WIXLIB

Rome denies justification by grace alone BY ITSDOCTRINE OF THE PAPACY: “For ‘God’s only-begottenSon . has won a treasure for the militant Church . he hasentrusted it to blessed Peter, the key-bearer of heaven, and tohis successors who are Christ’s vicars on earth, SO THATTHEY MAY DISTRIBUTE IT TO THE FAITHFUL FORTHEIR SALVATION’” (ellipses are in the original) (VaticanII, “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy,” ApostolicConstitution on the Revision of Indulgences, Chap. 4, 7, p.80).Rome denies justification by grace alone BY ITSDOCTRINE OF MARY: “. Taken up to heaven she did notlay aside THIS SAVING OFFICE but by her manifoldintercession continues to BRING US GIFTS OF ETERNALSALVATION. . Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked inthe Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress,and Mediatrix” (New Catholic Catechism, 969).Rome denies justification by grace alone BY ITSDOCTRINE OF THE SAINTS: “Thus recourse to thecommunion of saints lets the contrite sinner be morepromptly and efficaciously purified of the punishments forsin” (New Catholic Catechism, 1475).There are Catholics today who claim they don’t believeRome’s heresies, but this does not change the fact that Romeholds them. If one does not believe official Catholic dogma,he should be honest enough to leave the Catholic Church.The fact is that the Catholic Church does deny salvation bygrace alone and teaches the vilest of other heresies, and Godcommands that the believer separate from such things. Whenevangelical leaders fellowship with Romanism, they areacting in direct disobedience to the Word of God.“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which causedivisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which yehave learned; and avoid them” (Romans 16:17).7

“Having a form of godliness, but denying the powerthereof: from such turn away” (2 Tim. 3:5).“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers:for what fellowship hath righteousness withunrighteousness? and what communion hath light withdarkness?” (2 Cor. 6:14).“Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a littleleaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out thereforethe old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye areunleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificedfor us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with oldleaven, neither with the leaven of malice andwickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerityand truth” (1 Cor. 5:6-8).“But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiledEve through his subtilty, so your minds should becorrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if hethat cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have notpreached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye havenot received, or another gospel, which ye have notaccepted, ye might well bear with him” (2 Cor. 11:3-4).Evangelical CatholicsSome who acknowledge that Rome as an institution hasn’tchanged, believe there is a “renewal” occurring within theCatholic Church that is bringing Catholics into an“evangelical” experience and faith.The 1991 book Evangelical Catholics by Keith Fournier(with a foreword by Charles Colson) puts forth this thinking.Fournier contends that he is truly Catholic and trulyevangelical, and Colson, who was an “evangelical,” secondedthat. But the term “evangelical Catholic” turns language on itshead and denies the historical definition of both terms.Further, the evangelical Catholic phenomenon is nothingmore than a clever ruse. Consider an interview that DennisCostella of the Fundamental Evangelistic Association had8

with Keith Fournier at Notre Dame ‘88, a large charismaticCatholic conference. When Costella asked about Catholicswho are using D. James Kennedy‘s Evangelism Explosionmaterials, Fournier replied:“. some of the early planning of our program had a lotto do with a Catholic parish that had James Kennedy‘sprogram . The gospel is the gospel and everybodyknows what the basic gospel truth is . denominationaldifferences [are] in the follow-up . there were a coupleof things in James Kennedy’s process that we asCatholics couldn’t accept because it wasn’t Catholicteaching. FOR EXAMPLE, TOO OBVIOUS WAS THETOTAL ASSURANCE OF SALVATION . AND THEOTHER ONE IS SALVATION BY FAITH ALONE. FORCATHOLICS WE ARE SAVED BY FAITH AND ALSOTHROUGH OBEDIENCE TO CHRIST. We don’t earnour salvation but we believe that there are acts ofobedience and cooperation in God’s Spirit that are tiedup with salvation” (Interview by Dennis Costella withKeith Fournier and Chris Noble, 1988 NationalConference on the Charismatic Renewal in the CatholicChurch, Friday-Sunday, May 27-29, 1988, Notre DameCampus, South Bend, Indiana).Do you see the tremendous deception in this? Fourniersays the gospel is the gospel, implying that we are allpreaching the same gospel, yet he goes on to deny the veryheart of the gospel which is salvation by the grace of ChristALONE by His Blood ALONE through faith ALONE.Fournier would call this difference merely a matter of“interpretation” or perhaps an issue of semantics, but that isnot the case. To add any kind of works to Christ’s grace is amatter of heresy and blasphemy, and brings God’s curse uponanyone who preaches it (Gal. 1:8-10). Nothing could be moreserious.Fournier claims that he believes in salvation by God’sgrace, but by adding works and sacraments to grace hecorrupts grace. “And if by grace, then is it no more of works:9

otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then isit no more grace: otherwise work is no more work” (Rom.11:6).Fournier says “we are saved by faith AND ALSO throughobedience to Christ,” yet he claims he doesn’t believe inearning salvation. This is Jesuit sophistry at its diabolic best.There is no excuse for today’s evangelical leaders to bedeceived by this kind of duplicity. If a man is not doctrinallystrong enough to see through Rome’s deceptions, he is notqualified to be a Christian leader.“Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught,that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhortand to convince the gainsayers. For there are manyunruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they ofthe circumcision: Whose mouths must be stopped, whosubvert whole houses, teaching things which they oughtnot, for filthy lucre's sake” (Titus 1:9-11).Today’s evangelical leaders often have impressive scholarlyqualifications, but they have little spiritual discernment. Thelatter does not come from an institution of higher learning. Itcomes from regeneration and submission to the indwellingHoly Spirit and the Word of God.“At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, OFather, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hidthese things from the wise and prudent, and hastrevealed them unto babes” (Mat. 11:25).The Great Change in EvangelicalismEvangelicalism today is a different thing from what it wasprior to the 1940s. Fifty years ago the term “evangelical” was aword that referred to firm, Bible-believing Christianity.Though the term “evangelical,” like fundamentalism, hasalways incorporated a wide latitude of belief, as a rule ittraditionally described Protestants who believed the Biblewithout reservation, who preached the new birth, and who10

were stridently opposed to Rome. Generally speaking (andcertainly in contrast to the mushy evangelicalism of today),the evangelicals of bygone generations were soldiers forChrist.Evangelicalism of old was dogmatic and militant. It wasold-fashioned Protestantism. All of the Protestantdenominations once identified Rome as the Revelation 17whore of Babylon. Anyone familiar with the old Lutheran,Methodist, and Presbyterian creeds knows this. Though weBaptists have never seen eye to eye with Protestants on manyimportant points, old-line Protestants stood staunchly forwhat they believed to be the truth. Not only did old-lineevangelicals define what they believed the Bible teaches, theydefined it in contradiction to error. They were militant for thetruth as they saw it.This is exactly what today’s New Evangelical is not.Consider examples of this from the old Methodist Articlesof Religion:“Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance ofbread and wine in the Supper of our Lord, cannot beproved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plainwords of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of theordinance, and hath given occasion to manysuperstitions. . The Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’sordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, orworshiped.”“.the sacrifice of Masses in the which it is commonlysaid that the priest doth offer Christ for the quick andthe dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, is ablasphemous fable, and dangerous deceit.”Consider the late evangelist James Stewart. He was used ina mighty way in revivals in Eastern Europe before the fall ofthe Iron Curtain and his published sermons werecharacterized by uncompromising declaration of Bible truth.Not only did he preach the gospel and the “positive” truths ofthe Word of God, he also preached against error and11

compromise. In sermons such as “Potpourri Evangelism,”Stewart witnessed mightily against ecumenical evangelism.Consider a quotation from that sermon, first preached in the1940s and ‘50s:“We must be more afraid of flattery from the camp ofthe enemy than persecution. Read the pages of Churchhistory. Persecution never did the Church of God anyharm, but compromise with the world has alwaysrobbed it of the power of its purity. .“‘Potpourri Evangelism’ consists of two features: mixedevangelistic campaigns and mixed Christianity. Bymixed evangelistic campaigns I mean the alliance ofModernistic and Evangelical churches together in anevangelistic effort. .“When religion gets up a revival, it must have from fiveto twenty churches of heterogeneous creeds andsectarian bodies to go into a great union effort; it musthave a mammoth choir with great musical instruments,and many preachers and multiplied committees, andeach committee headed by some banker, judge, mayor,or millionaire’s wife. It signs cards as a substitute for thebroken-hearted cry of scriptural repentance. It mustcount its converts by the hundreds in a few days’meeting. It must apologize for natural depravity. .“Human religion’s enterprises have an atmosphere ofearthliness about them. It despises the day of smallthings and scorns little humble people and lonely ways.It is eager to jump to the height of prosperity. Its musichas no pathos in it, its laughter lacks divinecheerfulness, its worship lacks supernatural love, itsprayers bring down no huge answers, it works nomiracles, calls forth no criticism from the world, andhas no light of eternity in its eyes. It is a poor, sicklything, born of the union of the heart of the world withthe head of Christian theology—a mongrel, bastardthing with a backslidden church for its mother and theworld for its father. Oh, my dear brother and sister,12

never forget that this unnatural monster will bedestroyed at the coming-again of our Blessed Lord JesusChrist” (James Stewart, Evangelism, Asheville, NC:Gospel Projects, pp. 25-28).How popular would James Stewart be in evangelical circlestoday? Would his sermons appear in Christianity Today?Would he be published by Zondervan and InterVarsity Press?Would they be sold at LifeWay bookstores?Baptist Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834-1892) is anotherexample of what “evangelical” meant in generations past.Spurgeon’s ministry was characterized by faithfulness to thetruth, holiness of life, a gospel of pure grace, and unhesitatingexposure of error. Though maligned and misunderstood,Spurgeon did not hesitate to separate from the Baptist Unionbecause of the false doctrine that was being countenanced.He also stood unhesitatingly against Roman Catholicism.Consider this excerpt from one of Spurgeon’s sermons:“It is impossible but that the Church of Rome mustspread, when we who are the watchdogs of the fold aresilent, and others are gently and smoothly turfing theroad, and making it as soft and smooth as possible, thatconverts may travel down to the nethermost hell ofPopery. We want John Knox back again. Do not talk tome of mild and gentle men, of soft manners andsqueamish words, we want the fiery Knox, and eventhough his vehemence should ‘ding our pulpits intoblads,’ it were well if he did but rouse our hearts toaction” (C.H. Spurgeon, Sermons, Vol. 10, pgs. 322-3).When was the last time you read something like that inMoody Monthly! Spurgeon hit the nail on the head and thesituation is much worse in our day. Today’s evangelicalism isvery busy indeed with the business of turfing the road ofRoman Catholicism to make it smooth for those travelingthereon to hell.Many other examples could be given to show thatevangelicalism of past generations involved a bold contention13

for the truth. Evangelical warriors of a bygone age did not failto label Rome that “Mother of Harlots,” and would haveconsidered it unthinkable to fellowship with her.The New EvangelicalismDuring the first half of the Twentieth Century,e v ange l i c a l i s m i n A m e r i c a w a s i d e nt i fi e d w it hfundamentalism.Many historians make this connection, including MarkEllingsen (The Evangelical Movement) and George Marsden(Reforming Fundamentalism). Marsden says, “There was not apractical distinction between fundamentalist and evangelical:the words were interchangeable” (p. 48).When the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) wasformed in 1942 participants included such fundamentalistleaders as Bob Jones, Sr., John R. Rice, Charles Woodbridge,Harry Ironside, and David Otis Fuller.By the mid-1950s, though, a clear break between separatistfundamentalists and non-separatist evangelicals occurred.This was occasioned largely by the ecumenical evangelism ofBilly Graham. Most of the stronger men dropped out of theNational Association of Evangelicals.The terms evangelicalism and fundamentalism began “torefer to two different movements” (William Martin, AProphet with Honor, p. 224).In those days a new mood began to prevail among the sonsof evangelical-fundamentalist preachers. They determined tocreate a “New Evangelicalism.” They would not be fighters;they would be diplomats; they would be positive rather thanmilitant, infiltrators rather than separatists. They would notbe restricted by a separationist mentality.The same mood is found today among the new generationof fundamental Baptists.The term “New Evangelicalism” defined a new type ofevangelicalism to distinguish it from those who had14

heretofore borne that label. Thus, in the very name “NewEvangelicalism” is the witness that evangelicalism of old,regardless of any weaknesses (and there were many), wasbiblically dogmatic and militant.The term “New Evangelicalism” was possibly coined by thelate Harold Ockenga (1905-1985), one of the most influentialevangelical leaders of the past generation. He was the pastorof Park Street Church (Congregational) in Boston, founder ofthe National Association of Evangelicals, co-founder andone-time president of Fuller Theological Seminary, firstpresident of the World Evangelical Fellowship, president ofGordon College and Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary,a director of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, andchairman of the board and one-time editor of ChristianityToday.In the foreword to Harold Lindsell‘s book The Battle for theBible, Ockenga stated the philosophy of New Evangelicalism:“Neo-evangelicalism was born in 1948 in connectionwith a convocation address which I gave in the CivicAuditorium in Pasadena. While reaffirming thetheological view of fundamentalism, this addressrepudiated its ecclesiology and its social theory. Theringing call for a REPUDIATION OF SEPARATISMand the summons to social involvement received ahearty response from many Evangelicals. . It differedfrom fundamentalism in its REPUDIATION OFSEPARATISM and its determination to engage itself inthe theological dialogue of the day. It had a newemphasis upon the application of the gospel to thesociological, political, and economic areas of life.”Ockenga may or may not have coined the term “NewEvangelicalism,” but it is certain that the movement itself wasnot “born” with his convocation address. He did not createthe movement; he merely labeled and described the newmood of positivism and non-militancy that characterized hisgeneration.15

Ockenga and the new generation of evangelicals, BillyGraham figuring most prominently, determined to abandon amilitant Bible stance. The New Evangelical would stay withinapostate denominations rather than practice separation. Hewould dialogue with those who teach error rather thanproclaim the Word of God boldly and without compromise.He would meet the proud humanist and the haughty liberalon their own turf with human scholarship rather than followthe humble path of being counted a fool for Christ’s sake bystanding humbly and simply upon the Bible.New Evangelical leaders determined to start a “rethinkingprocess” whereby the old paths were to be reassessed in lightof new goals, methods, and ideology.Dr. Charles Woodbridge, a professor at Fuller TheologicalSeminary in its early days, a founding member of theNational Association of Evangelicals, and a friend of mensuch as Harold Ockenga and Carl Henry, rejected NewEvangelicalism and spent the rest of his life warning of itsdangers. For his efforts he was maligned and ignored, thoughhis warnings have come to pass.In his 1969 book, The New Evangelicalism, Woodbridgetraced the downward path of New Evangelical compromise:“The New Evangelicalism is a theological and moralcompromise of the deadliest sort. It is an insidiousattack upon the Word of God. . The NewEvangelicalism advocates TOLERATION of error. It isfollowing the downward path of ACCOMMODATIONt o e r r o r, C O O P E R AT I O N w i t h e r r o r,C O N TA M I NAT I O N by e r r o r, a n d u l t i m at eCAPITULATION to error!” (Woodbridge, The NewEvangelicalism, pp. 9, 15).Each passing decade witnesses more plainly to the truth ofDr. Woodbridge’s observations. Toleration of error leads toaccommodation, cooperat

Billy Graham said that he preaches the same gospel as Rome, but this is a statement either of grave ignorance or willful duplicity. Graham preached salvation by grace alone . "As o&en as the sacri%ce of the cross by which 'Christ our Pasch is sacri%ced' . is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried .