-F-

FABLE. In the O.T., "fable" refers to a fictitious story (Ju. 9:7-15; 2 Ki. 14:9). In the N.T., "fable" refers to false teachings (1 Ti. 1:4; 4:7; 2 Ti. 4:4; Tit. 1:14; 2 Pe. 1:16). There are many fables which have been taught as doctrine through the centuries. Roman Catholicism is full of fables: Mary as the Queen of Heaven, the Papacy, the Roman Catholic Priesthood, Purgatory, the Mass. The cults teach many fables: Joseph Smith and his golden plates, Mary Baker Eddy and her mind- science doctrines, Ellen G. White and the doctrine of Investigative Judgment. Modernism is also full of fables--man and the Bible evolved, Jesus Christ was not virgin born, there were three or more Isaiahs, the Pentateuch was written late in Israel's history, the Gospels were not written during the lives of the Apostles. There are many fables commonly believed in the area of Bible versions. For example, the Westcott-Hort theories are fables. In fact, practically the entire field of modern textual criticism is a fable. All of these are wicked and dangerous fables. [See Adam, Apostasy, Apostate, Bible, Bible Verisons, Christian Science, Church, Doctrine, Ecumenical Movement, False Teaching, Foolish Questions, Fundamentalism, Heresy, Inspiration, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jonah, Mormon, Prophecy, Revelation, Roman Catholic Church, Separation, Seventh- day Adventism, Timothy, Unity, Westcott-Hort.]

FEAR OF GOD. That fear, reverence, awe, and esteem for God's holiness and power, which results in obedience and service and carefulness (Ge. 20:11; De. 6:2,13,24; Pr. 1:7; 8:13; Ps. 33:8; 34:9; 36:1; Ac. 10:2; 13:26; Ro. 3:18; 2 Co. 7:1; Col. 3:22; 1 Pe. 1:17; 2:17; Re. 14:7). To fear God is to glorify and worship Him as the eternal creator (Re. 14:7). The fear of the Lord (1) is the beginning of knowledge (Pr. 1:7); (2) is to hate evil (Pr. 8:13); (3) prolongeth days (Pr. 10:27); is strong confidence (Pr. 14:26); is a fountain of life (Pr. 14:27); is riches and honor and life (Pr. 22:4). The root problem with the wicked is that they do not fear God (Ps. 36:1; Ro. 3:18). Some deny that actual fear is intended by this term, but there is a genuine fear that man must have for God (Ex. 20:18-21; De. 2:25; 1 Sa. 11:6-7; 2 Ch. 17:10; 20:29; Is. 2:10,19,21; Jon. 1:16; Mt. 10:28; Lk. 12:5; 2 Co. 5:11; Ph. 2:12; He. 12:26-29; Jude 3). God is kind, loving, and merciful, but He is also fearfully holy, being described as a consuming fire. Godly fear is a proper and wise motivation for salvation and for Christian service.

FOOLISH QUESTIONS. The Bible warns about "foolish questions" (2 Ti. 2:23; Tit. 3:9). The Bible also says proper questions should be patiently answered from the Word of God (2 Ti. 2:24-26). How can we know if a question is foolish? Following are some characteristics of the foolish question: (1) A foolish question is a question which produces strife and contention. 2 Ti. 2:23 says foolish questions "gender strifes." Tit. 3:9 connects foolish questions with "contentions and strivings." When someone is not sincere but only wants to argue against the Word of God and to stir up strife and debate, the Christian is not to enter into such discussions. (2) A foolish question is a question which seeks to corrupt the Gospel. The Bible further defines foolish questions with "strivings about the law" (Tit. 3:9). The law was given to lead men to the grace of Jesus Christ (Ro. 3:19-25; Ga. 3:1-14). It was not given to be a rule of life for the Christian; it was not given so that the Christian could obey it and thereby perfect his salvation. When men corrupt the gospel and seek to bring converts back under the bondage of the law in any form, they should not be allowed to teach their doctrine or to ask their foolish questions (1 Ti. 1:3-11). (3) A foolish question is a question which is connected with heresy (Tit. 3:9-11). In Titus 3 the foolish questions are mentioned in connection with the heretic. This is someone who is self-willed and who rejects sound doctrine in favor of his own perversions of the truth. He is not content with the plain teaching of Scripture. Questions which arise from such a context are not sincere, but are asked in an attempt to produce questions and doubt in the mind of the hearers. Such questions should not be entertained. A foolish question is one which is used in an attempt to to overthrow plain Bible teaching, such as questions about the Trinity, or Resurrection, or Inspiration, or Hell. It is good to ask questions, but it is evil to entertain questions which deny Bible truth. If the Bible says Jesus is God, who are we to ask how it was possible for this to be? If the Bible says unbelievers will suffer conscious eternal torment in fire, which it does, we must not worry about how that could be possible, or whether or not that this could be a just punishment. If the Bible claims to be the perfect Word of God, who are we to question how that could be possible? God's part is to Proclaim Truth; man's part is to believe his Creator. Our questions must be controlled by the Bible, not the Bible by our questions. [See Apostasy, Bible, Doctrine, Fable, False Prophet, False Teaching, Heresy, Inspiration, Separation, Timothy.]

FORNICATION. The incontinence or lewdness of unmarried persons, male or female; also, the criminal conversation of a married man with an unmarried woman; adultery; incest; a forsaking of the true God and worshipping of idols (Webster). The Bible uses this term as a general description for immorality (Mt. 5:32; 15:19; 19:9; Ac. 15:20,29; 21:15; Ro. 1:29; 1 Co. 5:1; 6:18; 7:2; 2 Co. 12:21; Ga. 5:19; Ep. 5:3; Co. 3:5; 1 Th. 4:3; Re. 9:21). Like adultery, fornication is also used in a spiritual sense to describe turning from God to serve false gods (Eze. 16:29-34; Re. 2:21; 14:8; 17:2,4; 18:3; 19:2). The Greek word translated fornication is porneia, from which the English word "pornographic" is derived. [See Adultery, Concupiscence, Divorce, Idolatry, Lascivious, Lust, Modesty, Nakedness, Sodomy.]

FUNDAMENTALISM. The term "Fundamentalism" has come to mean any number of things and is commonly used in a derogatory and slanderous way by those who do not believe the Scriptures. It is used to describe all sorts of extremism--terrorist Muslims, snake-handlers, the demonically-possessed Jim Jones who caused the mass suicide of his followers, the racist Ayrian Nations.

In a historical Christian context, Fundamentalism arose out of the doctrinal controversies which embroiled American churches at the turn of the century when modernism began to take root in seminaries and Bible colleges and in leadership positions in the denominations. According to historian D.O. Beale, "The editor of the Baptist periodical Watchman-Examiner coined the term Fundamentalist in 1920 to describe a group of concerned Baptists who had just met at the Delaware Avenue Baptist Church in Buffalo, New York, to discuss the problem of Modernism in the Northern Baptist Convention" (Beale, S.B.C. House on the Sand?, p. 195).

Though Fundamentalism is a North American church phenomena, it arose because of theological problems which originated in Europe.

MODERNISM

Modernism (or Liberalism) had its origin in Europe, particularly in Germany, in the 19th century and was merely the rationalistic thinking of that time applied to Christianity. It was the dawn of the "scientific era"; many men felt they were on the verge of discovering the secrets of the universe and solving the problems of mankind. Anti-Christian thinkers such as Darwin, Hegel, and Marx led the movement to dethrone God and place Man in His place. Unregenerate "Christian" professors in European Bible seminaries had already rejected the Word of God, so they gladly accepted the humanistic thinking of the day and set out to apply evolutionary philosophies to the Bible and Christianity. The result was tragic: The Bible was considered simply another human book, inspired only in the sense that Shakespeare's writings were "inspired." Jesus Christ was considered a mere man--good and influential--but a mere man nonetheless.

Modernists taught that the Bible did not come to us by direct revelation from God through the Holy Spirit's ministry to holy men of old, but came, rather, as a purely human evolutionary process. Supposedly, as men's ideas about God became more sophisticated, the writers of the Bible drew an increasingly more sophisticated picture of God, until we come to the supposed higher theological ideas of the New Testament. Modernists do not believe the Bible's historical accounts are accurate and do not believe the miracles actually happened. They do not believe there actually was an Adam and an Eve, a Garden of Eden, a worldwide Flood, nor do they believe the miracles recorded in Exodus and other parts of the O.T. happened as recorded, but believe these are religious myths much like the Hindu stories. According to Modernism, the first five books of the Bible were not written by the historical Moses as He received it as Revelation from the hand of God, but were not assembled together in their present state until the time of Israel's kings. Many Modernists do not believe in that Christ was virgin-born, nor that He is truly God, nor that He actually rose from the dead, etc. They do not believe that the Gospel accounts of His life are factual, and they assume that we do not have an accurate idea of what Jesus Christ was truly like.

A key platform of Modernism is the historical-critical approach to Bible interpretation. According to this theory, the Pentateuch did not come from the hand of God through the prophet Moses, but evolved gradually over the centuries.

An example of Modernism is found in the writings of the men who translated the Revised Standard Version of 1951. This corrupted version was produced by apostates. Consider a few excerpts from their books:

"Revelation has sometimes been understood to consist in a holy book. ... Even on Christian soil it has sometimes been held that the books of the Bible were practically dictated to the writers through the Holy Spirit. ... I DO NOT THINK THAT THIS IS THE DISTINCTIVELY CHRISTIAN POSITION. If God once wrote His revelation in an inerrant book, He certainly failed to provide any means by which this could be passed on without contamination through human fallibility. ... The true Christian position is the Bible CONTAINS the record of revelation" (Clarence T. Craig, The Beginning of Christianity).

"The mere fact that a tomb was found empty was CAPABLE OF MANY EXPLANATIONS. THE VERY LAST ONE THAT WOULD BE CREDIBLE TO A MODERN MAN WOULD BE THE EXPLANATION OF A PHYSICAL RESURRECTION OF THE BODY" (Ibid., Craig).

"The dates and figures found in the first five books of the Bible turn out to be altogether unreliable" (Julius Brewer, The Literature of the Old Testament).

"The writers of the New Testament made mistakes in interpreting some of the Old Testament prophecies" (James Moffatt, The Approach to the New Testament).

"One cannot of course place John on the same level with the synoptic Gospels [Matthew, Mark, Luke] as A HISTORICAL SOURCE" (William Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity).

"He [Jesus Christ] was given to overstatements, in his case, not a personal idiosyncrasy, but a characteristic of the oriental world" (Henry F. Cadbury, Jesus, What Manner of Man?).

"As to the miraculous, one can hardly doubt that time and tradition would heighten this element in the story of Jesus" (Ibid., Cadbury).

"A psychology of God, IF that is what Jesus was, is not available" (Ibid., Cadbury).

"According to the ENTHUSIASTIC TRADITIONS which had come down through the FOLKLORE of the people of Israel, Methuselah lived 969 years" (Walter Russell Bowie, Great Men of the Bible).

"The story of Abraham comes down from ancient times; and how much of it is fact and how much of it is LEGEND, no one can positively tell" (Ibid., Bowie).

"WE DO NOT PRESS THAT GOSPEL [JOHN] FOR TOO GREAT VERBAL ACCURACY IN ITS RECORD OF THE SAYINGS OF JESUS" (Willard L. Sperry, Rebuilding Our World).

"This phrase [`Thus saith the Lord'] is an almost unfailing mark of SPURIOUSNESS" (William A. Irwin, The Problem of Ezekiel).

"Only bigotry could bring us to deny an EQUAL VALIDITY WITH THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL in the religious vision of men such as Zoraster or Ikhnaton or, on a lower level, the unnamed thinkers of ancient Babylonia" (Ibid., Irwin).

"The narrative of calling down fire from heaven upon the soldiers sent to arrest him is PLAINLY LEGENDARY" (Fleming James, The Beginnings of Our Religion).

"What REALLY happened at the Red Sea WE CAN NO LONGER KNOW" (Ibid., James).

"We cannot take the Bible as a whole and in every part as stating with divine authority what we must believe and do" (Millar Burrows, Outline of Biblical Theology).

A more recent illustration of Modernism comes from the pen of John Shelby Spong, a bishop in the Episcopal Church in America:

"Am I suggesting that these stories of the virgin birth are not literally true? The answer is a simple and direct `Yes.' Of course these narratives are not literally true. Stars do not wander, angels do not sing, virgins do not give birth, magi do not travel to a distant land to present gifts to a baby, and shepherds do not go in search of a newborn savior. ... To talk of a Father God who has a divine-human son by a virgin woman is a mythology that our generation would never have created, and obviously, could not use. To speak of a Father God so enraged by human evil that he requires propitiation for our sins that we cannot pay and thus demands the death of the divine-human son as a guilt offering is a ludicrous idea to our century. The sacrificial concept that focuses on the saving blood of Jesus that somehow washes me clean, so popular in Evangelical and Fundamentalist circles, is by and large repugnant to us today" (John Spong, Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism: A Bishop Rethinks the Meaning of Scripture, Harper, 1991, pp. 215,234).

It is shocking to see how these supposed Christian scholars deny the Holy Scriptures. Modernism flies under many flags, and not all Modernists are as bold and plain speaking as Bishop Spong, but all deny the perfect inspiration of Holy Scripture and question the miraculous.

It is important to remember that all of this was prophesied by the Holy Spirit. The Lord's Apostles warned that many unregenerate false teachers would creep into the churches and would deceive many, and in fact, such false teachers were already active during the times of the Apostles. See Ma. 7:15-23; 24:5,24; Ac. 20:28-30; Ro. 16:17-28; 2 Co. 11:1-20; Ga. 2:4; Ph. 3:1,2; 3:18-19; Co. 2:4-8; 1 Ti. 1:19-20; 4:1-3; 6:20-21; 2 Ti. 2:14- 21; 3:1-13; 4:1-4; Tit. 1:10-16; 3:9-11; 2 Pe. 2:1-22: 3:1- 18; 1 Jo. 2:18- 19; 4:1-6; 2 Jo. 7-11; Ju. 3-19; Re. 2:2,6, Re. 2:14-15; Re. 2:20-23; Re. 3:15-17; Re. 17.

Modernism quickly increased in popularity, especially from the middle to the end of the 19th century, and by the early 1900s had became the predominant theology among Christian leaders in Germany and most other parts of Europe and had been introduced to American denominations through men who studied in prestigious (though apostate) European seminaries and through European professors who visited American schools and churches.

Though there were some who resisted Modernism in Europe, it more easily spread there than in America because of the fact that the majority of Christianity in Europe was already apostate when Modernism arose. Apart from Roman Catholicism, Protestant state churches were the predominant forms of Christianity in Europe, and since most of these groups taught infant baptism and were very ritualistic, they had become filled with unregenerate members and spiritual death long before the end of the 19th century. They had no power to resist Modernism, and the comparatively few independent churches in Europe were not influential enough to cause much of an uproar against the Modernistic teaching.

FUNDAMENTALISM

The situation was different in America. There were no state-controlled and affiliated denominations in the U.S., and America had been blessed with some powerful revival movements in the 1800s and the early 1900s.

Christianity in the U.S. was therefore much livelier than in Europe. As Modernism began gaining adherents in U.S. denominations, Christian leaders who were saved and who believed the Bible began to take a stand against it. The battle that followed was called The Fundamentalist/Modernist controversy.

The name "Fundamentalist" was popularized by a series of books which were written by Bible-believing men for the purpose of expounding the Fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith, of the Bible. Published over a five-year period from 1910-1915, the series, titled The Fundamentals, was composed of 90 articles written by 64 authors. With the financial backing of a wealthy Christian businessman, hundreds of thousands of copies of The Fundamentals were distributed to Christian workers in the United States and 21 foreign countries. The articles defended the perfect inspiration of the Bible, justification by faith, the new birth, the deity, virgin birth, miracles, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and other Bible truths. They dealt not only with the heresy of Modernism, but of Romanism, Socialism, and the Cults.

Some have attempted define Fundamentalism as is only a concern for "the five fundamentals of the faith." G. Archer Weniger shows the fallacy of this view:

"The five fundamentals have only to do with the Presbyterian aspect of the struggle with modernism. ... The bulk of Fundamentalism, especially the Baptists of every stripe who composed the majority by far, never accepted the five fundamentals alone. The World's Christian Fundamentals Association, founded in 1919, had at least a dozen main doctrines highlighted. The same was true of the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship, which originated in 1920. A true Fundamentalist would under no circumstances restrict his doctrinal position to five fundamentals. Even Dr. Carl F.H. Henry, a New Evangelical theologian, listed at least several dozen doctrines essential to the Faith. The only advantage of reducing the Faith down to five is to make possible a wider inclusion of religionists, who might be way off in heresy on other specific doctrines. It is much easier to have large numbers of adherents with the lowest common denominator in doctrine" (G. Archer Weniger, quoted in Calvary Contender, Apr. 15, 1994).

An accurate definition of Fundamentalism was given by the World Congresses of Fundamentalists:

A Fundamentalist is a born-again believer in the Lord Jesus Christ who--

1. Maintains an immovable allegiance to the inerrant, infallible, and verbally inspired Bible.

2. Believes that whatever the Bible says is so.

3. Judges all things by the Bible and is judged only by the Bible.

4. Affirms the foundational truths of the historic Christian Faith: The doctrine of the Trinity; the incarnation, virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, bodily resurrection and glorious ascension, and Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ; the new birth through regeneration by the Holy Spirit; the resurrection of the saints to life eternal; the resurrection of the ungodly to final judgment and eternal death; the fellowship of the saints, who are the body of Christ.

5. Practices fidelity to that Faith and endeavors to preach it to every creature.

6. Exposes and separates from all ecclesiastical denial of that Faith, compromise with error, and apostasy from the Truth.

7. Earnestly contends for the Faith once delivered.

Many varying definitions of Fundamentalism have been given through the years, and the truth of the matter is that Fundamentalism has taken a great variety of forms. As a movement it has been largely interdenominational, yet many independent, separatist churches, such as independent Baptists and independent Bible churches, have accepted the label. Regardless of this variety, though, one of the chief hallmarks of Fundamentalism--its very essence, if you will--has always been a MILITANCY for the Faith of the Word of God. Anyone who is not truly militant in standing for the Truth has no title to biblical Fundamentalism.

The battle grew hotter as the years passed and as Modernistic thinking increased in popularity in American denominations, theological schools, and Christian organizations. Many Bible-believers, realizing that liberalism, having become rooted, could not be effectively resisted (1 Cor. 5:6; Gal. 5:9), separated themselves from those groups which were giving Modernism a home. They formed new churches, denominations, and organizations.

EVANGELICALISM

Evangelicalism of the 1990s is a different creature from that of the 1940s and earlier. Fifty years ago the term �evangelical� was a word which referred to firm, Bible-believing Christianity. Though the term �evangelical,� like fundamentalism, has never had an established definition and always incorporated a wide latitude of belief, as a rule it traditionally described Protestants who believed the Bible without reservation, who preached the new birth, and who were stridently opposed to Rome. Generally speaking (and certainly in contrast to the mushy Evangelicalism of today), the Evangelicals of North America a generation ago were militant soldiers for Christ.

Some trace the term �evangelical� to the English revivals of the Wesleys and Whitefield. Others trace it to the earliest days of the Protestant Reformation. In either case, Evangelicalism of old was dogmatic and militant. It was old-fashioned Protestanism. Luther was excommunicated by the Pope; John Wesley was barred from Anglican churches. All of the Protestant denominations once identified Rome as the Revelation 17 whore of Babylon. Anyone familiar with the old Lutheran and Methodist creeds knows this. Though we Baptists don�t see eye to eye with them on many important points, those men stood militantly for what they believed to be the truth. Not only did old-line Evangelicals define what they believed the Bible taught, they defined it in contradiction to error. They were militant for the truth as they saw it. This is exactly what the New Evangelical is not.

Consider examples of this from the old Methodist Articles of Religion:

�Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread and wine in the Supper of our Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of the ordinance, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. ... The Lord�s Supper was not by Christ�s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshiped.�

�...the sacrifice of Masses in the which it is commonly said that the priest doth offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, is a blasphemous fable, and dangerous deceit.�

David Otis Fuller, speaking of Evangelical soldiers of bygone days, said,

�Each man possessed the same fierce conviction�that all truth is absolute, never relative. For these men, truth was never a nose of wax to be twisted to suit their system of dialectics or deceptive casuistry. Two times two made four. In mathematics, their supreme authority was the multiplication table; in theology, their absolute authority was the Bible� (D.O. Fuller, Preface, Valiant for the Truth, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1961, pp. ix,x).

An example is the late evangelist James Stewart. He was used in a mighty way in revivals in Eastern Europe before the fall of the Iron Curtain, and his published sermons were characterized by uncompromising declaration of Bible truth. Not only did he preach the gospel and the positive truths of the Word of God, but he preached against error and compromise. In sermons such as �Potpourri Evangelism,� Stewart witnessed mightily against modern ecumenical evangelism. Consider a quotation from that sermon, first preached in the 1940s and �50s:

We must be more afraid of flattery from the camp of the enemy than persecution. Read the pages of Church history. Persecution never did the Church of God any harm, but compromise with the world has always robbed it of the power of its purity. ...

�Potpourri Evangelism� consists of two features: mixed evangelistic campaigns and mixed Christianity. By mixed evangelistic campaigns I mean the alliance of Modernistic and Evangelical churches together in an evangelistic effort. ...

When religion gets up a revival, it must have from five to twenty churches of heterogeneous creeds and sectarian bodies to go into a great union effort; it must have a mammoth choir with great musical instruments, and many preachers and multiplied committees, and each committee headed by some banker, judge, mayor, or millionaire�s wife. It signs cards as a substitute for the broken-hearted cry of scriptural repentance. It must count its converts by the hundreds in a few days� meeting. It must apologize for natural depravity. ...

Human religion�s enterprises have an atmosphere of earthliness about them. It despises the day of small things and scorns little humble people and lonely ways. It is eager to jump to the height of prosperity. Its music has no pathos in it, its laughter lacks divine cheerfulness, its worship lacks supernatural love, its prayers bring down no huge answers, it works no miracles, calls forth no criticism from the world, and has no light of eternity in its eyes. It is a poor, sickly thing, born of the union of the heart of the world with the head of Christian theology�a mongrel, bastard thing with a backslidden church for its mother and the world for its father. Oh, my dear brother and sister, never forget that this unnatural monster will be destroyed at the coming-again of our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ (James Stewart, Evangelism, Asheville, NC: Gospel Projects, pp. 25-28).

How popular would James Stewart be in Evangelical circles today?

Baptist C.H. Spurgeon (1834-1892) is another example of what �Evangelical� meant in generations past. Charles Haddon Spurgeon�s ministry was characterized by faithfulness to the truth, holiness of life, a gospel of pure grace, and unhesitating exposure of error. Though slandered, hated, and misunderstood, Spurgeon did not draw back from separating from the Baptist Union of Britain because 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 must spread, when we who are the watchdogs of the fold are silent, and others are gently and smoothly turfing the road, and making it as soft and smooth as possible, that converts may travel down to the nethermost hell of Popery. We want John Knox back again. Do not talk to me of mild and gentle men, of soft manners and squeamish words, we want the fiery Knox, and even though his vehemence should �ding our pulpits into blads,� it were well if he did but rouse our hearts to action� (C.H. Spurgeon, Sermons, Vol. 10, pgs. 322-3).

When was the last time you read something like that in Christianity Today magazine! Old Spurgeon hit the nail on the head. Sadly, today�s Evangelicalism is indeed in the business of turfing the road of Roman Catholicism to make it smooth for those traveling thereon to Hell.

Many other examples could be given to show that Evangelicalism of past generations involved contending for the faith. Evangelical warriors of a bygone age did not fail to label Rome that �Mother of Harlots,� and would have considered it unthinkable to have fellowship with Romanism.

THE NEW EVANGELICALISM

Evangelicalism in America was identified with Fundamentalism during the first half of the century. Many historians make this connection, including Mark Ellingsen (The Evangelical Movement) and George Marsden (Reforming Fundamentalism). Marsden says, �There was not a practical distinction between fundamentalist and evangelical: the words were interchangeable� (p. 48). When the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) was formed in 1942, for example, participants included such staunch Fundamentalist leaders as Bob Jones, Sr., John R. Rice , Charles Woodbridge , Harry Ironside, David Otis Fuller, and R.G. Lee.

By the mid-1950s, though, a clear break between separatist Fundamentalists and non-separatist Evangelicals occurred. This was occasioned largely by the ecumenical evangelism of Billy Graham . Most of the stronger men dropped out of the NAE. The terms Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism began �to refer to two different movements� (William Martin, A Prophet with Honor, p. 224).

The sons of Evangelical-Fundamentalist preachers determined to create a �New Evangelicalism.� They would not be fighters; they would be diplomats, positive rather than militant, infiltrators rather than separatists. They would not be restricted by a separationist mentality.

The term �New Evangelicalism� defined a new type of Evangelicalism to distinguish it from those who had heretofore born that label. Thus, in the very name �New Evangelicalism� is the witness that Evangelicalism of old, regardless of any weaknesses (and there were many), was biblically dogmatic and militant. The term �New Evangelicalism� was possibly coined by the late Harold Ockenga (1905-1985), probably the most influential Evangelical leader of the 1940s. He was the pastor of Park Street Church (Congregational) in Boston, founder of the National Association of Evangelicals , co-founder and one-time president of Fuller Theological Seminary , first president of the World Evangelical Fellowship, president of Gordon College and Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary , a director of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, and chairman of the board and one-time editor of Christianity Today . In the foreword to Dr. Harold Lindsell �s book The Battle for the Bible, Ockenga stated the philosophy of New Evangelicalism:

�Neo-evangelicalism was born in 1948 in connection with a convocation address which I gave in the Civic Auditorium in Pasadena. While reaffirming the theological view of fundamentalism, this address repudiated its ecclesiology and its social theory. The ringing call for a REPUDIATION OF SEPARATISM and the summons to social involvement received a hearty response from many Evangelicals. ... It differed from fundamentalism in its repudiation of separatism and its determination to engage itself in the theological dialogue of the day. It had a new emphasis upon the application of the gospel to the sociological, political, and economic areas of life.�

In passing, it is interesting to note that Fundamental Baptist leader Monroe Parker claimed that the term �New Evangelicalism� was used three years earlier, in 1945, by liberal ecumenist John MacKay.

�...in 1945, I was doing summer school work at Princeton Theological Seminary. The late Dr. John MacKay, then president of the seminary, returned from Amsterdam where he had helped to lay the foundation for the World Council of Churches . He gathered the faculty and students of the seminary on the campus. Dr. MacKay stood on the steps of Miller Hall and spoke on the ecumenical movement. He said that several great denominations were coming together, that the Roman Catholics would be observing, that the Greek Catholics would join, and that the Pentecostals would likely join. �But,� he said, �we are going to need the evangelicals.� He also said, �THERE MUST BE A NEO-EVANGELICALISM.� He then delineated what the characteristics of the so-called �neo-evangelicalism� must be. Dr. Ockenga in that convocation speech at Fuller Theological Seminary three years later also delineated what this neo-evangelicalism must be. They were almost identical to the things Dr. MacKay had delineated and that other liberals were saying at that time� (Monroe Parker, Frontline, Jul.-Aug. 1991, p. 25).

Ockenga may or may not have coined the term �New Evangelicalism,� but it is certain that the movement itself was not �born� with his convocation address. He did not create the movement; he merely labeled and described the new mood of positivism and non-militancy that was quickly permeating his generation. Ockenga and the new generation of Evangelicals, Billy Graham figuring most prominently, determined to abandon a militant Bible stance. Instead, they would pursue dialogue, intellectualism, and appeasement. They determined to stay within apostate denominations to attempt to change things from within rather than practice biblical separation. The New Evangelical would dialogue with those who teach error rather than proclaim the Word of God boldly and without compromise. The New Evangelical would meet the proud humanist and the haughty liberal on their own turf with human scholarship rather than follow the humble path of being counted a fool for Christ�s sake by standing humbly and simply upon the Bible. New Evangelical leaders also determined to start a �rethinking process� whereby the old paths were to be continually reassessed in light of new goals, methods, and ideology.

Dr. Charles Woodbridge , a professor at Fuller Theological Seminary in its early days, a founding member of the National Association of Evangelicals , and a friend of men such as Harold Ockenga and Carl Henry , rejected the New Evangelicalism and spent the rest of his life warning of its dangers. In his 1969 book, The New Evangelicalism, he traced the downward path of New Evangelical compromise:

�The New Evangelicalism is a theological and moral compromise of the deadliest sort. It is an insidious attack upon the Word of God. ... The New Evangelicalism advocates TOLERATION of error. It is following the downward path of ACCOMMODATION to error, COOPERATION with error, CONTAMINATION by error, and ultimate CAPITULATION to error!� (Woodbridge, The New Evangelicalism, pp. 9,15).

Each passing decade witnesses more plainly to the truth of Dr. Woodbridge�s observations. Toleration of error leads to accom�modation, cooperation, contamination, and capitulation.

In 1958, William Ashbrook wrote Evangelicalism: The New Neutralism, which began with the following warning:

�This is the age of �isms,� some good, mostly bad! One of the youngest members of Christendom�s fold is called The New Evangelicalism. It might more properly be labeled The New Neutralism. This new �Evangelicalism� boasts too much pride, and has imbibed too much of the world�s culture to share the reproach of fundamentalism. It still has enough faith and too much understanding of the Bible to appear in the togs of modernism. IT SEEKS NEUTRAL GROUND, being neither fish nor fowl, neither right nor left, neither for nor against�it stands between! ...

�Bible-believing Christians would do well to beware of the New Evangelicalism for four valid reasons. First, it is a movement BORN OF COMPROMISE. Second, it is a movement NURTURED IN PRIDE OF INTELLECT. Third, it is a movement GROWING ON APPEASEMENT OF EVIL; and finally it is a movement DOOMED BY THE JUDGMENT OF GOD�S HOLY WORD.�

In A History of Fundamentalism in America, Dr. George Dollar observes:

�It has become a favorite pastime of new-evangelical writers, who know so little of historic Fundamentalism, to call it offensive names, as if to bury it by opprobrium. THE REAL DANGER IS NOT STRONG FUNDAMENTALISM BUT A SOFT AND EFFEMINATE CHRISTIANITY�EXOTIC BUT COWARDLY. It is sad that these men would not heed the warning of W.B Riley about the menace of �middle-of-the-roadism�� (Dollar, A History of Fundamentalism in America, 1973, p. 208).

Pastor Rolland Starr, who in the 1960s wrote The New Evangelicalism: The Deadliest Ism of All, warned that �Apostasy Avenue is a one way street and it is all downhill.� The history of New Evangelicalism has demonstrated the truth of that simple statement.

God says, �Walk ye in the old paths,� but the New Evangelical reassesses the old paths. God says, �Remove not the ancient landmarks which thy fathers have set,� but the New Evangelical has removed them one by one. God says, �Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness,� but the New Evangelical reasons that such fellowship is necessary. God says, �A little leaven leaventh the whole lump,� but the New Evangelical thinks he can reform the already leavened lump. God says, �Evil communications corrupt good manners,� but the New Evangelical thinks good manners can uplift evil com�munications. God says, �I resist the proud but give grace to the humble,� but the New Evangelical thinks the way to reach the world is by meeting them on their own proud territory, matching them scholarly degree with degree.

NEW EVANGELICAL PHILOSOPHY HAS PERMEATED EVANGELICALISM

The New Evangelical leaven spread rapidly. New Evangelical philosophy has been adopted by such well-known Christian leaders as Billy Graham , Bill Bright , Harold Lindsell , John R.W. Stott , Luis Palau , E.V. Hill , Leighton Ford , Charles Stanley , Bill Hybels , Warren Wiersbe , Chuck Colson , Donald McGavran, Tony Campolo, Arthur Glasser, D. James Kennedy, David Hocking, Charles Swindoll, and a host of other men. New Evangelicalism was popularized through pleasant personalities and broadcast through powerful print, radio, and television media. Christianity Today was founded in 1956 to voice the new philosophy. Through publishing houses such as Inter�Varsity Press, Zondervan, Tyndale House Publishers, Moody Press, and Thomas Nelson� to name a few�New Evangelical thinking was broadcast across the world. New Evangelicalism became the work�ing principle of large interdenominational organizations such as the National Association of Evangelicals, National Religious Broad�casters, Youth for Christ, Campus Crusade for Christ, Back to the Bible, Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship, World Vision, Operation Mobilization, the Evangelical Foreign Mission Association, World Evangelical Fellowship, the National Sunday School Association, etc. It was spread through educational institutions such as Fuller Theological Seminary, Wheaton College, Gordon-Conwell, BIOLA, and Moody Bible Institute. Historian David Beale observes that the New Evangelical philosophy �captured many organizations, fellowships, associations, and denominations that originated as strictly Funda�mentalist groups� (Beale, In Pursuit of Purity, p. 263). Countless conferences have been organized to promote New Evangel�icalism. Two of the largest and most influential were Amsterdam �83 and Amsterdam �86 which were sponsored by Billy Graham Ministries and were attended by thousands of preachers from across the world.

Because of the tremendous influence of these men and organizations, New Evangelical thought has swept the globe. Today it is no exaggeration to say that almost without exception those who call themselves Evangelicals are New Evangelicals; the terms have become synonymous. Old-line Evangelicals, with rare exceptions, have either aligned with the Fundamentalist movement or have adopted New Evangelicalism.

The Evangelical movement today is the New Evangelical movement. For all practical purposes, they are the same.

�Part of the current confusion regarding New Evangelicalism stems from the fact that there is now little difference between evangelicalism and New Evangelicalism. The principles of the original New Evangelicalism have become so universally accepted by those who refer to themselves as evangelicals that any distinctions which might have been made years ago are all but lost. It is no doubt true to state that �Ockenga �s designation of the new movement as �New or Neo-Evangelical� was abbreviated to �Evangelical.� ... Thus today we speak of this branch of conservative Christianity simply as the Evangelical movement�� (Ernest Pickering, The Tragedy of Compromise, p. 96).

NEW EVANGELICALISM IS NOT A DENOMINATION OR A GROUP. IT IS A SPIRIT OF DISOBEDIENCE. IT IS A MOOD OF COMPROMISE. It is a rejection of many of the negative aspects of New Testament Christianity. IT IS AN ATTITUDE OF POSITIVISM. Old-line Presbyterians can be New Evangelical. Old-line Methodists can be New Evangelical. Fundamental Bible churches can be New Evangelical. INDEPENDENT FUNDAMENTAL BAPTISTS CAN BE NEW EVANGELICAL. Many are, in fact, and the number appears to be growing rapidly. Beware, friends. Don�t be deceived by the label. Examine the content, and avoid that which is contrary to the Word of God. Call it what you please, an attitude of positive-only neutrality is not New Testament Christianity.

�The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going� (Proverbs 14:15).

EVANGELICALISM OR FUNDAMENTALISM NOT ENOUGH

Let me emphasize my own position that Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism at their best were biblically deficient. I am a Fundamentalist as far as dogmatism and militancy for the truth and separation from error go, but I am more than a Fundamentalist.

For one thing, I reject the parachurch mentality. I believe the New Testament assembly is the institution God has ordained for the fulfillment of the Great Commission and the establishment of parachurch or interdenominational institutions is a chief error that results in many other errors.

I reject, further, the transdenominational character of Evangelicalism-Fundamentalism, believing that the Lord established only one type of assembly and that men have no authority to change the mode of baptism or the Lord�s Supper or any other aspect of New Testament church doctrine and polity. I do not accept the philosophy that limits the basis of fellowship to a narrow list of �cardinal� doctrines, such as the infallibility of Scripture and the deity of Christ. While the Bible does indicate that some doctrines are more important than others, all teaching of the Bible is important and is to be taken seriously. Timothy was instructed not to allow any other doctrine than that which Paul had delivered to him (1 Tim. 1:3; 6:13,20; 2 Tim. 2:2). Paul was concerned with the �whole counsel of God� (Acts 20:27). When the Bible instructs Christians to earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3), it does not specify only a narrow aspect of the faith. �The faith once delivered to the saints� refers to the whole body of New Testament truth delivered by the apostles. When God instructs preachers to �preach the Word� (2 Tim. 4:2), no particular part of the Word is identified. He is to preach all of the Word of God. Obedience to these commands does not allow me to overlook denominational differences such as the mode of baptism, eternal security, the woman�s role in the ministry, or the interpretation of prophecy. Those who differ with me on such things I can accept as Christians, but I cannot have joint ministry with them, because I do not believe the Bible allows it.

I also reject the �universal church� mentality of Evangelicalism-Fundamentalism. It is common among Evangelicals and a large number of Fundamentalists to view �the church� as all professing Christians in all denominations and parachurch organizations. To call all of the denominations the �church� or the �body of Christ� is a great confusion which naturally produces an ecumenical mentality and which makes the purifying of the churches impossible. Harold J. Ockenga used the many divisions of Evangelicalism-Fundamentalism and the �shibboleth of having a pure church� and the �sad practice of �come-outism�� as an excuse for New Evangelicalism�s non-separatist mentality (Ockenga, �From Fundamentalism, Through New Evangelicalism, to Evangelicalism,� Evangelical Roots, edited by Kenneth Kantzer , p. 42). God�s Word does call for a pure church. It is not a universal church, though, that we are to purify, but the New Testament assembly. To attempt to purify some sort of universal church composed of parachurch and interdenominational structures is an absolute impossibility and is something the New Testament never envisions or requires. God has given His people clear instruction about discipline of sin and doctrinal purity, and those instructions are in the context of the assembly (i.e., 1 Corinthians 5). Regardless of what one believes about the New Testament definition of the church, in a practical sense church truth can be applied only to the assembly. It is obvious, at least to me, that God intends for men to be content with the assembly and not to busy themselves with parachurch and transdenominational institutions. (See the article �Are You a Baptist Brider?� at the Church section of the End Times Apostasy Database at the Way of Life web site.)

THE APOSTATE FRUIT OF NEW EVANGELICALISM

It is God who has commanded that His people separate from error; it is God who has commanded that His people �earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints.� When these and other aspects of old-time Evangelicalism were rejected, the power and blessing of God was removed.

Even influential Evangelical leaders have noted the rapid and frightful spiritual decline of their own movement. Dr. Harold Lindsell , (1913-1998), who was vice-president of Fuller Theological Seminary and editor of Christianity Today , made this amazing statement at the 27th annual convention of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) in April 1969: �Evangelical Christianity is in spiritual jeopardy right now. Complacent, affluent, self-satisfied, we are lacking of great spiritual dynamic� (D.A. Waite, What�s Wrong with the N.A.E. - 1969?).

In 1979, Dr. Lindsell was even bolder:

�I must regretfully conclude that the term evangelical has been so debased that it has lost its usefulness. ... Forty years ago the term evangelical represented those who were theologically orthodox and who held to biblical inerrancy as one of the distinctives. ... WITHIN A DECADE OR SO NEOEVANGELICALISM, THAT STARTED SO WELL AND PROMISED SO MUCH, WAS BEING ASSAULTED FROM WITHIN BY INCREASING SKEPTICISM WITH REGARD TO BIBLICAL INFALL�IBILITY OR INERRANCY� (Harold Lindsell , The Bible in the Balance, 1979, p. 319).

By 1985, Lindsell had become even more forceful about the decline of evangelicalism: �Evangelicalism today is in a sad state of disarray. ... It is clear that evangelicalism is now broader and shallower, and is becoming more so. Evangelicalism�s children are in the process of forsaking the faith of their fathers� (Christian News, Dec. 2, 1985).

Another popular Evangelical leader, Dr. Francis Schaeffer (1912-1984), gave a similar warning at the 1976 convention of the National Association of Evangelicals in Washington D.C. He spoke on �The Watershed of the Evangelical World,� which is the infallible inspiration of Holy Scripture. Schaeffer observed: �What is the use of evangelicalism seeming to get larger and larger in number if significant numbers of those under the name of �evangelical� no longer hold to that which makes evangelicalism evangelical?� (D.A. Waite, What�s Wrong with the N.A.E. - 1976?).

A 1996 Moody Press book entitled The Coming Evangelical Crisis also documented the apostasy of Evangelicalism.

�Although most of today�s professing evangelicals would acknowledge that theology, in some sense of the word, does matter, a recent survey in Christianity Today revealed that this is more lip service than anything else. According to this survey ... theology, in any sense of the word, is really not all that important to the very people to whom it should matter most: those in the pew and in the pulpit. BOTH GROUPS LISTED THEOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE AS LAST IN TERMS OF PASTORAL PRIORITIES. ... WE ARE SADLY EXPERIENCING, ON A RATHER LARGE SCALE, A SUBJECTIVISM THAT BETRAYS ITS WEAKENED HOLD ON THE OBJECTIVE TRUTH and reality of Christianity by its neglect or even renunciation of its distinctive objective character. ... Men ... really wish to have a creedless Christianity. �Creeds,� they shout, �are divisive things; away with them!� ... Where does this leave us? An undogmatic Christianity is no Christianity at all� (Gary L.W. Johnson, �Does Theology Still Matter?� The Coming Evangelical Crisis, Moody Press , 1996, pp. 58,66,67).

�... evangelicalism in the 1990s is an amalgam of diverse and often theologically ill-defined groups, institutions, and traditions. ... THE THEOLOGICAL UNITY THAT ONCE MARKED THE MOVEMENT HAS GIVEN WAY TO A THEOLOGICAL PLURALISM THAT WAS PRECISELY WHAT MANY OF THE FOUNDERS OF MODERN EVANGELICALISM HAD REJECTED IN MAINLINE PROTESTANTISM. ... Evangelicalism is not healthy in conviction or spiritual discipline. Our theological defenses have been let down, and the infusion of revisionist theologies has affected large segments of evangelicalism. Much damage has already been done, but a greater crisis yet threatens� (R. Albert Mohler , Jr., �Evangelical What�s in a Name?� The Coming Evangelical Crisis, 1996, pp. 32,33,36).

These are sad testimonies. It is strange to note that these men, though they see the apostate confusion in modern Evangelicalism, do not clearly see that this is the product of the rejection of biblical separation and absolutism. These leaders continue to reject and misrepresent Bible-believing Fundamentalism. This present Evangelical generation is polluted with the Modernism and Ecumenism and Romanism and Humanism and Psychology and Worldliness from which it has refused to separate. God is not mocked. A �little leaven leaventh the whole lump� and �evil communications corrupt good manners.� A man, church, denomination, or movement cannot reject biblical separation and a zealous defense of the whole counsel of God without paying the consequence of apostasy.

EVANGELICALISM�S APOSTASY IS SEEN IN ITS COZY RELATIONSHIP WITH ROMAN CATHOLICISM

Most popular Evangelical men and organizations have strong and growing sympathies toward the Roman Catholic Church. In the following chapters we give thorough documentation of this. Christianity Today , founded by Billy Graham and other New Evangelical leaders, now has three Roman Catholic editors. Evangelical publishers are busy putting out books sympathetic to Rome and calling for ecumenical relationships.

As early as 1971 Fleming H. Revell published A Prejudiced Protestant Takes a New Look at the Catholic Church by James Hefley . The author is a graduate of the Southern Baptist Seminary in New Orleans and pastored a Baptist church for eight years. He describes how his prejudice against the Roman Catholic Church has dissolved in recent years because of the alleged changes in Catholicism since Vatican II . He praises �the increasing willingness of Catholics to join together in evangelism, Bible study, solving community problems, and ecumenical relations� (p. 122). He thinks it is great that Catholics have begun to work with Evangelical organizations such as Campus Crusade for Christ, Youth for Christ , Fellowship of Christian Athletes , Wycliffe Bible Translators , and InterVarsity Christian Fellowship (pp. 118,122,123). In one chapter, Hefley describes in glowing terms his experience of visiting with Catholic leaders at the archdiocese headquarters in New Orleans. He calls the priests �father.� He �felt a warmth� while attending a Catholic mass (p. 109).

Eerdman�s Handbook to the History of Christianity, which appeared in 1977, used two Roman Catholic historians as contributing editors. It is no wonder that Rome�s butchery of Bible believers receives small thrift in this Evangelical publication, while Pope John XXIII is praised as having �a deep but traditional piety�!

In 1979, Tyndale House Publishers came out with Three Sisters by Michael Harper . This book called for ecumenical unity between Evangelicals, Charismatics, and Roman Catholics. The author stated, �It is my own conviction that a growing unity between the three forces in the Christian world is both desirable and possible� (p. 41).

In 1984, Thomas Howard �s book Evangelical Is Not Enough (Thomas Nelson Publisher) called for a movement toward liturgical, Catholic-style worship among Evangelicals. Howard, who was a professor at Gordon College for 15 years, is from a family of prominent Evangelicals. His father, Philip, was editor of the Sunday School Times; his brother David Howard was head of the World Evangelical Fellowship; and his sister Elizabeth married the famous missionary Jim Elliot, who was martyred by the Auca Indians in Ecuador. The year after the publication of Evangelical Is Not Enough, Thomas Howard converted to the Roman Catholic Church and left Gordon College to teach at Catholic seminaries in Boston. Other converts to Rome in recent years have testified that Howard�s book assisted them in taking their journey. When asked about Howard�s conversion to Catholicism, J.I. Packer gave the following amazing reply, �I don�t think becoming a Catholic is anything like the tragedy of a person becoming a theological liberal and losing touch with objective authority altogether. Catholics are among the most loyal and viral brothers evangelicals can find these days� (J.I. Packer, Christianity Today , May 17, 1985).

In 1985, InterVarsity Press stirred the ecumenical waters with A Tale of Two Churches by George Carey (who later became the Archbishop of Canterbury). Carey called for the �eventual reunion of the two streams [Protestantism and Roman Catholicism] of Western Christendom.� The foreword to this book, subtitled Can Protestants & Catholics Get Together, was written by J.I. Packer .

Also in 1985 Wheaton College professor Robert Webber published Evangelicals on the Canterbury Trail, describing his journey from a Baptist (his father was a fundamental Baptist preacher) and fundamentalist (he is a graduate of Bob Jones University) heritage to the ecumenical Episcopal-Catholic philosophy he holds today. Webber accepts the Roman Catholic Church as a true apostolic church, tracing his �family tree� from Jesus Christ �through the Apostles, the primitive Christian community, the Apostolic Fathers, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church,� to �the Church of the Reformation� (p. 66). He describes his experiences at graduate school, in which he first tasted of ecumenical relations with Roman Catholics (p. 62). He describes his love for sacramentalism (pp. 47-56). He says he has to �swallow hard� when he hears missionaries to Latin America describe Roman Catholics as unsaved (p. 68). He calls the �concept of the purity of the church� a �strait-jacket that made me increasingly uncomfortable,� because it �stifled my experience of the whole church� (p. 71). He looks upon the Reformation as an evil thing because of the division it created from Rome, and he looks forward to the day when the division will be healed (p. 171).

In 1990, Thomas Nelson published Evangelical Catholic s: A Call for Christian Cooperation to Penetrate the Darkness with the Light of the Gospel by Keith Fournier , a Roman Catholic apologist. The foreword was written by Charles Colson . �But at root, those who are called of God, whether Catholic or Protestant, are part of the same Body . � It�s high time that all of us who are Christians come together regardless of the difference of our confessions and our traditions and make common cause to bring Christian values to bear in our society. When the barbarians are scaling the walls, there is no time for petty quarreling in the camp. Keith Fournier stands in the breach�truly orthodox in his adherence to Catholic doctrine and fully evangelical in his relationship to Christ and His creation. Keith�s ministry is one of healing. � I pray that his book will be a bridge across many of the historic divisions in the church that have weakened our stand in today�s culture. � We have much to forgive, much to relearn. But Evangelical Catholics can help us do both so we can band together against the rising tides of secularism which threaten to engulf us� (Chuck Colson, foreword, Evangelical Catholics, p. vi).

In 1994, InterVarsity Press came out with the Handbook of Christian Apologetics by two Roman Catholic authors, Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli . Kreeft is a Catholic apologist who believes that Mary will ultimately conquer Satan and who believes that even Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists will probably go to Heaven. Tacelli is a Jesuit priest and a professor at Boston College. Why would InterVarsity choose Catholics to write such a book, or why would they publish such a book by Catholics? If asked about Catholic theology, InterVarsity leaders would doubtless reply that they do not agree with a large part of it. That being the case, why not have Bible-believing authors, or at least thorough-going Protestants, write a book on Christian apologetics? The answer is the ecumenical agenda of these �evangelical� organizations.

Moody Press joined its voice to this theme in 1994 by publishing Roman Catholicism: Evangelical Protestants Analyze What Divides and Unites Us. The editor is John Armstrong (Wheaton graduate, Reformed pastor), and twelve other Evangelical leaders are contributors. Though far more cautious than the other books we have mentioned, the Moody Press volume completely ignores the Bible�s command to mark and avoid doctrinal error. It ignores separation, which is the only sure hedge against the leaven of heresy. For example, Michael Horton concludes his chapter, �What Still Keeps Us Apart?� with these words: �I do not suggest that we should give up trying to seek visible unity, nor that we refuse to dialogue with Roman Catholic laypeople and theologians, many of whom may be our brothers and sisters� (p. 264). He should �suggest� that, though, because it is precisely what the Bible commands. The New Testament does not instruct Christians to seek �visible unity� with a blasphemous, unscriptural organization like Rome, nor does it instruct us to �dialogue� with those who hold a false gospel.

The Evangelicals who wrote Roman Catholicism: Evangelical Protestants Analyze What Divides and Unites Us have a false view of church history. They don�t look upon Rome of the early centuries as apostate. They look upon it as a true church and they look upon many of its fathers, saints, and Popes as true Christians. Horton praises such men as Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Bonaventure, Bernard, and Gregory the Great; yet all of these were unscriptural heretics. Rome would not exalt them as fathers and saints if they had stood unreservedly for the New Testament faith. All of these men were members of unscriptural churches that had rejected the apostolic faith once delivered to the saints.

Horton speaks of the early history of the Roman Catholic Church in glowing terms. He says, �It was Rome that stood up to the Montanists, Manicheans, Donatists, Pelagians, Cathari, Albigensians, Arians, and Monophysites�� (p. 245). This is only partly true. Many of the �heretics� that Rome stood against were actually Bible believing Christians who refused to be moved from the truth. In his diligently researched book (The History of the Donatists, 1875), respected nineteenth-century Baptist historian David Benedict, working directly from ancient Latin texts, revealed that the Donatists were not the heretics that Rome made them out to be. The same is true for the Albigensians, the Cathari, and others that Horton mentions. Though there might have been heretics who were called Donatists and Albigensians, these people, in the main, were much closer to the Bible than Rome was. The term �Manichean� was also misused by Rome to slander many people. Though there were some who were known as Manicheans who held to strange and unscriptural doctrines, many who were labeled Manichean were not heretics but were falsely accused by Rome.

Also in 1994, the Navigators � NavPress published A House United? Evangelicals and Catholics Together : A Winning Alliance for the 21st Century. The authors are Roman Catholic Keith Fournier and Evangelical William Watkins , a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary . The foreword is written by Pat Robertson . In 1991, Robertson invited Fournier to become executive director of the American Center for Law and Justice at Regent University . In the foreword to Fournier�s book, Pat Robertson said that Catholics and Protestants �have a moral imperative to join together� to oppose cultural evils such as abortion, and he praised Fournier for his �deep dedication to helping to heal the divide� that �separated the Body of Christ.� The back cover of A House United? has recommenda�tions by seven men, including Terry Lindvall (President of Regent University), Ralph Reed (formerly Executive Director of the Christian Coalition) , and Vinson Synan (Pentecostal chairman of the North American Renewal Service Committee). Synan sets the tone with his comments: �Keith Fournier is truly a twentieth-century apostle of unity for the Body of Christ. His back�ground as an evangelical and charismatic Catholic has prepared him well to write A House United?�a book that adds light and grace to the current religious situation in America.�

In 1995, Baker Books encouraged the Evangelical-Roman Catholic alliance with the publication of Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences by Norman Geisler and Ralph MacKenzie. Though the authors acknowledge vast dif�ferences between Evangelicals and Catholics, they conclude that these should not be a cause for separation. This statement from the book�s foreword sets the tone for the whole: �Nevertheless, when all is said and done, evangelical Protestants and traditionalists, believing Roman Catholics have so many convictions and commitments in common that it would be foolish as well as wrong in the sight of the One whom we all claim as our Lord Jesus Christ to wrangle with each other in the face of the common enemy� (Foreword by Harold O.J. Brown , Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, p. 12).

Also in 1995, Word Publishing came out with Evangelicals & Catholics Toward a Common Mission Together, edited by Charles Colson and Richard John Neuhaus . Contributors to the book include J.I. Packer (Regent College), Mark Noll (Wheaton College ), and Avery Dulles (Jesuit priest and professor at Catholic University). Chuck Colson is the well-known and popular Evangelical leader who founded Prison Fellowship , and Richard Neuhaus is a convert to the Roman Catholic Church from Lutheranism. These are the two men most responsible for the controversial Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT) statement that was released in 1994 and signed by 38 Evangelical and Catholic leaders. The back cover to Evangelicals & Catholics Together says: �This courageous book seeks a way to allow sectarian strife between the two groups to give way to a decision to work together to mend the fabric of values that has been relentlessly rent in the last thirty-five years. Here, both evangelical and Roman Catholic authors ask whether the time has come to present a united front against the onslaught of publicly sanctioned unbelief in the land.�

In 1996, Catholic apologist Peter Kreeft �s book Ecumenical Jihad : Ecumenism and the Culture War was published by Ignatius Press. The book is absolutely packed with unscriptural heresies. Kreeft, who is very popular and influential in ecumenical circles, calls for all Christian denominations to join hands with Jews, Muslims, even with Hindus and Buddhists and other pagan religionists (including atheists and agnostics �if they are of good will and intellectual honesty�), to form a �jihad� against the forces of secularism. �Jihad,� meaning �holy war,� is a term used by Muslims to describe their willingness to fight unto death against the enemies of Allah. Kreeft�s �ecumenical jihad� sounds very much like the fulfillment of the end-times religious whore of Revelation 17. Kreeft thinks the �culture war� �is about the salvation of the soul,� �the continued biological survival of our species,� and �is certainly about eternal life or eternal death� (pp. 20,21). Kreeft thinks it is �very likely� that there is a �hidden Christ� in pagan religions, so that Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc., will be saved �through Christ and His grace� even though they do not consciously know or worship Jesus Christ (pp. 156,157). Kreeft urges his readers to dedicate themselves �to the Immaculate Heart of Mary,� because Mary �is the one who will win this war� and is the one �who triumphs over Satan� (p. 169). Kreeft believes that in Heaven �we will all be Catholics� (p. 163). He worships the wafer of the Catholic Mass �because it is Christ� (p. 162) and because God �hides behind the appearances of a little Wafer of bread� (p. 157). He thinks that God prefers to work through intermediaries of Mary and the saints and that �He wants us to pray through Mary, and not only directly� (p. 154).

In 1997, InterVarsity Press published Reclaiming the Great Tradition: Evangelicals, Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue. It was edited by James Cutsinger and contained articles by Harold O.J. Brown , Peter Kreeft , Richard Neuhaus , J.I. Packer , and others. The book is a collection of material from an ecumenical dialogue held at Rose Hill College, May 16-20, 1995. The objective of the dialogue was to answer the question: �How can Protestants, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians talk to each other so as together to speak with Christ�s mind to the modern world?� (p. 8). The answer, of course, is that this is impossible among those who do not hold the same doctrines, nor even believe the same gospel. Paul did not seek to dialogue with those who corrupted the gospel; he rebuked them and announced God�s curse upon them (Galatians 1). In doing so, he was not expressing hatred or bigotry; he was demonstrating love toward those who were in danger of being deceived by false teachers.

Most of these books are published by major Evangelical publishers, and they illustrate the rapidly growing sympathy between Evangel�icals and the Roman Catholic Church.

While most of these books acknowledge that there is doctrinal error in the Roman Catholic Church, they claim that Rome has changed for the better, that Roman Catholicism is not a cult, is not total apostasy. They speak of Rome�s heresies in gentle, �understanding,� scholarly tones rather than labeling them the blasphemies they really are. Let me give an example. In Roman Catholicism: Evangelical Protestants Analyze What Divides and Unites Us, John Armstrong says, �For centuries the magisterium had insisted that there was no salvation outside the church ... which meant, of course, the Roman Catholic Church. This sometimes caused a decidedly uncharitable response to Protestant evangelicals, who were considered lost outside of Rome and her sacramental system� (emphasis added). To describe Rome�s fearful, bloody, centuries old persecution of Bible-believing Christians as �decidedly uncharitable� is insanity.

Many of today�s Evangelicals want to believe that Rome�s official doctrinal position is not the real position of the so-called Evangelical Catholic today. These books (the one by Moody Press being the exception) call upon Evangelicals to lay aside the age-old divisions and to work hand-in-hand with Roman Catholicism in social, religious, and political causes.

The cover jacket for A House United? quotes Pentecostal Vinson Synan �s recommendation of the book: �Keith Fournier [a Catholic apologist] is truly a twentieth-century apostle of unity for the Body of Christ.� This unscriptural unity in the so-called Body of Christ is one of the apostate keynotes of late twentieth-century Evangelicalism. It is obvious that NavPress , publisher of this book, and the Navigators organization that owns NavPress, have succumbed to the Evangelical-Roman Catholic juggernaut.

EVANGELICALISM�S APOSTASY IS ALSO SEEN IN ITS QUESTIONING OF BIBLICAL INFALLIBILITY.

The downgrade of the doctrine of biblical inspiration has been documented even by Evangelicalism�s own leaders.

In 1976, Carl F.H. Henry , first editor of Christianity Today , lifted his voice to warn of this frightful problem:

�A GROWING VANGUARD OF YOUNG GRADUATES OF EVANGELICAL COLLEGES WHO HOLD DOCTORATES FROM NON-EVANGELICAL DIVINITY CENTERS NOW QUESTION OR DISOWN INERRANCY and the doctrine is held less consistently by evangelical faculties. ... Some retain the term and reassure supportive constituencies but nonetheless stretch the term�s meaning� (Carl F.H. Henry , chairman for the 1966 World Congress on Evangelism