Protestant Evangelicalism: The Road Back To Rome

Protestant Evangelicalism: The Road Back To Rome* 

Preface

The Protestant Reformation was officially launched in 1521 by the Catholic Church’s ex-communication of Martin Luther,  which was the outcome of the posting of his “95 Thesis” on the door of the Catholic seminary at Wittenberg, Germany, where he served as a professor, in 1517.  From there, with the aid of Guttenberg’s printing press, it quickly spread through the European continent and the British Isles.

Aiding the dissemination of the Protestant message was Frenchman John Calvin, a follower of Luther who arrived on the scene ten years after Luther’s split with Rome. Calvin’s main contribution to the reformation was his Magnus opus, Institutes of the Christian Religion.

As with all religious movements, divisions among the Protestant community began to crop up, the most prominent among them being the one that happened in 17th century Holland between leading Dutch Calvinists and a Calvinist theologian named Jacob Armenius. The outcome of this was a sharp split between the two camps over the issue of whether or not man had a free will–Calvinists said no, Armenians said yes.

Over the next couple of centuries, these two ostensibly different groups have, in my humble opinion, morphed into a common belief system I like to refer to as “Protestant Evangelicalism,” which, at its core, is Roman Catholic.

Protestantism—Lutheran, Calvinist or Arminian—is still, fundamentally speaking, Roman Catholicism. This is true because at the bottom of it we find that the burden of faith is on the believer rather than the Savior. The doctrine of “justification by faith,”(Rom. 5:1)** which Protestants make the centerpiece of their theology—and which, they claim, distinguishes them from Catholicism—is emptied of its power, because in their version of it the believer must continually prove himself through his behavior. The faith that justifies us is “the faith of Christ” (Romans 3:22; Galatians 2:16; Philippians 3:9); and it is this faith that made God to be at peace with the world (2 Cor. 5:19),*** producing the grace by which we are saved—if we will receive it—which excludes our works (Rom. 11:6; Eph. 2:8,9; Titus 3:5), either to be saved, stay saved, or prove we’re saved. We will now see, in the stage of Protestantism that followed Luther and Calvin—Protestant Evangelicalism—how these two ostensibly opposing doctrines, Calvinism and Arminianism, will become blended into one.

___________________________________________________

Footnotes:

*This is an excerpt from the book 85 Pages in the Bible.

**Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

***To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

___________________________________________________

Revival In England: Wesley and Whitfield

What the 17th century Calvinist/Arminian debate has produced in modern times is a mixture of the two doctrines creating what is known as “Evangelicalism,” which got its jump-start in the following two centuries with the revival that took place in Great Britain, spearheaded by the charismatic preaching of George Whitfield and John Wesley. Wesley, the better known of the two in modern times,^* took the Arminian view over the Calvinist (which Whitfield embraced), causing a split between them, and started what is called the “Holiness” movement with his “A Plain Account Of Christian Perfection.” While Whitfield is probably the father of modern American Protestant Evangelicalism, Wesley is credited with providing the foundation for the most rapidly growing religious phenomenon of modern times: Protestant Neo-Pentecostalism and the concept of a “second work of grace.” **

As we will now show, both Wesley and Whitfield employed the concept of “revivalism,”^*** and both had a profound influence on the changes that were about to take place across the Atlantic in the British Colonies. It will also be shown that these two movements will be the vehicles the Roman Church will use to bring their “separated brethren”^**** back into the sheepfold.

____________________________________________________

Footnotes:

*Wesley and his brother Charles founded a Bible study group at Oxford while they were attending seminary there that was referred to by other students as the “Methodists,” which eventually became the denomination by that same name.

**This is referred to by modern day charismatics as “the baptism of the Holy Ghost,” which is evidenced by an outbreak of an unknown “tongue” by the recipient.

***This was characterized by the elimination of the formalism of the staid Anglicanism Wesley and Whitfield came out of, to be replaced by highly emotional oratory from the pulpit which, in turn, produced high emotion in the congregations being preached to.

****The moniker the Roman Catholic Church has, in recent times, tagged Protestants with.

_____________________________________________________

The Great Awakening

The First Wave: Jonathan Edwards

The basic difference between the old Protestantism and Protestant Evangelicalism was the word “revival.” It was the “revival” that characterized and energized what is known as the “Great Awakening.” There were many players in this new “move of the spirit,” but the dominating figure was a Presbyterian preacher named Jonathan Edwards. The following is a Chronicle of the beginning of this so-called awakening and Edward’s pivotal role in it.

“Puritanism still dominated New England in the 1700s. Calvinism was the ruling ideology but was losing ground. When Jonathan Edwards attended Yale (1716–20), he came into contact with the new skepticism there. Harvard likewise entertained new ideas, so it was inevitable that the two colleges would produce some clergymen who (unlike Edwards) rejected or at least greatly modified the Calvinist theology of their forbears.

The old order was changing. Pastors and people prayed for a revival of spiritual energy. Revival came in the form of a Great Awakening (my emphasis), the first event in North American history to stir people of several colonies with a common religious concern.

In Jonathan Edwards’ parish at Northampton, Massachusetts, awakening began in 1734. Earlier sparks of revival had appeared in New Jersey, where Theodorus Frelinghuysen and William and Gilbert Tennent were attempting to arouse people out of spiritual lethargy. And they were succeeding. Revival (my emphasis) gathered momentum in Massachusetts and Connecticut fueled in large part by the first evangelistic tour (1740) in New England by the English preacher, George Whitefield. Throughout the colonies, Whitefield brought crowds to a religious fever pitch. No speaker ever drew bigger crowds in colonial America. He made some enemies among liberal clergy, but the people loved him, and many American pastors considered him a great blessing on the colonies. Edwards along with many others stirred their own congregations to spiritual renewal and experienced revivals in the churches they visited.

The Awakening, which had receded from public prominence by 1750, has been likened in some particulars to a Second Reformation. Religion had become formal, head-centered—and dull. The outward forms of faith were there, but the reality was hollow. Many hungered for a religion with heart and soul.

The preachers of the Awakening did not abandon the typical Puritan emphasis on doctrine, but they appealed more to the emotions. (my emphasis) This was a welcomed emphasis, as it encouraged the individual’s response to a loving God. Edwards never abandoned his love of logic and reason. But he watched the Awakening carefully and concluded that true religion does indeed consist primarily of (to use his own term) affections.

Because of this emphasis on the individual’s heartfelt response to God—an interest that Puritanism had always had, but which had diminished with time—conversion became important. The idea was not new in Christianity, but here it received a dramatic new emphasis. The preachers of the Awakening wanted people to know that outward morality was not enough for salvation. An inward change was necessary. An individual needed to feel deeply sinful and unworthy.

Because of the preaching of the Awakening, the sense of religious self intensified. The principle of individual choice (my emphasis) became forever ingrained in American Protestantism and is still evident today among evangelicals and many others.

Not everyone was pleased with these developments. Some preachers overemphasized the physical manifestations associated with religious feelings. Persons stirred by a sermon might faint, scream, writhe, sing, or otherwise respond physically (my emphasis). Edwards and his colleagues taught that these symptoms might indicate a genuine conviction of sin—or, might be only an emotional response to a manipulative preacher. Edwards claimed that the physical manifestations which were not produced by the working of God did not discredit those that were, in fact, produced by the Spirit (my emphasis).

But many rationalist clergymen—Charles Chauncy of Boston was the most famous—resented the enthusiasm of the Awakening. They saw it as a threat to established church authority. They felt that religious subjectivism appealed to man’s lower instincts since rational man would not need to have his beliefs substantiated by a warm heart, not to mention fainting spells, groaning, or leaping for joy. The anti-revivalist clergy—called the Old Lights—feared a breakdown of religious order and authority. The New Light (my emphasis) clergy—those who supported the Awakening—were as aware as their opponents that something alarming was occurring—the Awakening was dividing churches. Many congregations split, and where many small towns had only one church, they now had two. Those who thought their pastor too dry or formal might, under the influence of revivalism, form a new church—and many did. The Awakening presented a choice between religious styles, church affiliations, and pastors. Religious diversity became a reality in New England, and America has continued to live—not always comfortably, but necessarily—with such diversity.” ⁱ

By 1750, the Great Awakening had played itself out, but the changes it wrought were indelibly printed on the Protestant mind, and served to pave the way for the new wave of Evangelicalism that would follow it—the final wave of Neo-Pentecostalism. In this so-called move of the Spirit, we see the first blending of Calvinism and Arminianism. Both Whitfield and Edwards were died-in-the-wool Calvinists, and yet within the awakening they embraced one of the major tenets of Arminianism—one vehemently opposed by Calvinists—that man had the responsibility of making a choice for or against Christ. In addition, it began the move away from an emphasis on doctrinal teaching and fully opened the way for the unbridled emotionalism we now see prevalent in Neo-Pentecostal Evangelicalism.

The Second Wave

The Great Awakening’s emphasis on evangelism formed the foundation for the next “movement of the spirit”: the great prairie camp meetings of the late 18^th and early 19^th centuries. These meetings were popularized first by circuit-riding preachers Devereux Jarratt, an Anglican minister in Virginia, and Methodist Francis Asbury. It is estimated that Asbury’s ministry alone swelled the ranks of Methodists in the Colonies from a few thousand to over a quarter of a million. ⁱⁱ Following in their footsteps came men like Presbyterians Willis McGready and Barton W. Stone, and Methodist Peter Cartwright. These meetings produced a lot of the same extreme emotional behavior that had been seen in many of Wesley’s meetings, and later Edwards’. Here is a description of two such camp meetings:

“The first real manifestations of God’s power came, however, in June 1800. Four to five hundred members of McGready’s three congregations, plus five ministers, had gathered at Red River for a ‘camp meeting’ lasting several days. On the final day ‘a mighty effusion of [God’s] Spirit’ came upon the people, “and the floor was soon covered with the slain; their screams for mercy pierced the heavens.” ⁱⁱⁱ

The Rev. Moses Hoge described the Cane Ridge camp meeting, in an account that could stand for similar meetings of that period:

“The careless fall down, cry out, tremble, and not infrequently are affected with convulsive twitchings.… Nothing that imagination can paint, can make a stronger impression upon the mind, than one of those scenes. Sinners dropping down on every hand, shrieking, groaning, crying for mercy, convulsed; professors praying, agonizing, fainting, falling down in distress, for sinners or in raptures of joy!.… As to the work in general there can be no question but it is of God.”^iv

What we see going on in these meetings is an ardent appeal to people’s emotions, and the unbridled results. Exactly what was preached is not recorded—it doesn’t seem to matter—only the results, which, of course, are always attributed to the movement of the Holy Spirit.

Pragmatism (“the ends justify the means”) appears to have taken full hold on the “new move of the spirit.” The question is: what spirit?⁺

___________________________________________________

+I Jn 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

________________________________________________

Revivalism

The First Wave: Charles Finney

The next great movement, occurring in the mid/late 19^th century, took on international proportions and involved three major players: Charles Finney, Dwight L. Moody and Charles H. Spurgeon, with Finney leading the way. A lawyer by profession, Finney quit his law practice after a personal conversion to Christ in 1821 and was ordained into the Presbyterian Church in 1824. He immediately began making waves by staging successful revivals in small New York towns. Although raised a Calvinist and ordained into a Calvinist denomination, Finney broke ranks with traditional Calvinism by preaching universal salvation to all who would receive it.

He eventually split with the Presbyterian Church and went on to become the foremost evangelist of his time, preaching both in the U.S. and abroad. While a professor at Oberlin College, he formulated his “doctrine of perfection” which was presented in his book, “Systematic Theology,” (1846?). This doctrine espoused the idea of a “second blessing,” in addition to salvation, described in the following account:

“The blessing was to ‘come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ,’ when they received by faith ‘the promise of the Spirit.’ Six climactic lectures on the Promises defined sanctifying faith as ‘that act of the mind that lays hold upon’ these biblical promises and ‘yields up the whole being’ to the ‘influence and control of the Holy Spirit’ (my emphasis). ‘Regenerate persons must return to obedience to God’s moral law, Finney wrote,’ inspired by ‘the indwelling spirit of Christ received by faith to reign in the heart,’ that is, in the will. In ‘every dispensation of the divine government,’ Finney said, such a return was ‘the unalterable condition of salvation.’ He called imputed holiness an absurdity that the impenitent seize upon to avoid submitting to ‘the righteousness of God wrought in them.’ Grace cannot save the soul except ‘upon condition of entire sanctification.’” ^v

So Finney believed there was something else to be had beyond mere salvation, a form of consecration that was only available to those who obtained this “second blessing,” and that this would certainly be manifest in a believer’s behavior. This idea was entrenched in the Wesleyan theology preceding him, and though both (Finney and Wesley) rejected Calvin’s doctrines of election and limited atonement, it is quite obvious they embraced the doctrine of “effectual perseverance,” ((Perseverance of the Saints; The “P” in the TULIP acrostic.)) This is drawn directly from Calvin’s doctrine of “effectual perseverance,” which says that those who are truly “born again” will reflect this condition in their behavior, i.e., they will not “continue” in sin.)) the contrast being that it was now applied only to those who had received the so-called “second work of grace.” He even went to the extent of explaining away what Paul said of himself in Romans 7:14-21, “I am carnal, sold under sin” (vs. 14); “Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me”… “I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me”, by saying he wasn’t actually speaking of himself! Who else could he have been speaking of? Are these passages not written in the first person? The extent to which men will go to prove their unscriptural positions seems to be without bounds!

One of Finney’s other extra-Biblical inventions/contributions to evangelicalism—now in widespread use—was the “altar call”:

“The altar call… was first used by the American evangelist, Charles Finney, as a means of separating out those who wanted to talk further about the subject of salvation. Finney called the front pew ‘the anxious seat’ (for those who were anxious about the state of their souls) or ‘the mourner’s bench.’ Finney never led them in a prayer, but he and a few others would spend a great deal of time praying with and giving specific instruction to each, one by one until finally, everyone was sent home to pray and continue seeking God until ‘they had broken through and expressed hope in Christ,’ as Finney would say.” ^vi

This has become a mainstay in modern Evangelicalism. It has taken on many different forms, but its purpose (since scripture never calls for it) is always the same: to get you to make a physical response that they (whatever system is employing this tool) may glory in your flesh (Gal. 6:13), and “count” you as one of theirs.

The Second Wave: Dwight L. Moody and Charles H. Spurgeon

If Finney was the “father of Revivalism,” Dwight L. Moody in America, and Charles H. Spurgeon in England, were his heirs apparent. It has been said that, over their lifetimes, these two icons of Protestant Evangelicalism preached to tens of millions of people, witnessing conversions of hundreds—even thousands—of souls in single meetings. Both men were said to have been spell-binding speakers who saw the Bible as their final authority in whatever they preached. Unlike Finney, neither was particularly inclined to doctrine (Moody less so than Spurgeon), nor—as far as is known—saw any need to dispensationalize the Bible, or give any special credence to the Apostle Paul among the New Testament writers. Spurgeon, in contradiction to what the Apostle said in Romans 1:16, apparently believed anyone could be saved from anywhere in the Bible. In his own conversion experience, he recounts the verse that converted him was out of Isaiah 45:22. It may be that at some other time he had heard that Christ died for his sins, but he doesn’t allude to this in his written testimony.

Moody (who claimed salvation at the age of 18), on the other hand, majored in the idea of “the new birth,” the title of his most oft preached sermon. In this famous sermon, he repeated over and over the necessity of being “born again,” as in John 3:3-5, in order to obtain heaven, treating it and the salvation by grace preached by the apostle Paul as one and the same. Moody, like Spurgeon, came from a long line of Calvinists (Puritans), but vigorously denied being either Calvinist or Arminian. It is, however, obvious from this sermon that he was heavily influenced by the Calvinist doctrine of the new birth, and—like Finney before him—believed one who was truly “born again” would display this in a changed life (doctrine of “effectual perseverance”). Being a pure evangelist, he avoided preaching on divine election and predestination, holding forth the doctrine of personal responsibility: that the gospel was for all who would believe it.

The question that is begged once again here is: Can anyone in the present dispensation be “born again” according to John 3? No, absolutely not. As I have clearly shown heretofore, individuals in the grace dispensation are “saved” into a spiritual “body” by believing a specific message—the “gospel of Christ”—viz.: “that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures.” (1Cor. 15:3,4). The prescribed response to this is to personalize it by believing that he died for your sins, and was raised again for your justification. Paul told the Philippian jailer in Acts 16:31: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. The operative phrase here is “be saved,” not be “born again.” Did John or Peter or James—or for that matter, the Lord while he was here on earth—ever preach this? Not anywhere that I’ve been able to find. They preached—to Israel—“repent and be baptized for the remission of sins.” (Acts 2:38). Those who truly repented—who truly got the “gift of the Holy Ghost”—were born again, and this, according to 1 John 3:9; 5:18, would certainly show up in their behavior.

This isn’t to say that someone today who hears the gospel and trusts Christ for their salvation is totally unaffected by it. I believe a desire is planted in the heart and mind—by the Holy Spirit—of anyone who gets saved that would certainly lead them to seek out the truth (in Scripture) and illuminate it to them as they heard/read it, but this isn’t equivalent to being “born again.” Those kingdom saints who are “born of God,” as in 1 John and 1 Peter, have their whole nature altered (2 Peter 1:4),⁺ receiving an “anointing” (1 John 2:27)⁺⁺ that puts what God wants in their hearts and minds, supernaturally (Hebrews 8:10).⁺⁺⁺

Not making this distinction between being born again and being saved is driven by the failure to rightly divide the kingdom gospel and the gospel of Christ, which, again, is the same fundamental error of the reformed theology that preceded revivalist theology, and Roman Catholic theology before that.

__________________________________________________

Footnotes:

+”Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.”

++”But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.”
+++”For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:”

____________________________________________________

Perverting God’s Word: The “New” Version Of The Bible

Westcott and Hort’s “Revised” Version

As Moody and Spurgeon were in the twilight of their careers another very significant event was occurring in the Anglican Church in England, driven by the forces of “higher criticism.”^* In 1870, a convocation in the Church of England was successful in calling for a “revision” of the Authorized King James Bible, which had dominated the Protestant Christian world as the word of God for 250 years.

“The revisers began their work in 1871 and published their New Testament in 1881 and the Old in 1884. It was called the ‘Revised Version.’ When they were seated, the revisers were commissioned to “correct” what they perceived as errors in the Authorized Version.” ^vii

Although they were instructed to maintain the Textus Receptus (the dominant text used in the translation of the King James) as the Greek text underlying their work, it was not long before that was discarded in favor of a new text produced by two members of the revision committee, B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort.^** This text was, basically, an edited version of the Alexandrian Text which was used by Jerome in his production of the “Latin Vulgate.” There were two sets of manuscripts which Hort and Wescott acquired from the Roman Catholic Church, and worked from, known as “Vaticanus” and “Siniaticus:”

“Siniaticus was discovered in a wastebasket in St. Catherine’s Monestary (near Mt. Sinai) in 1844 by Catholic priest, Constantin von Tischendorf. Vaticanus was found in the Vatican library in 1475 and was rediscovered in 1845. Together they totaled 50 copies. Westcott and Hort’s theory—which they were obviously successful in convincing the committee to accept—was that the KJV was translated from inferior and more recent texts than were now in their possession. The inferiority tag came from what has become known as the “Lucian Rescension,” which contends that the manuscripts used to translate the KJV were “loosely thrown together” by a man named Lucian in Antioch^* from where they originated. The older source that was claimed was none other than Origen’s Greek New Testament, which was Alexandrian (Egypt) in origin; thus named the “Alexandrian Text.”

Although both theories have long since been debunked by reputable Bible Scholars, the stigma stuck, and to this day it is still being put forth by the defenders of Bible “versions” (all of which are translated from Nestle’s edited version of the W & H text) as absolute fact. The truth is, both men had a special hatred for the KJV and the TR, which is well documented in their correspondence with each other, and conspired (successfully) from the outset to replace it with a completely new translation derived from their own corrupted text.

The obvious significance of this is that it began the systematic undermining of the belief that God’s infallible word could actually be contained anywhere in writing (a belief they—like their predecessor, Origen—both adamantly held). The less obvious significance is that—since all new translations (which now number in the hundreds) claim to be derived from this text—they are, in effect, Roman Catholic Bibles. Is this not just one more tool in the multifaceted vacuum being employed to suck Protestants back into the Roman Catholic sheepfold?

Now that Satan had succeeded through his most able disciples, Westcott and Hort, in corrupting the Word of God, he could turn his attention to the final two phases of the “revival”: “Neo-Evangelicalism” and “Neo-Pentecostalism.” Along with the “new” Bibles these two movements, which paralleled each other in time, will be the final tools to bring the separated brethren (Protestants) back home to the mother church.

_________________________________________________

Footnotes:

* A form of Biblical analysis (aka “textual criticism”) begun by German Rationalist Johan Gottfried Eichhorn in the late 18th century, which bases the accuracy of its methodology on the assumption that the Hegelian concept of the “truth in synthesis,” and theory of evolution are facts. Where the King James translators considered the Biblical text alone—basing its accuracy on the quantity of manuscripts that are in agreement—the higher critics look beyond the mere texts to other literary works and history in their exegesis. Inspiration in the text is completely denied by higher critics. Because of all this, as one writer has well noted, new conclusions are being drawn with each new version—and thus substantial changes—despite the fact they are all supposedly being translated from the same Greek and Hebrew texts.

**B.F.Westcott (1825-1903) and F.J.A.Hort(1828-1892) were members of the Broad Church (or High Church) Party of the Church of England. They became friends during their student days at Cambridge University. They worked for over thirty years together on the subject of the Greek text of the New Testament. Westcott went on to become the Bishop of Durham (England) and served for a while as chaplain to Queen Victoria. Hort is best remembered as a Professor of Divinity at Cambridge.

_____________________________________________________

Neo-Evangelicalism: The World Wide Evangelical Explosion

Billy Graham’s Roman Catholic Connection

All one needs to do is say the word “Billy Graham” in a circle of Evangelicals, and he will command immediate attention from those around him. No name, save for that of Jesus Christ himself, is more revered among Protestant Evangelicals. In fact, no name in America is more revered than his. (How many times has he made list of the “Most Admired Persons in America?”)

This is probably so because no preacher in church history has ever reached more people with his message, worldwide, than Dr. Graham. Certainly, he has Finney and Moody, who laid the foundation for the modern revivalist movement, to thank for his success.^* In that foundation was provided three vital tools: the mass crusade, the altar call, and the mixed gospel message. The only ingredient remaining to be added was mass communication, which came with the advent of radio and television—especially the latter which came on the scene about the time Graham was immerging as an up-and-coming evangelist.

Underlying the massive success of Billy Graham’s worldwide ministry is what I believe to be the more significant outgrowth of it—something most evangelicals are either ignorant of or in denial of—the close ties he has developed over the years with the Roman Catholic Church. The following chronicle—only one of the dozens of witnesses—fully exposes Dr. Graham’s cozy relationship with Rome:

“In 1950 Dr. Robert Ketcham of the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches came across a newspaper article indicating that Graham expected Catholics and Jews to cooperate in a revival in Oregon and another which reported that Graham had turned over decision cards to Roman Catholic churches. Ketcham promptly sent a letter of inquiry to Billy himself. His letter brought him a strong rebuke from Graham’s executive secretary, Jerry Bevan. Part of Bevan’s reply was as follows:

‘For example, you asked if Billy Graham had invited Roman Catholics and Jews to cooperate in the evangelistic meetings. Such a thought, even if the reporter did suggest it as having come from Mr. Graham, seems ridiculous to me. Surely you must know that it is not true… Further that you should give any credence to the idea that Mr. Graham would ever turn over any decision cards to the Roman Catholic Church seems inconceivable.’

What Jerry Bevan termed ‘inconceivable’ in 1950 has become standard practice in every Graham crusade for the past dozen years or more. In September of 1979, The Christian Courier of Milwaukee, Wisconsin published the following report on the recent Milwaukee Crusade:

‘Sister Maureen Hopkins, Director of the Ecumenical and Interfaith Commission of the Milwaukee Roman Catholic Archdiocese, and a liaison member of the Crusade committee reported that 120 people have volunteered within the Catholic community to help her with the task of contacting each of the 3,500 inquiries. Sr. Maureen received the names and telephone numbers from the Crusade Committee, based upon the inquirer’s indication of leaving a Catholic background on his inquiry card… All 7,500 were immediately invited to a Eucharistic celebration which was held on August 16 at St. Theresa’s Church in Milwaukee. The mass was attended by more than 400 people. The primary purpose for the mass was to remind the inquirers that their commitments to Christ should be nurtured within the sacramental framework of the church.’

Christianity Today for September 7, 1979, pointed out that Graham had sent a team member almost a year before the Crusade to conduct a seminar on the working of the Crusade for Milwaukee priests and lay workers. It is a tragedy that 3500 decision cards were turned over to the Roman Catholic Church, but, it is a worse tragedy when you realize that it did not just ‘happen,’ It was planned by the world’s best-known evangelist.

Ten years later Billy Graham went to London for his Mission ’89 Crusade. Foundation Magazine for November-December 1989 carried the following quotation from Cardinal Basil Hume, written in April of 1989, two months before the Crusade:

‘We are, as the Catholic Church in this country, working as closely as we can with Billy Graham in his Mission ’89…The view I take is that I believe the grace of God is at work in the Mission and, if it helps people return to their own churches, then that is good’ (my emphasis)

Rev. Michael Seed, Ecumenical Advisor to Cardinal Hume, wrote further in recruiting Catholics to take part in the Billy Graham Group Leaders Training Courses:

‘The idea behind this is that those who come forward for counseling during a Mission evening in June, if they are Roman Catholic, will be directed to a Roman Catholic ‘nurture-group’ under Roman Catholic counselors(my emphasis) in their home area. If certain people present themselves for counseling at a Mission and have no church roots at all then they are asked ‘which church brought you’ and asked to contact that church…’

‘The Cardinal has already sent greeting to Dr. Graham and will be meeting Dr. Graham before the Mission. We know Dr. Graham to be a truly ecumenical evangelist’

Later on in July, 1989 the Rev. Seed wrote the following:

Dr. Graham called on Cardinal Hume the day before his Mission on June 13th and the Cardinal attended with myself, the Mission at Earls Court on Monday, June 26th…

‘Some 2100 Catholics ‘went forward’ at Missions evenings in London which was excellent – from nearly all our Parishes in Westminster… Billy Graham has helped our Church greatly and many have ‘renewed’ their faith under his great ministry.’

Evidence could be collected from newspapers reporting the Graham crusade converts and listing thousands of cards returned to Catholic churches. Let me give one more bit of clear evidence:

Billy Graham held his Capitol District Crusade, April 22-29 at the Knickerbocker Arena in Albany, New York. According to Foundation for January-February, 1990, the organ of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany, The Evangelist, for November 2, 1989, the following occurred:

‘About 20, 000 persons are busy making ready for Billy Graham’s 1990 Capitol District Crusade, including representatives from 18 Protestant denominations in the area and a delegation of top Catholic officials appointed by Bishop Howard J Hubbard.

The Graham Crusade, scheduled for April 22-29 at the Knickerbocker Arena in Albany, comes in response to a request made by Bishop Hubbard and other religious leaders, who three years ago, formally invited the world-renowned evangelist to preach here. There are nine Catholics on the SO-person executive committee set up to direct the Crusade… Diocesan officials view the Graham Crusade as ‘a tool for evangelization,’ explained an executive committee member, Rev. James Kane, director of the diocesan ecumenical commission…’

As for the specific dogmatic content of Mr. Graham’s sermons, Father Kane said, ‘there is nothing that Catholics should feel uncomfortable with or be leery of.’ He said the evangelist’s emphasis on the Gospel and on the importance of the individuals personal relationship with Christ is consistent with Catholic teaching. However, he added, ‘we would, of course, emphasize the importance of the Eucharist and the Mass, the sacraments, and the importance of the structure and organization of the Church and its bishops and the pope’. ^viii (my emphasis)

What Ecumenists had started shortly after the turn of the century, Billy Graham has turned into a field day for the Roman Catholic Church. They couldn’t have chosen a better recruiter/promoter. Most of the writers I have surveyed—including the one above—who are aware of Dr. Graham’s practice of sending Catholic converts back to where they came from, agonize over the fact that he is sending “babes” in Christ back to a heretical system that will surely undermine and destroy their newfound faith. I have never been to a Billy Graham Crusade, but I have watched a few on television, listened to quite a few more on the radio, and what I have heard is the same mixture of the gospel of Christ with the kingdom gospel, with “Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3),^* as the centerpiece of the message. Preaching Paul’s gospel—not mingling it with the kingdom gospel—would be contrary to Roman Catholic doctrine, and therefore offensive to Roman Catholics. The fact that Catholics are encouraged by the Roman Catholic hierarchy to participate in Graham’s crusades makes the preaching suspect.

I can’t comment about what is said to the participants at the “altar,” or what they are told to pray. Years ago I was a counselor at a John Guess^** crusade in San Antonio. We were told that Guess followed the Billy Graham formula to the letter, and if that is true then it’s hard to know what is said to altar call participants, because they’re all intercepted by individual counselors (some of whom are Catholics), i.e., there was no general “confession” made by the group collectively. If a participant hears what is known as the “four spiritual laws” routine—which incorporates the gospel of Christ—then I believe they can be saved. I pray that they are, and if they are—praise the Lord. But this does not excuse Billy Graham’s courting of the Roman Church, or the even worse behavior of sending Catholics who have accepted Christ back to the legalistic system they came from, placing them back under “beggarly elements.”^***

The Outgrowth Of Billy Graham’s Catholic Connection

Since Dr. Graham is the unquestioned modern leader of Protestant Neo-Evangelicalism, it would only be natural that other prominent evangelicals would follow his lead in joining hands with the Roman Church, and indeed they have. In March of 1994, a group of twenty leading Evangelicals and twenty leading Roman Catholics produced a document entitled Evangelicals and Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium (ECT).^t****The two main instigators of this carefully planned ecumenical thrust were Charles Colson (Prison Fellowship) and Richard John Neuhaus, a Lutheran pastor turned Roman Catholic priest. The specific task was begun in September 1992. Larry Lewis of the Home Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, Jesse Miranda of Assemblies of God, John White of the Geneva College and National Association of Evangelicals, et. al., and two Jesuits, Avery Dulles and Juan Diaz-Vilar, joined Colson and Neuhaus in the writing process. All of this was under the watchful eye of Cardinal Idris Cassidy, the Head of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, said by Richard Neuhaus to have given “very active support throughout the process.” The Evangelical signers, in addition to Colson, included J. I. Packer (Regent University), Bill Bright (Campus Crusade for Christ), Mark Noll (Wheaton College^*), Dr. Richard Lamb (Southern Baptist Convention), and Pat Robertson (CBN and the 700 Club). Roman Catholic signers included such well-known figures as Cardinal John O’Connor (now deceased), Archbishop Sevilla, Archbishop Stafford, and Bishop Francis George, now Archbishop of Chicago.

The outcome of this accord was that these evangelicals agreed not to proselytize Roman Catholics participating in any of the crusades they sponsored, rather to do exactly as Billy Graham had already been doing for years: send all Catholic alter call participants back to the Catholic church. Of equally important significance is the stated quest for “unity” at the expense of doctrine. Concerning the setting aside of truth, at the end of the opening paragraph, the following statement attempts to assuage the reader (emphasis is mine):

“Our common resolve is not based merely on a desire for harmony. We reject any appearance of harmony that is purchased at the price of truth. Our common resolve is made imperative by obedience to the truth of God revealed in the Word of God, the Holy Scriptures, and by trust in the promise of the Holy Spirit’s guidance until Our Lord returns in glory to judge the living and the dead.”^ix

At the end of the second section (“We Affirm Together”) and the beginning of the third (“We Search Together”) the following statement attempts to, again, persuade us that standing on and seeking “the truth” is the paramount concern of this agreement (emphasis is mine):

“We do know that God who has brought us into communion with himself through Christ intends that we also be in communion with one another. We do know that Christ is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14), and as we are drawn closer to him-walking in that way, obeying that truth, living that life-we are drawn closer to one another. Whatever may be the future form of the relationship between our communities, we can, we must, and we will begin now the work required to remedy what we know to be wrong in that relationship. Such work requires trust and understanding, and trust and understanding require an assiduous attention to truth. We do not deny but clearly assert that there are disagreements between us. Misunderstandings, misrepresentations, and caricatures of one another, however, are not disagreements. These distortions must be cleared away if we are to search through our honest differences in a manner consistent with what we affirm and hope together on the basis of God’s Word… “Together we search for a fuller and clearer understanding of God’s revelation in Christ and his will for his disciples. Because of the limitations of human reason and language, which limitations are compounded by sin, we cannot understand completely the transcendent reality of God and his ways. Only in the End Time will we see face to face and know as we are known. (1 Corinthians 13) We now search together in confident reliance upon God’s self-revelation in Jesus Christ, the sure testimony of Holy Scripture, and the promise of the Spirit to his church. In this search to understand the truth more fully and clearly, we need one another.” ^x

There are, no doubt, many statements, and quotations from Scripture in this document that are “the truth.” But there is one thing you will not find in it: the unfettered, unperverted “gospel of the grace of God.”⁺ What you find is typical of Catholic/ Evangelical preaching: “the gospel of the kingdom”⁺⁺ co-mingled with a smattering of verses from Paul’s epistles. Unless one “rightly divides”⁺⁺⁺ the doctrine of salvation preached by Paul (see the subtitle, “salvation by grace through faith”), from the doctrine of salvation preached by the 12 disciples (see the subtitle, “salvation by faith through grace”), there is no way he/she will ever arrive at the truth of what one must do to be saved in the present dispensation.

Moreover, the statement that claims this accord is founded “on the basis of God’s Word,” is vacuous when there is no identification concerning what or where the word of God exists (which I was unable to find in the document). What “Bible” are we talking about here? Are all versions (App. 400) of the Bible to be considered “the infallible” word of God? Is the Apocrypha^* part of it? Where are they going to “search together” for understanding?

Here’s one thing you can be certain of: their (these Catholic and Protestant prelates) search for “truth” will not include the King James Bible, nor will it acknowledge the “revelation of the mystery”++++ to be the “truth” for the world today. This is all the same old “smoke and mirrors” the Protestant and Catholic systems have been putting out for centuries. The only change that I can see in this is that, instead of leading their adherents astray separately, they’ll now be doing it together.

“…the mystery of iniquity doth already work….in the children of disobedience” (2 Thess. 2:7; Eph. 2:2)

____________________________________________________

Footnotes:

*This is true for all dispensations, but under grace, it is affected at the rapture, not during this life.
**John Guess was (is?) an American Episcopalian priest of British descent, turned evangelist.
***Gal 4:9: But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
****The entire text of this document may be accessed at: www.firstthings.com; Copies of it may be obtained from First Things, 156 Fifth Avenue, Suite 400, New York, New York 10010

+Acts 20:24

++Matt. 4:23

+++2 Tim 2:15

++++ Romans 16:25
________________________________________________

The Charismatic/Neo-Pentecostal Arm

“Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage…for we walk by faith, not by sight.”

Gal. 5:1; 2 Co. 5:7

The Roman Catholic Influence

While the push by Evangelicals to reunite Protestants with the Roman Catholic Church at the clerical level has gone on, another thrust has been moving forward to reunite them at the rank and file level: Neo-Pentecostalism/Charismatic renewal. When modern theologians make reference to Neo-Pentecostalism they are usually referring to the “Charismatic” arm of this religious movement, i.e., those who embrace the Pentecostal sign gifts as being extant (or—at least—available) in the contemporary church. I would give this a broader scope and include every system of belief that teaches the church, the body of Christ, officially began on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2. This would include such non-charismatic systems like the United Church of Christ, the Disciples of Christ, all the various Baptist groups, and the multitude of groups that have come out of both of these two systems.

It is reported that in 1970 Catholic Church growth leveled off for the first time in its American history.^xi In recent years, however, it has seen a growth spurt. The church had approximately 45 million U.S. members in 1965, and approximately 62 million in 1999.^xii No doubt the majority of this has come from the embracing, by the church hierarchy, of the Charismatic Renewal movement (1967) within the church. Here again we have the employment of adaptation that has gone on for centuries in the Roman church, insuring her dominance and proliferation: embracing and “Catholicizing” the “new” phenomenon, but never letting go of the basic tenets of Catholicism, i.e., the sacraments, Mary, Papal infallibility/authority, etc.

Neither has any of what has been going on in the last 30 years been lost on the Protestants. Beginning with people like Dennis Bennett, Protestants and Evangelicals have been jumping on board the Neo-Pentecostal/charismatic bandwagon in droves. Consequently, both groups have seen substantial growth in their numbers. There are no accurate statistics on the growth of independent charismatic congregations, but one only needs to take a drive through the suburbs and outskirts of any city in the country to see metal buildings popping up all over the place, with names on them like “Victory Outreach,” “Victory Temple,” “New Wine Fellowship,” “New Covenant Assembly,” “Revival Temple,” “Church of the Acts,” etc., to realize that the growth of the charismatic branch of Neo-Pentecostalism is probably far greater than what statistics are able to show. One survey estimated there are at least 500 million Christians in the world who consider themselves to be Charismatic.^{*
________________________________________________}

Footnotes:

^*This would mean these people have either had a charismatic “experience” (i.e., spoke in an “unknown” tongue, got “slain in the spirit,” had a “vision,” heard God speak to them in an audible voice, got exorcised of a demon, were divinely healed by the laying on of hands, etc.), or—because they have witnessed any of these phenomena—simply believe that it is ordained by God.

________________________________________________

Basic Neo-Pentecostal Beliefs

The foundational belief of all Neo-Pentecostal sects is that the church began in Acts Chapter 2 on the day of Pentecost with the conversion and baptism of the 3000 (Acts 2:41). All Neo-Pentecostals believe water baptism (by immersion) is effective and necessary either to get into the church or as a testimony to prove you’re in the church. Campbellites^* and United Pentecostals believe—as do Catholics—it is absolutely necessary for salvation, while Baptists and many of the independent Charismatics believe it is a “sign” or “witness” that one is a true believer. Most Neo-Pentecostals believe the body of Christ is Israel’s replacement, or “Spiritual Israel.” Exceptions to this rule would be those who believe that the body of Christ is a separate entity reserved for Gentiles alone, that all people born of Jewish lineage are the rightful heirs of the promise and the land, and will be saved by virtue of their birthright. All charismatic, Neo-Pentecostals believe the sign gifts manifested during the Acts transition are effectual in the church today. We will now look at the history of this movement in America, and see how it has progressed—in terms of apparitions–even beyond what is recorded in the Acts.

History And Doctrine

The First Wave

Non-charismatic Pentecostals believe the sign gifts ended with the Apostolic era, while charismatic Pentecostals believe they have been effectual from the get-go, but were suppressed for 18 centuries by the Catholic and Protestant Churches. The consensus among them is that the gifts experienced a re-birth in the United States around the beginning of the 19^th century with the Azusa Street (Los Angeles) revival of 1906-13.

“This so-called revival was actually begun in Alvin Texas, in 1905, when a black holiness** preacher named William J. Seymour—under the teaching of holiness preacher Charles Parham—got the ‘gift of tongues,’ then took the message to Azusa Street. From there the ‘new’ move of the Holy Spirit spread worldwide. Parham—who is credited as being the human originator of this movement—referred to it as the ‘Latter Rain’^*** revival, and taught that Christ’s return would occur on the heels of this revival, in which the Holy Spirit would restore miraculous gifts, generating a great end-times harvest.^xiii”

The Second Wave

This movement seemed to fizzle out in the 1920s but was revived in the 1940s-50s as the “Deliverance Movement” or “New Order of the Latter Rain,” with a new emphasis on divine healing. The new movement was lead by three men: William Branham, Oral Roberts, and Gordon Lindsey. Although Branham was primarily responsible for the foundational teachings of this new movement, it was evangelist Roberts who brought it into the homes of millions by employing the new medium of television. Doctrinally speaking, there were seven foundational teachings in this new revival:

1. 1. Restorationism; God’s move of progressive revelation to restore truth to the Church beginning with the Reformation.

   2. Fivefold Ministry; God’s move to restore Apostles and Prophets to the Church (Eph. 4:11) to provide new direction through revelation, and to pave the way for Christ’s second coming.

   3. Laying on of Hands; Ritual performed by only Apostles and Prophets to impart the Holy Spirit and the gifts thereof.

   4. Prophecy; That God is not restricting prophecy to merely exhortations from Scripture, but extending it to new revelations/visions concerning instruction and direction.

   5. Recovery of True Worship; God’s replacement of the old order of staid, traditional worship with an ebullient, joyful, raucous worship employing speaking/singing in tongues, hand waving/clapping, shouting, and dancing. Only in this type of worship will the power of the Holy Spirit be manifested.

   6. Immortalization of the Saints; The belief that those believers moving in the truth of the Latter Rain would achieve an immortal state before Jesus’ Return.

   7. Unity of the Faith. That the church will achieve unity of the Faith (obviously through this new restoration) before Christ’s return.^xiv

The Third Wave

Out of all this has come the claims of spiritual manifestations that are currently sweeping Charismatic congregations,^t**** e.g., speaking in unknown tongues, being “slain in the spirit” (the experience of having someone with the “anointing” lay hands on you and becoming so overwhelmed you pass out), personal visitations from Jesus himself, exorcisms of demonic spirits, etc. In addition to Oral Roberts, men like Benny Hinn, Robert Tilton, Kenneth Hagin and Kenneth Copeland (most of whom are disciples of Roberts) have been the mainstays of this movement, which in recent years has started to give way to what is now called “The Third Wave.” This new move of the “spirit” is said to have begun at the Toronto Airport Christian Fellowship—an affiliate congregation with John Wimber’s Vineyard movement—in January of 1994 where the pastor, John Arnott, claims to have received the anointing from Randy Clark who had, in turn, received it from a South African preacher named Rodney Howard Browne, aka, “God’s Bartender.” (The primary “new” manifestation in this movement has been tagged “holy laughter” viz., uncontrollable, hysterical laughter said to be brought on by the Holy Spirit.) Here is a description of what happened there:

“On the 12^th of January 1994 in Canada, members of the Toronto Airport Christian Fellowship were ‘zapped by the Spirit.’ People fell to the floor, some shaking uncontrollably, others roaring (with laughter), barking like dogs, cackling like hens….The members of the Toronto Airport Christian Fellowship believed that through them the Spirit had initiated…a renewal that is preparing the way for the final worldwide revival leading up to the return of Christ.”^xv

If anyone reading this believes that this phenomenon is just another insignificant, crazy, flash-in-the-pan religious movement involving a few fanatics, think again. The following facts show its influence to be pervasive and far-reaching:

“Tens of thousands of visitors from all over the world, including a large portion of Pastors and church leaders of all denominations, have now traveled to Toronto (since 1994) to receive the Anointing and take it back to their home churches, where they distribute it (by the laying on of hands) to all they can. The Anointing is spreading through the church like a virus out of control. I recently read of a principal of a Christian school who visited Pensacola, brought the Anointing back, and was holding special assemblies to impart it to as many students as could be coerced into receiving it. Every single person who receives the Toronto Blessing can trace it back to Rodney Howard-Browne and Kenneth Hagin’s “Rhema” (Word of Faith) church….Better known as the “health, wealth, and prosperity” gospel. The formula for this teaching is: Our Words + Our Faith =Results.”^xvi

Is there any Scriptural basis for these claims? Non-Charismatic, Neo-Pentecostals and Neo-Evangelicals say no, of course, but their Charismatic counterparts will quickly raise up as proof of their Scriptural basis passages in the Old Testament like Isaiah 28:11; 33:19 and Joel 2:28,29, and in the New Testament, Mark 16:16-18; John 14:12; the entire book of Acts; and 1 Corinthians 12 & 14. It is certainly true that all these passages prove someone in Scripture is (or will be) manifesting these signs and spiritual powers, but as true Bereans we should ask: who and to what purpose? Let’s examine the seven foundational teachings of the “latter rain” revival against Scripture, rightly divided.

1. Restorationism: As we have already shown (see section on Protestantism) the Protestant Reformation made no fundamental changes in the basic doctrines of Roman Catholicism, with the exception of restoring the belief that the church had the finished revelation of God in the Bible, and that it alone was the final authority in faith and practice. This, of course, has been dismantled with the embracing of the multitude of “new” Bible versions, emanating from “new” information. The Apostle Paul said, in 1 Corinthians 15:8,⁺ that he was the last to see Jesus Christ, and in Colossians 1:25, that it was given to him by the Lord from heaven—through the revelation of the mystery—to complete the word of God.⁺⁺ If this is true—if indeed we have that finished revelation in a King James Bible—then why would there be any need for further revelation? The answer is: there isn’t. If God were revealing anything new through men today he would be guilty of duplicity.

2. Fivefold Ministry: The apostolic/prophetic era ended with the finished revelation of God to the church the body of Christ, through the Apostle Paul. There is no need for any “new” truth or revelation. Any man who preaches or teaches the word of God, rightly divided, is a prophet in the sense that he is simply expositing the “more sure word of prophecy” (2 Peter 19) of written Scripture.

3. Laying on of Hands: The Apostle Paul told the Apostle Timothy, “Lay hands suddenly on no man.”(1 Tim. 5:22). This verse is often cited as precedence for the ministry of laying on of hands from everything to receiving the “anointing” to “being slain in the spirit” to being “divinely healed.” This practice was, again, very much a part of the Apostolic program, but ended with it.⁺⁺What remains is the “more excellent way” (1 Co. 12:31), viz.: “faith (in the finished work of Christ, as revealed in his finished revelation), “hope” (“the hope of glory…at his appearing” – Titus 2:13), and “charity..” (the “love of Christ, which passeth knowledge..” – Eph. 3:19)

4. Prophecy: See 1, 2, and 3 above.

.

5. Recovery of True Worship: The Greek word for “worship” is, “proskuneo,” which means “to fawn or crouch to, i.e. (literally or figuratively) prostrate oneself in homage (do reverence to, adore).” What I have personally witnessed in Charismatic congregations appears to be just the opposite of this. The word is only referred to three times in Paul’s epistles and one of them is bad. In Col 2:23⁺⁺⁺ the word worship means “unwarranted sanctimony” (the appearance of holiness), and “voluntary humility.”^t Charismatics are correct in criticizing the “staid” ceremonialism of traditional religious services—there is no call for it—but the fact is, neither is what they call worship. Both are what Paul referred to as “a fair show in the flesh” (Gal. 6:12), and attempt to pass off what is obviously an emotional appeal for a truly spiritual one.

6. Immortalization of the Saints: The word “immortality” is, “the quality of never ceasing to live or exist; exemption from death and annihilation; life destined to endure without end”; ^tt 1 Timothy 6:16 says that only Jesus Christ “hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see…” I am in full agreement with the idea that those of us who are saved into the body of Christ, spiritually speaking, are “quickened…together with Christ,” and already seated in heavenly places “in Christ” (Eph. 2:5,6) and in that spiritual sense, have immortality. But I know Neo-Pentecostals, in this statement, have extended this outside its obvious Scriptural boundary to “the here and now,” i.e., they are claiming a transcendent state of being can be attained in these mortal flesh and blood bodies by “moving” in the so-called “truth of the latter rain.” What is the “truth of the latter rain?” The “latter rain” is referred to seven times in the Bible, six in the Old Testament and once in the new (James 5:7). All seven references are to Israel in the New Covenant. It has been shown heretofore that we are in the dispensation of grace, not the New Covenant, and that we are the body of Christ, not New Testament Israel! Therefore no one could possibly be “moving” in this truth presently.

7. Unity of the Faith: That the church will achieve unity of the Faith (obviously through this new restoration) before Christ’s return. I am in total agreement with this in the sense that these so-called “manifestations of the spirit” will be the catalyst that brings Protestants back into the Catholic fold. But this will be at the expense of sound doctrine, and therefore at the expense of true faith.

There is no doubt that manifestations of an apparent spiritual nature go on in Neo-Pentecostal circles. The question is: what “spirit” is it that’s manifesting itself? Can the claims that these things are the work of God, “The Holy Spirit,” be substantiated by Scripture? The manifestations of the Holy Ghost (Spirit) in the Acts transition (from which Neo-Pentecostals draw the bulk of their Scriptural proof) were necessary for two reasons: 1) Israel was still in the forefront of the program, and “the Jew requires a sign” (1 Co. 1:22), and 2) God had not finished revealing the mystery through Paul.

Since Israel has been cast away as God’s chosen nation (Rom. 11:7-15; Hosea 1:9),ttt and, according to Colossians 1:25, we have God’s finished, written revelation, in which the mystery has been made fully known, there is, therefore, no valid Scriptural basis for any of this. There is no doubt a “power” being manifested in all of it, but it isn’t the “power of God” displayed in the words of “the gospel of Christ.” (Rom. 1:16) Indeed it cannot be because God is now manifesting Himself through the words of the Book, and “faith come by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10:17), not through seeing or experiencing a “sign.” (2 Cor. 5:7)

What, then, is the significance of these things? For whatever it’s worth, this is what I believe its purpose is: Because Catholicism and Protestantism are built on the same Scriptural foundation (the Kingdom Gospel) as this movement, neither of them can answer it scripturally, thus they must, eventually, embrace it.

Whether one believes the church began in Matthew with the baptizing of John the Baptist (chapter 3), with the naming and sending of the 12 (chapter 10), with the giving of the keys of the kingdom to Peter (chapter 16), or in Acts 2 with the beginning of the twelve’s ministry, really matters not, because this is all the same gospel. Whether one draws their doctrine from the four gospel accounts, the first part of the book of Acts, or the Hebrew Epistles matters not, because these parts of Scripture are written to, for and about New Testament Israel, and include the baptism of the Holy Ghost, signs and wonders, the “new birth,” and the “anointing.” Upon this common ground of experience, the rank and file of Catholicism and Protestantism will be enabled to come together into one unified assembly. Unfortunately (for those who become a part of this) it will not be an assembly ordained by God.

“For the mystery of iniquity doth already work….Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish…” 2 Thess. 2:7,9,10
________________________________________________

Footnotes:

*Taken from the founder of the Church of Christ, Alexander Campbell.

**Holiness churches were branches of the Methodist Denomination.

***Found in Old Testament Prophecies, e.g., Deut. 11:14; Job 29:43; Jer. 5:24; Hos. 6:3; Joel 2:23 and Zech. 10:1; and refers to the institution of the New Covenant with “true” Israel (Jer. 31:31; Heb. 8:8); the “times of refreshing,” or “restitution of all things,” (Acts 3:19-21).

****And overtaking many non-charismatic Neo-Pentecostal assemblies, as well—particularly Baptists.
+And last of all he (Christ) was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

++Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God.

+++Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh

Conclusion

If the point has not already been made concerning Protestantism and all the derivatives which have come forth from it over the last 400 years, here it is: It is moving inexorably back to its Roman Catholic roots, because it remained fundamentally Roman Catholic in its doctrine, failing from the beginning to recognize the distinct nature of the Pauline revelation of the “mystery” (Romans 16:25; Eph. 3:2; Col. 1:26,27). As a result, Protestants in the early 21^st century are now set up to be taken in by the Roman Catholic system.^* Where Luther and Calvin at least saw the unscriptural and dictatorial nature of Papal authority and rejected it, modern Protestant Evangelicals are apparently willing now to overlook this, and the many other patently unscriptural things Rome professes and does, in the interest of “Christian” unity. This is made manifest in the formation of Ecumenical organizations like the World Council of Churches, the United Missionary Counsel, the Roman Catholic Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, et. al., and by the numerous accords and agreements struck between the two in the latter part of the twentieth century. ^tt

Certainly, this movement, on its face, is based on the spirit of 1 Corinthians 1:10… “that there be no divisions among you; that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment…,” but it will never be in accord with the way in which God, through the Apostle Paul, ordained it to happen: through the adherence to “sound doctrine” committed to Paul’s trust (1 Timothy 1:10,11). It will, furthermore, never be on any other terms than Rome’s. Consider that while the “historic” accord, “Evangelicals and Catholics Together,” was being formulated, Pope John Paul II was publishing his book, “On The Threshold of Hope,” in which he reestablishes, in no uncertain terms, what had already been well established in Vatican Council II: the absolute authority of the Vatican, Papal infallibility, the Roman Church as “the” visible Christian presence on the earth, and that it alone is the possessor of “the Keys” to the kingdom and the door through which all must pass through to access God. Any “unity” that is achieved will be on Rome’s terms, and –as we have clearly shown before—it will be based on anything but sound doctrine.

I speak now to all believers here who are presently joined to either the Roman or Protestant Churches (or, for that matter, any other religious organization); to all who have committed your trust to the Lord Jesus Christ (Eph. 1:12,13) and His atoning work on the Cross for salvation; that you are: “the called according to his purpose (Romans 8:28), “…created in Christ Jesus unto good works which God hath before ordained that ye should walk in them” (Eph. 2:10); that you, “come out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord” (2 Co. 6:17). Although affiliation with a religious institution cannot affect your standing with God (because—if you are saved—he has placed his seal on you, “which is the earnest of our inheritance–Eph. 1:13,14) if you choose to remain in an unholy alliance with one of these ungodly organizations, the purpose he has called you to and the works he has ordained you to walk in** will never be realized in your life. You will never “come unto the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4), or become established in it *** because the spirit that pervades religious institutions will never allow the truth to be fully revealed to you. If that ever happened—laying hold of the truth about religion—you would realize you don’t need them or their religion anymore!

If you have read this book the truth has been made known to you, and the question now is: will you act on it? You might say, “But I have been in this religion for most of my life. Surely God doesn’t expect me to just fold up my tent and pull out of it, does He? Shouldn’t I stay here as a witness to the truth?” Consider the way in which the Lord called his apostles out of Israel’s apostate religion, and their response to his call. When he called Peter and Andrew in Matthew 4:19, how did they respond? “And they straightway left their nets and followed him” (vs. 20). And Paul’s (as Saul, the religious Pharisee) response in Acts 9, where he was confronted by the Lord on the road to Damascus: “Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? “But where will I go, and how will I explain all this to my family and Christian friends?” Notice in Acts 9, that once Saul submitted himself to the Lord’s authority, the Lord instructed him as to what he should do next. His instructions were, of necessity, by direct revelation. He was faithful to write that revelation down in his 13 epistles, Romans through Philemon. If you have a King James Bible those 13 epistles are in it. You have all God’s instructions to you for the obedience of faith right there in those 13 letters. In one of those letters, Philippians, you are instructed in chapter 4, vs. 6, to “be careful for nothing, but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God.” One of those prayer requests should be to lead you into fellowship with other members of Christ’s body who are of a like mind with you, and to teaching which is in accord with the truth, rightly divided.****

______________________________________________________

Footnotes:

*In order not to undermine her sovereign authority, the Roman Church has created a “new” vehicle in which to include the “separated” brethren: the “church of Mary.” (Where is this in scripture?)