by the
might of a large section of the American press corps always
manages to appear right when embroiled in controversial
situations. After defending the rotten, tyrannical dictatorship of
Somoza in Nicaragua for years, it was able to switch sides with
considerable facility and befriend the Marxist Sandinista guerillas.
So when the new military junta was set up, the controlling leader
was a Roman Catholic priest. Not bad, considering the years that
Rome had been identified with Somoza.

Conservative papers in the U. S. described Somoza as a friend of
the U. S. and his rule as just and good. However, it is obvious that
Somoza kept much of the nation in abject poverty, and it is about
time that the U.S. stopped having friends like Somoza. While the U.
S. continues to support the "Somozas" in Latin America, it fails to
set up better governments which could halt the drive of the
Communists to take over Latin America. One writer who has
traveled all over Latin America told of visiting an American in El
Salvador. The American told him from his air-conditioned hacienda
that El Salvador was a great little country. When in reality it is the
most impoverished country in the western hemisphere next to
Haiti. Both dominated by Rome—both ripe for revolution, both
governments opposed by the U. S. It is time that the U. S. freed
itself from the Roman Catholic syndrome in Latin America.

Every time one of those banana republics is overthrown, the U.
S. loses face and loses out in its battle to prevent Communist encirclement.
However, Rome never loses out. For it has priests as
reactionary as the late Cardinal Ottaviana on one side and priests
as Marxist as Pierre Teilhard Du Chardin on the other so that no
matter which way the battle goes, Rome will still be there when the
smoke clears.

Dentente with Communism is now the policy of the Vatican. Prior
to World War II the Vatican aligned herself with the murderers,
Hitler and Mussolini, in signed concordats. For at that time Fascism
was sweeping Europe. After the way the Vatican aligned herself
with the U.S. Now it appears that the U.S. is in trouble, so the
Vatican is aligning herself with Marxism. Rumblings within the
Communist Party of Italy seem to bear this out. Luigi Longo the
party leader, "admitted early in 1966 that, in spite of Karl Marx,
Catholic teaching might not always be considered the opiate of the
People."5

In the Italian elections of 1976 "Two independent Catholic
laymen running on the Communist ticket won seats in the new
Parliament."6 The Vatican must now think that her future lies with
the Marxists, and it is obvious that she is keeping her options open.
As America, the land of the free and the home of the brave, (and we
sincerely believe that does indeed describe her, the greatest
country that history has yet known, with a people friendly and kind
beyond words) comes more and more under the domination of
false religions, the rise in crime and corruption accelerates.

It is the puritan ethic that has made America what she is.
America is still living on the captial of the Puritans whether she
realizes it or not. Bribery is a way of life in most countries of the
world. Bribery, although becoming increasingly more common in
America, is still considered wrong.

It is interesting to look into the rise in crime in the U.S. Organized
crime is now firmly entrenched in most big cities. Organized crime
has historically been linked to the Mafia, and there is no reason to
doubt that conclusion in present day America. The Mafia has its
roots in Sicily and is composed of nominal Roman Catholics. They
are not considered "good" Catholics, but they are nevertheless
acknowledged as nominal Catholics.

When the television series "The Untouchables" zeroed in on the
Italian and Irish gangsters of the thirties, strident voices called for
its immediate removal from the air. Frank Sinatra and Cardinal
Spellman hated the show. Senator John Pastore wanted all Italian
names removed from the series even though the names were those
of actual historical figures who flourished in the Prohibition Era.

Desi Arnaz, whose studios produced the popular show, received
a call at the height of pressure, "If you don't get us off THE
UNTOUCHABLES, we are going to blow your brains out."7 The
tobacco company which sponsored the show found its shipments
standing on docks all over America, the power of Romanism in the
unions was grest enough to stop all loading across the entire land.
The show was finally forced off the air. America was saved from
THE UNTOUCHABLES but to what?

A show which dealt with known historical data is forced off the
air. Yet shows which spread myths about the corruption in
Southern States (which are primarily Protestant) go year after year.
It should be obvious to Protestant Americans who is calling the
shots today, but it seems that the proponents of false religion are
far more alert than the heirs of the Protestant Reformation.

The idea of saving America is written large in contemporary
conservative literature. Many conservative fundamental preachers
speak on the subject of saving America. But it is going to take more
than a mixture of evangelical pablum and false religion to save
America. Righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to
any people. The sin of false religion is one of the greatest sins in
America today; yet scarcely a whisper is ever raised about it; let
alone against it. Men will thunder against pornography, obscenity,
abortion, immorality, corruption and duplicity, but complete silence
reigns when it comes to idolatry, the one sin that God condemns
more than any other, and the only sin mentioned in the Ten
Commandments which carries with it the pronouncement of God
Almighty's judgment. May God save America from the idolatry of
Romanism. Amen.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

REFERENCES

Chapter 1

To return to your place in the text hit your browser's back button

1. J. Sidlow Baxter, A New Call to Holiness, Zondervan, Grand
Rapids, Michigan 1977 P. 19
2. Christianity Today, Vol. 23, No. 3 P. 23
3. Cornelus Van Til, Christianity or Barthianism, Presbyterian
and Reformed Pub. Co., Nutley, N. J. 1962, p. 229
4. Ibid., p. 238
5. Ibid. p. 374
6. William C. Standridge, What's Happening in The Roman
Church
7. Cornelius Van Til, p. 372

To return to your place in the text hit your browser's back button

Chapter 2

1. Paul Blanshard, Paul Blanshard on Vatican II, Beacon
Press, Boston, 1963, p. 334
2. Ibid. p. 336
3. Ibid. p. 336
4. Ibid., p. 337
5. Ibid., p. 337
6. Ibid., p. 337
7. Pittsburgh Press, Aug. 12,1979, P. A1
8. Altoona Mirror, Aug. 11,1979, p. 25

To return to your place in the text hit your browser's back button

Chapter 3

1. Tom Anderson, For Christians, American Opinion, Belmont,
Mass. 1972, p. 7
2. Ibid., p. 5
3. Ibid., p. 7
4. Francis E. Fenton, Treason of the Churches, American
Opinion, Belmont, Mass 1972, p. 4
5. J. C. Ryle, Five English Reformers, Banner of Truth Trust
Reprint, p. 27
6. Ibid., p. 31
7. Al Mendendex, Church and State in Czechoslovakia,
Church and State, Vol. 29, No. 8, p. 14
8. Richard Wurmbrand, Jesus To The Communist World, Sept.
1975, p. 3
9. I Timothy 4:3
10. Richard Wurmbrand, Loc. cit.
11. Kenneth Lee, Billy Graham Promotes Communism, p. 2
12. Andrew Murray, The Holiest of All

To return to your place in the text hit your browser's back button

Chapter 4

1. Robert Anderson, The Silence of God, Hodder and Stoughton,
London 1899, p. 80
2. John's Gospel 8:44
3. Robert Anderson, p. 125-126
4. Ibid., p. 99

To return to your place in the text hit your browser's back button

Chapter 5

1. William Stephens, A Ban on Christmas : Puritan Versus
Pagan, Los Angeles Times, Sec. C, Dec. 24,1972, p. 5
2. Harvey Steele, quoted in Lighthouse, Vol. 16, No. 8, 1976 p.6
3. Bolton Davidheiser, Evolution and The Christian Faith,
Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co. Nutley, N.J. 1969, P 113
4. Francis E. Fenton, Treason of the Churches, American
Opinion, Belmnot, Mass. 1972, p. 4
5. Church and State, Vol. 29, No. 8,1976, p. 20
6. Ibid., p. 20
7. Thomas W. Moore, One Show They Couldn't Kill, TV Guide
May 10, 1975, p. 27-28

To return to your place in the text hit your browser's back button