OUTCOME-BASED RELIGION:
PURPOSE-DRIVEN APOSTASY

By
Mac Dominick

Chapter 3

TWENTIETH CENTURY APOSTASY
1900-1965


The men of the 19th Century who shaped the philosophies destined to permeate the future of mainstream society had little in common: Charles Darwin had a degree in theology, Charles Lyall was a lawyer, Thomas Huxley had a dubious degree in medicine, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and Herbert Spencer had no formal education, and Hegel and Marx had degrees in philosophy. There was, however, one thing that each of these men shared-a hatred of God and biblical Christianity. Even Wescott and Hort denied the inerrancy of Scripture, and were determined to remove the translation of the Textus Receptus from the public realm. These were the men who laid the foundation for the spiritual battles to be fought throughout the 20th Century-a century that would see religious organizations turn from the truth, the rise of the nation of Israel, end-time prophecies come into play, and the deception of Outcome-based Religion.

The world of the 20th Century was vastly changed from that of the dawn of the 19th Century. The inventions and mass production of the Industrial revolution sparked a rapid transition in the western world from an agrarian society to a consumer society; and with the outbreak of World War I, the advanced mechanization of the world was exhibited in the technology of modern warfare. This "brave new world" recoiled from the horrors of world war with the philosophical reaction exhibited in an attempt by the elite to establish a world government via the League of Nations. Without the support of United States this organization failed, but the seeds of globalism had been successfully planted into the modern psyche. In addition, the idea of the Kingdom of God on Earth was expanded beyond the borders of the British Empire to a righteous league of all nations:

"'The League of Nations', said the Archbishop of Canterbury, at Geneva, 'may go far to make the Kingdom of God a reality in our lifetime'... 'The League of Nations', says Dr. Jowett, has for its aim 'the transformation of the kingdom of this world into the Kingdom of God…'" (1)

At the heart of this new "group-think" mentality were well-funded occult and illuminist organizations such as the Theosophical Society, Lucis Trust, and the Fabian Society, who ultimately promoted the concepts of Socialism into mainstream thought. In 1925, the Scopes Trial added the element of Darwinism into public consciousness, and the concept of "species survival" augmented the 19th Century notion of "Social Darwinism". These philosophies, when blended into the attitudes and values of the masses of humanity, diminish the importance of the individual and elevate the virtues of the group. Biblically, this flies in the face of the doctrinal teachings of the New Testament, God's love and concern for the individual, and ultimately individual salvation. At the same time, a group-think mentality promotes the false concepts of the "brotherhood of man", ecclesiastical unity, political globalism, and the sacrifice of individuals in order to insure "species survival" -even to the extent of mass genocide to eliminate the "feeble-minded" and other undesirable elements of society that may ultimately prove to be a threat to the species as a whole.


MODERNISM vs. FUNDAMENTALISM

When these philosophies began to infiltrate mainstream Christianity, the modernism born in Germany almost 2 centuries earlier began to infect mainstream denominations in the United States like an incurable cancer. Heresies spawned in the 19th Century that scorned the fundamental doctrines of the Word of God culminated in the dogma of Twentieth Century Modernism:

The Bible is the result of a human evolutionary process
Dismissal of miracles
No validity to Biblical historical accounts (i.e.-no Adam or Eve, no Flood)
Many Old Testament events are merely myth
No Virgin Birth, Deny Deity of Christ, No Bodily Resurrection
Gospel narratives are not factual
No accurate idea of what Jesus was really like
Historical-critical approach to Bible interpretation (2)

One need not have a degree in theology to see the correlation between these corruptions of the truth of God with the philosophical blasphemy instigated in the 19th Century. The hand of Hegel, Darwin, Marx, Wescott, and Hort are readily apparent in this blatant approbation against Almighty God. By the 1900s, the philosophies of these men were spreading like a raging wildfire through churches in the United States, igniting fierce controversies within denominational bodies. While most Fundamentalists chose to fight these battles within their respective denominations until about 1930, separatist groups from every denomination later emerged as the hierarchies of each denomination fell like meticulously placed dominoes into the hands of liberal infidels. The situation deteriorated to the point that some denominations refused to even produce official doctrinal statements that would indict the heretics within their ranks.


It was in this climate that the term "Fundamentalist" was coined. Though the term was coined in 1920, it was explicitly defined by the World Congress of Fundamentalists in 1976:

"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 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:

a. The doctrine of the Trinity
b. The incarnation, virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, bodily resurrection, ascension into Heaven, and Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ
c. The new birth through regeneration of the Holy Spirit
d. The resurrection of saints to life eternal
e. The resurrection of the ungodly to final judgment and eternal death
f. 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; and
7) Earnestly contends for the Faith once delivered.

Therefore, Fundamentalism is a militant orthodoxy with a soulwinning zeal. While Fundamentalists may differ on certain interpretations of Scripture, we join in unity of heart and common purpose for the defense of the Faith and the preaching of the Gospel, without compromise or division.

Unless a man holds and defends the Faith of Scripture, and is concerned
for the salvation of the lost, he is not a true Fundamentalist." (3)


At the same Congress, Dr. Bob Jones, Jr. so eloquently added:

"The very word carries with it the clash of arms and the sound of the battle shout." (It) "speaks of the waves beating against a rock rising above the waters of the sea-a rock that stands firm in the midst of the storm. A Fundamentalist is a man who takes up arms from the armory of grace and goes forth strong in the Lord and in the power of His might to contend for the Faith." (4)

Men of God such as this stood against the raging storm of modernism within their respective denominations until about 1930. This was due to the fact that mainline Protestant denominations were all originally based on the essential cardinal doctrines held by all Fundamentalists, and their official creeds and statements of faith confirmed the basic theological foundation of these organizations. Even with the growing number of liberals within these organizations, most who defended the truth fervently believed that God would give them the victory; and the denomination would be rescued from the modernist onslaught. More realistically, "conservative denominational pastors and laymen simply failed to realize the extent to which modernism had permeated their seminaries and agencies". (5)

In the 1920s, well-funded liberals such as Harry Emerson Fodsdick went on the offensive against Fundamentalism. Fodsdick, who was financed by John D. Rockefeller, fired a volley across the bow on May 21, 1922 with his sermon, "Shall the Fundamentalists Win?". The sermon asserted that doctrines such as "The Virgin Birth", "The Inerrancy of Scripture", and "The Second Coming" were nonessentials that he rejected. (6) This sermon also served notice that the liberal's tolerance of those who stood for orthodoxy was wearing thin, and the creeds and doctrinal statements that denominational liberals had simply ignored for decades now became the objects of open criticism. The primary focal point of these attacks began exactly where Lucifer attacked in the 19th Century---the inerrancy of Scripture. In 1924, a group of 149 Presbyterian ministers in Auburn, NY penned the "Auburn Affirmation". Under the guise of "peacemakers" who simply wished to end divisiveness within the denomination, this group explicitly repudiated the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture. (7) The "Doctrine of Inerrancy" which had been the theological beachhead of the 19th Century attack by intellectuals and the seminaries, became the target of new vicious attacks in the public realm of all denominations. The truth was that Lucifer and his liberal accomplices understood perfectly that if a group denied the inerrancy of the Word of God, other essential doctrines would be easy marks. For once the inerrancy of Scripture was questioned, the downward spiral to complete apostasy would become a runaway freight train that could not be derailed. The liberal Christian Century magazine summed up the climate of the 1920s very well when it stated:

"Two worlds have crashed…There is a clash here as profound and as grim as between Christianity and Confucianism…The God of the Fundamentalist is one God; and the God of the Modernist another (emphasis added -ed.)…The inherent incompatibility of the two worlds has passed the stage of mutual tolerance." (8)

Finally realizing there was no revival from apostasy, Fundamentalists followed the example of Spurgeon in separating not only from those who denied the Fundamentals of the Faith, but also from those who associated with them. A.W. Tozer exemplified this principle when he declared, "I have preached myself out of nearly every pulpit in North America." (9)

One should take note at this point that Spurgeon and Tozer (not to mention Schofield, Gordon, Ironside, Jones, McIntire, Machen, et al) would not be very popular in many evangelical churches today. Not only would they be deemed as too divisive, they did not preach nearly enough messages on relationships, personal finances, parenting techniques, etc. to attract a modern crowd large enough to make the payment on the building. Furthermore, just as the new radical center "third way" political views have made those who are deemed "politically incorrect" the object of prolific scorn, the "greater evangelical community" has in essence branded today's Fundamentalists as "religiously incorrect" (though they may not use that exact term, they have coined other derogatory terms such as "Fundies"). While some who disgracefully wear the Fundamentalist badge deserve to be branded due to their nasty attitudes and demagoguery, the "religiously incorrect" label is reserved for those who, in defense of the Faith (and in a Scriptural manner), propagate such things as a "critical spirit" against other high-profile Christians like Max Lucado, Paul Crouch, Chuck Colson, Pat Robertson, Bill McCartney, Jack Van Impe, Billy Graham, or Pope John Paul II. In defense of the biblical Fundamentalist, his position should be as ordained by the Word of God:

"…mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which you have learned and avoid them. For they are such which serve our Lord Jesus Christ…and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple." Rom.16: 17-18


The decade of the 1930s brought more sweeping changes to the lives of those in the Western World. The Great Depression caused many to reject the Modernist fable that man was in control of his own destiny, and forced individuals from a self-sufficient, in-control posture to that of simple survival. This sudden nosedive into survival mode made families closer and forced individuals to reassess their priorities. Also, the outbreak of war in Europe dealt a blow to the idea that World War I was the war to end all wars; virtually extinguishing the theory that the League of Nations was a step towards making the "Kingdom of God" a reality. World War II also caused many to re-evaluate the eschatology of Postmillennialism that taught mankind was indeed steadily progressing to the point that the Kingdom of God would be revealed on earth. All of these factors added fuel to the fires of Premillennial, Separatist Fundamentalism. As a result of these and other factors, separatists in the Fundamentalist camp made great strides in the decades of the 1930s and 1940s through the organization of Bible conferences, establishing Bible Colleges, Radio Ministries, and the founding of broad-based Fundamentalist organizations such as the American Council of Christian Churches and the National Association of Evangelicals. Fundamentalist leaders such as Charles Woodbridge, Carl McIntire, John R.Rice, Bob Jones, Charles Fuller, M.R. DeHaan, Harry Ironside, R.G. Lee, and many others carried the torch for the suddenly vibrant separatist movement.


THE NEW EVANGELICALISM


Just when Fundamentalism seemed to be gaining the most ground, a new movement from within its ranks sowed the seeds that would lead to its eventual decline. This group of individuals called themselves "New Evangelicals". Harold J. Ockenga, the first president of Fuller Theological Seminary, coined the term "New Evangelical" in 1947. He insisted the key word in furthering the Gospel is no longer Biblical separation from, but infiltration into apostate churches. He took it upon himself to detail the differences between Fundamentalism and New Evangelicalism:

1. New Evangelicals would address the social issues that
Fundamentalists avoided. New Evangelicals would include
with salvation a "social philosophy".
2. New Evangelicals would not "delve into personalities that embrace
error".
3. The Christian should not be "obscurantist in scientific questions as
to creation, the age of man, the universality of the Flood, and other
debatable Biblical questions".
4. Intellectual questions should be answered within the framework of
modern learning and there should be liberty in minor areas. (10)


In addition, Ockenga specifically designated and promoted 4 Agencies for the advancement of New Evangelicalism:

National Association of Evangelicals
Fuller Theological Seminary
Christianity Today
Ecumenical Evangelism led by Billy Graham Ministries (11)

While the role of Fuller Seminary will become even more crucial in the in the later discussion of Outcome-based Religion, Fuller became not only the training ground of New Evangelicals, but also the primary source for instilling the principles of Outcome-based Religion from its very inception. This early direction of Fuller Seminary was very explicit:

"Fuller's early leaders were consciously rejecting the negative aspects of old-line Fundamentalism…Fundamentalism was characterized by militancy…a willingness to deal with the negatives, and by separation, and it was this that brought about the New Evangelical Movement." (12)

As President of Fuller Seminary, Ockenga also made their goals very clear:

"We want our young men to be so trained, that when they come from a denomination they will go back into their denomination adequately prepared to preach the gospel and defend the faith and to go forward in the work of God." (13)

In one fell swoop, this statement delivered the essence of evangelical ecumenism, succinctly stated the strategy of infiltration in lieu of separation, and revealed the position that adherence to doctrine is subordinate to evangelism. All of these points are in direct conflict with the Word of God.

1) The Bible demands separation-not infiltration.
2) The Bible also is clear that Christians are to have no tolerance for false teachers or false doctrine.
3) In contrast to Outcome-based Religion, the Bible does not teach that the end justifies the means

In opposition to the Fuller methodology, Francis Schaeffer stated, "Evangelism which does not lead to…purity of doctrine is just as faulty and incomplete as orthodoxy that which does not lead to a concern for, and communication with, the lost." (14)


Evangelism is not mutually exclusive of doctrine. How can the message of the Gospel coexist with those who deny the Deity of Christ, the Virgin Birth, the Bodily Resurrection, Justification by Faith, or the Inerrancy of Scripture? The reality is that in an environment of false doctrine (as is the case of a religious organization whose hierarchy professes to the teachings of Modernism or Catholicism) the infiltrator must compromise his position to avoid embarrassment, exposure and/or ultimate expulsion. When the infiltrator plays this script to its logical conclusion, one compromise leads to another until overt apostasy once again rules the situation, and the infiltrator himself embraces false doctrine. This was evidenced even at Fuller, as by the early 1960s, the "Fuller faculty was split as to whether inerrancy applied to all Scripture, or just those passages that dealt with redemption". (15) As the situation at Fuller deteriorated, by 1982 only 15% of Fuller's School of Theology's students "held the conviction of the seminary's founders on inerrancy". (16) Dr. Charles Woodbridge accurately summed up the situation when he stated:

"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. (17)

The New Evangelical realized the error of the Modernist, but was offended by the militancy of the Fundamentalist. These individuals were concerned that the separatist attitude of the Fundamentalists was too harsh and unloving. This can probably best be exemplified in the methods of Billy Graham's ecumenical evangelism. None will argue that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is accurately and clearly presented in the Billy Graham Crusades. However, instead of working with Fundamentalists who preached the Gospel, from the mid-1950s forward, Billy Graham Ministries aligned with Roman Catholics and Modernists who denied or perverted the very doctrine of justification by faith espoused by Dr. Graham from the crusade platform. While this may on the surface appear to be a contradiction, this methodology is the perfect application of Ockenga's strategy of infiltration of rather than separation from apostate organizations. In addition, the converts from these crusades were then sent to infiltrate the very apostate organizations that sponsored the crusade. Rather than the infiltration of born-again individuals into apostate organizations reversing infidelity, the tragic results of this strategy produced an entire generation of born-again individuals whose impact for the cause of Christ was virtually nullified due to the lack of Christian growth and maturity that comes only from of sound biblical teaching, true Christian fellowship, and the expository preaching of the Word of God. Even more tragically, the children of that generation who grew up in an environment deprived of a pure gospel witness and biblical principles are at risk of becoming an entirely lost generation.

Yes, the motive was indeed, from a human perspective, noble. The stated outcome-mass evangelization-was praiseworthy. However, the methodology that contradicted or completely ignored the instructions of the Word of God was seriously flawed. In the final analysis, evangelism in the absence sound doctrine fails to perpetuate itself. The utilization of this methodology of the New Evangelicalism stifles the passing of the "Gospel Torch" to future generations-a prime example of the tragic failure of the early implementation of the basic principles of Outcome-based Religion.


THE ECUMENICAL MOVEMENT

Ecumenical Movement began within the major Protestant denominations as an impetus for worldwide unity and cooperation among Christian churches. Though the event historically perceived as the founding of the Ecumenical Movement was the World Missionary Conference in Edinburgh in 1910, such attempts had been made as early as the mid-Nineteenth Century. (18) Unity among believers is absolutely biblical and is to be encouraged. However, the modern Ecumenical Movement is patently unbiblical. This movement began as an effort to first unite denominations, expanded to bring the wandering sheep in the Protestant denominations back into the fold of the Church of Rome, and has now evolved to the point that common ground is being sought among all of the world's religions.

The spirit of early ecumenism was illustrated with the founding of the Federal Council of Churches on December 2, 1908. Its original membership consisted of 31 major American denominations, and by 1950 it had grown to 144,000 local congregations with a total membership of 32,000,000. (19) At first glance one may assume that this organization was based on the principle of the biblical unity. However, when the founders of the organization are examined, such names appear as Harry F. Ward. Dr. Ward was a professor at Union Theological Seminary, and was identified under oath by ex-Communist Manning Johnson as the "chief architect for Communist infiltration and subversion in the religious field." (20) Another founder of the FCC was Walter Rauschenbusch. Dr. Rauschenbusch was a Baptist professor at Rochester Theological Seminary. He also was a member of the socialist Fabian Society, and "called upon Christians to build a just social order based on moral law…He thought that Christians had failed to carry out Christ's command to build a kingdom of God on earth…" (21) In 1942, the Federal Council of Churches issued a platform calling for a "world government, international control of all armies and navies, a universal system of money, and a democratically controlled international bank." (22) It certainly then comes as no surprise that in 1927, Congressman Arthur Free introduced a resolution in the U.S. House of Representatives naming the Federal Council of Churches as "a Communist organization aimed at the establishment of a state church…" (23) On November 29, 1950 the Federal Council of Churches merged with several other interdenominational organizations to form the National Council of Churches. The National Council of Churches then gained membership in the World Council of Churches.

History once again repeated itself after World War II. Just as the move toward a world government under the League of Nations was attempted after World War I, the illuminist elite once again organized a world assembly in the United Nations. This One-worldism was also simultaneously duplicated in the theological realm with the founding of the World Council of Christian Churches. The WCCC was formed in 1948 with 147 denominations of Protestant and Orthodox origin. (It has presently grown to 293 member denominations representing 400,000,000 people.) This organization became the new bastion of Protestant Liberalism and Modernism. Founded on the unscriptural principal of " 'unity of the churches', the new vision is for the unity of all religions-and, in fact, all of mankind." (24) The inaugural meeting of the WCCC (August 1948) extended an invitation of membership to "churches which accept our Lord Jesus Christ as God and Savior", but did not bother to quantify the interpretation of that statement. (25) At this same meeting, the organization's goal was clearly stated by General Secretary of the WCCC, W.A. Visser't Hooft:

"…there can be and there is finally only one church of Christ on earth…we are aware of the situation, that we do not accept it passively, that we move forward towards the manifestation of the ONE HOLY CHURCH." (26)

Lest any misunderstand, the Universal Church certainly does exist. This is the "Body of Christ", consisting of all those who have been vicariously redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ. However, this Universal Church DOES NOT include every member of every church and/or religion. This "Body" also DOES NOT include those who merely claim Christianity but have never experienced the new birth. Furthermore, this particular statement paralleled the sentiment for a One-World Government with a One World Religion. The opposite view of the WCCC has been correctly conveyed by Dr. David Cloud:

"We could describe the error of the WCC under a number of categories.
We could speak of its Doctrinal Heresy, its Modernism…. Universalism. The simple fact is that the WCC fails every Biblical test which could be applied. It is patently and grossly unscriptural." (27)

In reference to the Statement of Faith of the WCCC, even E.J. Carnell, President of Fuller Theological Seminary, had these less-than-flattering words (in spite of his criticism, he still sent Fuller's graduates to infiltrate WCCC member churches):

(The World Council of Churches Statement of Faith) "is not praiseworthy enough to suit orthodoxy, for the only heresy it catches is Unitarianism. The holes in the mesh are so wide that a sea of theological error can safely swim through. This proves that the ecumenical movement is more concerned with unity than it is with the truth." (28)

The basic premise of the WCCC is the establishment of this mystical "Kingdom of God" on Earth. This is the same old song sung to the same old tune. The idea of establishing the "Kingdom of God" is as old as the formation of the Church of Rome. This stream of thought flows through the pages of history from the Roman Church, through the British Empire, and into the Twentieth Century under the auspices of the League of Nations. However, God will not enlist the help of man to establish His Kingdom on the earth, and the Kingdom of God on earth is not and will not be revealed in the Church. The Kingdom of God will be established only at the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. He alone-without the aid of man-will establish His Kingdom, and He then will rule the entire earth from Jerusalem for 1000 years-the Millennium. Therefore, the socialistic kingdom envisioned by the World Council of Churches is nothing more than a Luciferic fabrication. Philip Potter, WCCC General Secretary, 1969, stated:

"We call upon the churches to move …to relevant and sacrificial action leading to new relationships of dignity and justice among all men and to become the agents for the radical reconstruction of society…a radical change of economic, social, and political structures are needed and not the mere prudential transfer of resources and technologies." (29)

Under the dubious leadership of the World and National Council of Churches, the Ecumenical Movement became an easy target for militant Fundamentalism. In addition to the continued denial of the fundamental doctrines of the Christian Faith, the long list of Communist front organizations and affiliations within NCC and the WCCC added new fervor to Fundamentalist organizations. As a result, during the 1950s and 1960s, high profile Fundamentalists such as Dr. Carl McIntire with the American Council of Christian Churches, Edgar Bundy of the Church League of America, and Billy James Hargis (later implicated in a sex scandal) of the Christian Crusade exposed the Ecumenism and Communism of the NCC and the WCCC through both nationwide radio broadcasts and patriotic rallies.

"They focused their attacks on the National Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches as 'apostate, un-American, pro-Communist, and treasonous ecclesiastical organizations.'" (30)

The efforts of these and other Fundamentalists, along with the general conservative mood of Americans in the 1950s, led to another mass exodus from mainline denominations in the 1960s. This all seemed to signal a failure of the Ecumenical Movement, but in 1963 the cavalry arrived in an attempt to rescue the religious infidels.

VATICAN II


For more than 1400 years the Roman Catholic Church was not only self-righteous, but in its own eyes the Church possessed absolute infallibility. The Church of Rome lorded over monarchs, over wealthy men, and over the poor with an iron hand. Irrespective of social latitude, if one's personal beliefs were inconsistent with those of the Church-the consequences were either prison, torture, burning at the stake, or all of the above. From the Church's perspective there was no salvation apart from Rome, no Christianity apart from Rome, and no room for discussion. However, in 1962 something strangely disproportionate occurred, and many of the attitudes that prevailed for more than a millennia suspiciously disappeared.

The First Vatican Council was adjourned in 1870 after establishing definitions to the "doctrine" of papal infallibility. (31) The Second Vatican Council opened October 11, 1962 under Pope John XXIII and closed December 8,1965 under Pope Paul VI. The decrees and declarations of Vatican II signaled a paradigm shift in Catholic thought that resulted in not only a schismatic civil war within the ranks of Catholicism, but also raised serious questions as to the true source of the changes. The essence of these changes began in 1959 when Pope John XXIII called the Council "to complete the work of the First Vatican Council". (32) In 1961 he set a historical precedent by permitting Catholic observers to officially attend the third assembly of the World Council of Churches, and he also afforded places of honor to Protestant and Orthodox observers at all of the Vatican II sessions. (33) The resulting bombshell labeled the "Decree on Ecumenism" included the following excerpts:

1. All who have been "justified in faith in baptism" are members of the
Body of Christ; they all have the right to be called Christian; the children of the Catholic Church call them brothers.
2. The Catholic Church believes that the separated churches and communities "are efficient in some respects." But the Holy Ghost makes use of these churches; they are a means of salvation to their members.
3. Catholics are encouraged to join in Oecumenical (sic) activity, and to meet non-Catholic Christians in truth and love…
4. Catholics are not to ignore their duty to other Christians…even so…Catholics sincerely believe that theirs is the Church of Christ; everything necessary must be done that others may clearly recognize it as Christ's Church.
5. …Theologians and other competent Catholics should study the history, teachings, and liturgy of separated Churches…
6. In appropriate circumstances prayers for unity should be recited jointly with non-Catholic Christians…
7. …Important differences remain…but…the fact that Christians believe in the divinity of Christ and the fact of reverence for God's word revealed in the Bible.
8. In the cause of ecumenism, the Catholic must always remain true to the Faith that he has received….(34)

The new concepts initiated by Pope John XXIII and Vatican II were a radical departure from the historic position of the Roman Catholic Institution. Even to suggest that Protestant and Orthodox were Christians, much less to use the term "brothers" was in complete contradiction of traditional Catholic doctrine. Traditionalists within the Catholic Church accused the authors of the Vatican II documents as "favoring modern philosophy over traditional Catholic doctrine"; favoring Humanism, Naturalism, and Evolution; refusing to condemn Socialism and Communism; and making agreements with "Masonry", the World Council of Churches, and "Moscow". (35) Time has proven these accusations correct, and some even suggest that Vatican II was such a radical departure from established Catholicism that one must seriously consider the possibility of a major coup within the walls of the Vatican. In the words of traditional Catholic, R. P. Georges de Nantes:

"At the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), the two men posing as Catholic popes, John XXIII and Paul VI, led the whole body of Cardinals and Bishops out of the Catholic Church and into their Vatican II sect…" (36)

While one must wonder what happened to cause such a radical change, (39) for the purposes of this discussion, the answer to that question is irrelevant. The issue at hand is simply that just when the Ecumenical Movement was about to placed in its grave, the Roman Catholic Church appeared on the scene as the knight in shining armor to rescue the movement. Not only did the Church of Rome embrace the "separated brethren", but also initiated new strategies to augment the efforts of ecumenism. (These strategies will be discussed in subsequent chapters.)


CONCLUSION

The 19th Century witnessed the laying of the foundation for the events of the first 6 decades of the 20th Century. By 1965, the stage seemed set for the alliance of Protestants and Catholics to unite and form the One-world Church. Fundamentalists at this time were not only embroiled in the battle with the Modernist-Roman Catholic alliance, but also faced the Out-come based threat of the New Evangelicals. With Fundamentalism engaged in battle on two fronts, the Mega-church seemed to be positioned to end the threat of fragmented Fundamentalism. However, God had other plans for mankind, and world events would take another turn to strike a major blow at the heart of the Ecumenical Movement.

ENDNOTES

1. "Modernist Millennium", Perilous Times Newsletter, Vol. 2 #16
2. Cloud, David. "Fundamentalism, Modernism, and New Evangelicalism",
www.Whidbey.net/~dcloud/tbns/fundamen1.htm. p.2
3. Beale, David O. In Pursuit of Purity: American Fundamentalism Since 1850.
Unusual Publications, Greenville, SC, 1986. p.348
4. Ibid. p.347
5. Ibid. p.185
6. Ibid. p.154
7. Ibid. p.156
8. Ibid. p.157
9. Hunt, David. "Am I a Fundamentalist?", The Berean Call newsletter, August, 1998. p.1.
10. Dollar, George. A History of Fundamentalism in America, Bob Jones University Press, Greenville, SC. 1973. p.204.
11. Woodbridge, Charles. The New Evangelicalism, Bob Jones University Press, Greenville, SC. p.
12. Dollar. p. 207.
13. Murray, Iain H. Evangelicalism Divided, The Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh, UK., 2000. p.22.
14. Ibid. p.77.
15. Ibid. p.37
16. Ibid. p.190
17. Woodbridge. p. 15.
18. "Ecumenical Movement". The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th Edition,
http://www.bartleby.com/65/ec/ecumen-mo.html. 2001.
19. Burns,Cathy. Billy Graham and His Friends, Sharing Press, Mt. Carmel, PA, 2001. p.189.
20. Ibid. p.142.
21. Ibid. p.190.
22. Ibid. p.194.
23. Ibid. p.195.
24. Reynolds, Marion H. "The Truth About the National Council of Churches",
www.fundamentalbiblechurch.net/tbcwcc.htm. p.2.
25. Murray. p.2.
26. "ENI News Highlights," Ecumenical News International, World Council of
Churches, December, 1997, http://www.wcc_coe.org/eni
27. Cloud, David. Way of Life Encyclopedia, (as quoted by) Aho, Barbara, Watch Unto Prayer Ministries, http://www.watch.pair.com/pray.html
28. Murray. p.21.
29. Reynolds. p.4.
30. Groupwatch. Interhemispheric Resource Center, Albuquerque, NM, 1988. www.irc-online.org, p.2.
31. "The Second Vatican Council". www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/v1.html, p.1.
32. "The Ecumenical Movement". Encarta Online Encyclopedia, http://encarta.msn.com/index/conciseindex/55/05553000.htm?z=1&pg=2&br=1, p.3.
33. Ibid. p.4.
34. "The Second Vatican Council". pp. 13-14.
35. Georges de Nantes, R.P. "Summary of the Principal Errors of Vatican II Ecclesiology", www.truecatholic.org/v2ecclesio.htm, January, 1984, p.3.
36. Ibid.
37. Jeffrey, Grant. Final Warning, Frontier Research Publications, Toronto, 1995, pg.161.
38. Hayes, Kathleen. "Black Virgin, Black Christ", NRI Trumpet, 5/91,p.1.
39. This aspect is discussed in detail in the article "Rome's Year 2000 Penance" at www.cuttingedge.org.

Intoduction to this section - CHRISTIAN CHURCHES ARE OPENING THE DOOR TO ANTICHRIST

Preface

 

Other areas of The Cutting Edge: