BILLY GRAHAM AND ROME

BILLY GRAHAM AND ROME - PART 1 of 6

Updated and enlarged February 1, 2006 (first published February 17, 1997) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -

This article is part one in a six-part series titled “Billy Graham and Rome” by David W. Cloud. It is excerpted from the book Evangelicals and Rome, copyright 1999, 2001, Way of Life Literature, Port Huron, Michigan.

BILLY GRAHAM AND ROME -- PART 1 of 6

By David W. Cloud

"It is one thing to invite unconverted Roman Catholics to a gospel meeting to hear the gospel preached, but it is quite another matter to go to a meeting where Roman Catholics, and Roman Catholic priests that are still firmly in Rome, are preaching from the platform." --Christian News, June 26, 1988

Nothing more plainly evidences the bankruptcy of New Evangelicalism than its flirtations with Rome, and in this report we intend to trace this sad and serious matter.

Some do not believe we should deal with negative matters such as this. They do not believe we should name names and publicly expose the compromises of Christian leaders. But we must.

First, we must preach messages of this nature as a matter of obedience. The Lord Jesus Christ rebuked false teachers publicly (Matthew 23), and the apostles followed in His footsteps. They rebuked and warned of false teachers and compromisers by name. Paul even rebuked Peter publicly for his compromise of the truth (Gal. 2:9-14), then described the scene in an epistle for all of the churches to see. In the Pastoral Epistles alone, eight men are mentioned publicly for their errors (1 Tim. 1:19-20, 2 Tim. 1:15, 2:17, 4:10, 4:14-16). We are commanded to “preach the word ... reprove, rebuke, exhort...” (2 Tim. 4:2). Thus, reproving error is a matter of obedience.

Second, we must preach messages of this nature because of concern for the gospel. Ecumenical relationships between evangelicals and Catholics is a matter that pertains to the gospel. This is not a minor issue. Rome preaches a sacramental gospel that is cursed of God and that leads people to hell. The Council of Trent, reaffirmed by Vatican II, proclaimed, “If anyone shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy pardoning sins for Christ's sake, or that it is that confidence alone by which we are justified ... let him be accursed” (Canon 12). Rome is thus an avowed enemy of the New Testament faith.

Those who fellowship with Romanism put a stamp of approval--unwittingly, perhaps, but just as surely--upon the false gospel preached by their Roman Catholic friends.

When Billy Graham includes Catholics in his evangelistic crusades and sends inquirers to Catholic churches, those looking on are made to think that Roman Catholicism must be true Christianity. When evangelical leaders fellowship with Rome, a climate is created whereby it is very difficult to preach that Catholics need to be saved and leave their false “church.” Ecumenical evangelicals break down the walls between truth and error and muddy the waters of gospel work.

Ecumenical relationships are an exceedingly serious matter with eternally destructive consequences.

HAS ROME CHANGED?

Some claim that Rome has changed and we can no longer say it is heretical. While the declarations of the Vatican II council of the 1960s did bring changes to the Catholic Church, it did not change its foundational dogmas. Not only did Vatican II uphold Rome’s false teachings, it actually strengthened them.

The 2,400 bishops attending Vatican II reaffirmed such Roman heresies as salvation through the sacraments, papal supremacy, the Roman priesthood, the mass as a re-sacrifice of Christ, Catholic tradition on equal par with Scriptures, Mary as the Queen of Heaven and co-redemptress with Christ, auricular confession (confession of one’s sins into the ear of a priest), pilgrimages to “holy shrines,” purgatory, and prayers to and for the dead.

All of these were reaffirmed by the Vatican II Council, the latest, most authoritative statement of Catholic teaching. Pope John XXIII, at the opening of Vatican II, stated, “The greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council is this: that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously.” Thus, Vatican II did not change the doctrinal foundation of Romanism.

There are Catholics today who claim they don't believe Rome's heresies, but this does not change the fact that Rome holds them. If one does not believe official Catholic dogma, he should leave the Catholic Church.

In Part 5 of these articles on “Billy Graham and Rome” we have included some quotations from Vatican II that reaffirm Rome’s false doctrines.

The fact is that the Catholic Church does teach the vilest of heresies, and God commands that the Christian separate from such things. When evangelical leaders fellowship with Romanism, they are acting in direct disobedience to the Word of God.

“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them” (Romans 16:17).

“Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away” (2 Tim. 3:5).

“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?” (2 Cor. 6:14).

“Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (1 Cor. 5:6-8).

“But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him” (2 Cor. 11:3-4).

EVANGELICAL CATHOLICS

Some who acknowledge that Rome as an institution hasn’t changed, believe there is a “renewal” occurring within the Catholic Church that is bringing Catholics into an “evangelical” experience and faith. The 1991 book Evangelical Catholics by Keith Fournier (foreword by Charles Colson) puts forth this thinking. Fournier contends that he is truly Catholic and truly evangelical, and Colson, who is an “evangelical,” seconds that. Both men are as confused as they could possibly be. The term “evangelical Catholic” turns language on its head and denies the historical definition of both terms.

Further, when examined, this evangelical Catholic phenomenon is nothing more than a clever ruse.

To illustrate this we quote from an interview Dennis Costella of the Fundamental Evangelistic Association had with Keith Fournier at Notre Dame ‘88, a large charismatic Catholic conference. When Costella asked about Catholics who are using D. James Kennedy’s Evangelism Explosion materials, Fournier replied:

“...some of the early planning of our program had a lot to do with a Catholic parish that had James Kennedy’s program ... The gospel is the gospel and everybody knows what the basic gospel truth is ... denominational differences [are] in the follow-up ... there were a couple of things in James Kennedy’s process that we as Catholics couldn’t accept because it wasn’t Catholic teaching. FOR EXAMPLE, TOO OBVIOUS WAS THE TOTAL ASSURANCE OF SALVATION ... AND THE OTHER ONE IS SALVATION BY FAITH ALONE. FOR CATHOLICS WE ARE SAVED BY FAITH AND ALSO THROUGH OBEDIENCE TO CHRIST. We don’t earn our salvation but we believe that there are acts of obedience and cooperation in God’s Spirit that are tied up with salvation” (Interview by Dennis Costella with Keith Fournier and Chris Noble, 1988 National Conference on the Charismatic Renewal in the Catholic Church, Friday-Sunday, May 27-29, 1988, Notre Dame Campus, South Bend, Indiana).

Do you see the tremendous deception in this? Fournier says the gospel is the gospel, implying that we are all preaching the same basic gospel, yet he goes on to deny the very heart of the gospel which is salvation through the grace of Christ ALONE by faith ALONE. He would call this difference merely a matter of “interpretation” or perhaps an issue of semantics, but that is not the case. To add any kind of works to Christ’s grace is a matter of heresy and blasphemy, and brings God’s curse upon anyone who preaches it (Gal. 1:8-10). Fournier claims that he believes in salvation by God’s grace, but by adding works and sacraments to grace he corrupts grace. “And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work” (Rom. 11:6).

Fournier says “we are saved by faith AND ALSO through obedience to Christ,” yet he claims he doesn’t believe in earning salvation. This is Jesuit sophistry at its diabolic best.

When I find a man who is steadfast in the type of deception that Fournier spouts, I will not argue with him nor will I put up with him. I will obey God and reject him and separate from him. “A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition REJECT; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself” (Titus 3:10-11). Note that God does not instruct us to debate heretics endlessly. After the first and second admonition, they are to be rejected.

There is no excuse for today’s evangelical leaders to be deceived by this kind of duplicity. If a man is not doctrinally strong enough to see through Rome’s deceptions, he is not qualified to be a Christian leader (Titus 1:9-11). Today’s evangelical leaders have impressive scholarly qualifications, but they have little spiritual discernment. The latter cannot be obtained from an institution of higher learning. It comes from the indwelling Holy Spirit to obedient, regenerated saints. “At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes” (Matt. 11:25).

WHAT EVANGELICALISM WAS A GENERATION AGO

Evangelicalism of our day 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 of bygone generations 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 and Presbyterian 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 boldly militant for the truth as they saw it. This is exactly what today’s 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 maligned and misunderstood, Spurgeon did not draw back from separating from the Baptist Union because of the false doctrine that was being countenanced therein. 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 the boldest contention 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

During the first half of the Twentieth Century, evangelicalism in America was identified with fundamentalism. 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 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.”

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-mo-da-tion, 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).

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 communications. 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 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 InterVarsity 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 working principle of large interdenominational organizations such as the National Association of Evangelicals, National Religious Broadcasters, Youth for Christ, Campus Crusade for Christ, Back to the Bible, InterVarsity 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. Countless conferences have been organized to promote New Evangelicalism. 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 LAST DAYS TO BE CHARACTERIZED BY APOSTASY

The fact that the wall between truth and error is being torn down in one generation, though grievous, should not surprise us. Did the apostles not foretell of apostasy, compromise, spiritual decline, doctrinal confusion, religious duplicity? Note passages such as Matthew 24; 2 Thessalonians 2; 1 Timothy 4; 2 Timothy 3-4; 2 Peter 2-3; Jude; and Revelation 13 and 17. These prophecies paint a picture of the course of the church age, and it is one of deepening religious apostasy and a false unity which will grow throughout the age and will come into full blossom just prior to Christ’s return.

This is exactly what has happened during the past 1900 years of church history, yet this present generation has witnessed a tremendous increase in the pace of the apostasy. Not only are the Protestant denominations moving back toward the Roman fold, but those who had never before affiliated with Rome are beginning to associate with her.

EVANGELICALISM AND ROME

Nothing better illustrates the downfall of evangelicalism than its increasingly close relationship with Roman Catholicism. The evangelical warriors of past generations considered Rome the Mother of Harlots. This doesn’t mean old-time evangelicals hated Roman Catholics. Far from it. It was their love for souls that motivated them to preach the gospel to Catholics that some might be saved and plucked as brands from the fire.

Roman Catholicism, as noted earlier, has changed since the 1800s, but it has not changed its basic heretical nature. The changes have been cosmetic with the design of furthering its treacherous ecumenical goals.

It is impossible to conceive of Charles Haddon Spurgeon calling the blasphemous Pope of Rome a “great evangelist” as Billy Graham has said of John Paul II. It would be impossible to picture evangelist James A. Stewart inviting a Catholic bishop to stand with him on a platform to “bless” those coming forward at a gospel service, yet this is exactly what Billy Graham did in Sao Paulo, Brazil, in 1963.

Today’s New Evangelicals are indeed a different brand from those of bygone days. Rome hasn't changed, but evangelicalism certainly has.

__________________________________________

This is part of a six-part series titled “Billy Graham and Rome” by David W. Cloud. It is excerpted from the book Evangelicals and Rome, copyright 1999, 2001, 2005, Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061.

EVANGELICALS AND ROME. EVANGELICALS AND ROME: THE ECUMENICAL ONE-WORLD “CHURCH” (D.W. CLOUD) [ISBN 1-58318-058-3] Nothing more plainly demonstrates the ongoing fulfillment of prophecies pertaining to end-time apostasy and the formation of a world-world harlot “church,” and this volume documents evangelicalism’s flirtation with Rome over the past half century. The introduction documents the history and apostasy of evangelicalism since the 1940s. Part 1 answers the question “Is the Roman Catholic Church Changing?” It includes a study from official Vatican II documents as well as from the New Catholic Catechism proving that the RCC has not changed its heretical position on such things as the mass, the papacy, Mary, purgatory, the priesthood, prayers to the dead, and the sacraments. The author also shows that Vatican II and the New Catechism affirm the blasphemous declarations of the Council of Trent. Part II covers “Billy Graham and Rome,” documenting Billy Graham's relationship with the Roman Catholic Church from 1950 to present. Part III covers “Other Influential Evangelical Leaders and Organizations and Rome,” covering dozens of popular evangelical leaders and organizations, including Bill Bright and Campus Crusade, Tony Campolo, Christianity Today, Christian Research Institute, James Dobson, Chuck Colson, Elizabeth Elliot, Jerry Falwell, Fuller Seminary, Franklin Graham, Carl Henry, Bill Hybels, Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship, D. James Kennedy, J.I. Packer, Luis Palau, Robert Schuller, John R. Stott, Thomas Nelson, United Bible Societies, Jack Van Impe, Wheaton College, World Magazine, World Vision, Wycliffe Bible Translators, and Youth for Christ. Part IV deals with “The Southern Baptist Convention and Rome.” Part V deals with “The Charismatics and Rome.” Dozens of influential Charismatic leaders and organizations are documented, including 100 Huntley Street, 700 Club, AGLOW, Assemblies of God, Jamie Buckingham, Morris Cerullo, David Yonggi Cho, Paul Crouch, Full Gospel Business Men’s Fellowship, Kenneth Hagin, Michael Harper, Jack Hayford, Benny Hinn, Rodney Howard-Browne, Rex Humbard, Kathryn Kuhlman, David Mainse, Melodyland Christian Center, Oral Roberts, Pat Robertson, James Robison, Vinson Synan, Trinity Broadcasting Network, Ralph Wilkerson, John Wimber, and Youth with a Mission. Part VI deals with “Promise Keepers and Rome” and Part VII with “Contemporary Christian Music and Rome.”’ Part VIII deals with the subject of “Evangelical Catholics” and looks at the phenomenon of so-called evangelical Catholicism and charismatic Catholics. The book “Evangelical Catholics” by Keith Fournier (foreword by Chuck Colson) is reviewed and refuted from Scripture. Part IX looks at the many ways “Rome Denies Salvation by Grace Alone.” Part X deals with the agreement between “Lutherans and Catholics on the Doctrine of Salvation by Grace.” Part XI looks at Evangelicals and Catholics Together II. Part XII answers the question “Was Mother Teresa a True Christian?” Did she teach the people under her care the true Gospel? This study contains an interview with a nun who works with Mother Teresa’s Sisters of Charity. Read this amazing interview and learn what this Calcutta-trained nun does to prepare Hindus for death. Part XIII examines the charge that we don’t understand the Catholic Church. 2nd edition August 2001, 371 pages, 7X8, perfect bound. $19.95

ROME AND THE BIBLE: TRACING THE HISTORY OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND ITS PERSECUTION OF THE BIBLE AND OF BIBLE BELIEVERS (D.W. CLOUD) [ISBN 1-58318-003-6] To our knowledge, this is the first history ever published which details the Roman Catholic Church’s relationship to the Bible from the first millennium to the present. The book could also be titled “The Bible Through the Centuries.” The author has spent thousands of dollars obtaining rare documents relevant to this history (such as a 1641 edition of Foxe’s unabridged Acts and Monuments) and researched the topic in important theological libraries in Canada, America, and England, including the British Library. The book covers the Roman Catholic Inquisition from the 11th to the 19th centuries, particularly the role played by the Inquisition to keep translations of the Bible out of the hands of the common people. It contains the history of ancient separated Christians, including the Waldensians and the Lollards. It gives the history of the English Bible from John Wycliffe to William Tyndale, and the history of the Spanish, German, French, and Italian Bibles. It contains amazing biographies of royal queens who loved the Bible. It gives the decade-by-decade details of papal condemnations of 19th-century Bible societies and of Roman Catholic persecution in the 19th century. It describes the 20th-century phenomenon of Rome changing tactics and joining hands with the Bible societies. It documents the similarities between the Latin Vulgate and the modern versions. It answers the question: Has the Roman Catholic Church changed? The book contains 95 illustrations from rare out-of-print books. Dr. Ian Paisley, Martyrs Memorial Presbyterian Church, Belfast, Northern Ireland, commended us for Rome and the Bible and showed us his copy in which he had written the following words: “Brother Cloud is not beclouded!” Fourth edition revised and enlarged, September 2001, 331 pages, 7X8, perfect bound. $19.95

_____________________________

POSTAGE AND HANDLING

U.S.A.--15% ($4.00 minimum)

CANADA/FOREIGN--20% ($4 minimum)

NAME__________________________________________________________________

ADDRESS_______________________________________________________________

CITY/STATE/ZIP_________________________________________________________

TELEPHONE/E-MAIL_____________________________________________________

VISA # _________________________________________________________________

MASTERCARD #_________________________________________________________

NAME ON CARD_________________________________________________________

EXPIRATION DATE_______________________________________________________

Way of Life Literature

P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061
866-295-4143 (toll free), fbns@wayoflife.org (e-mail)
http://www.wayoflife.org (web site)

Canada: Bethel Baptist Church, 4212 Campbell St. N., London, Ont. N6P 1A6, 519-652-2619 (voice), 519-652-0056 (fax)

SEE PART 2 OF 6 "BILLY GRAHAM AND ROME"