This is the next chapter of the book, The Foundations Under Attack: The Roots of Apostasy – By Michael de Semlyen

C. The Foundations Under Attack The Roots of Apostasy

The apostasy that we have witnessed in the twentieth century; the compromise on essentials and the attack on the fundamentals actually have their roots in the nineteenth century. That century provided Great Britain with unprecedented prosperity, political power and global influence as well as the “feel good factor.” At the same time, prominent committed Christians such as Livingstone, Wilberforce and Shaftesbury brought the gospel to the lost and social reform to the deprived and excluded. Victorian values, to which we look back with such nostalgia today, were derived from the Scriptures and brought many blessings and earned much respect abroad. On the face of it, all seemed to be well with the church too, but appearances were deceiving. Malign spiritual forces were at large, principalities and powers, spiritual wickedness in high places conspiring to undermine the very foundations of the faith.

During the course of that benign and well-intentioned century the Protestant Reformed religion established by law, which for centuries had stood firm, yielded ground to its sworn enemy—and came under sustained attack on several fronts. The Catholic Emancipation Act was enacted in 1829 and the Jesuits allowed to return to England. Within four years the Romanising movement within the Church of England had been launched at Oxford. As we shall see, Anglo- Catholicism was set to play a crucial role in the attack on the foundations of the Reformed faith and in the strategy of the Counter-Reformation.

That strategy was laid out unmistakably by Cardinal Manning speaking to a gathering of Jesuit leaders in 1870—the very year that Papal Infallibility was instituted.

As at the time of the Reformation the Word of God itself came under sustained attack. The Futurist interpretation of Bible prophecy propagated unsuccessfully by the Jesuits at the time of the Reformation had been repackaged and disseminated into the church through the flood of tracts of the newly formed Brethren movement and the Anglo- Catholic Tractarians. This new understanding of Daniel, 2 Thessalonians and Revelation laid the foundation of a false theology of Antichrist—the spurious Scriptural basis for the modern ecumenical movement. A new Bible was required; and was duly produced by Anglo-Catholic scholars, Professors Westcott and Hort. Their Revised Version of the Bible was based on corrupted manuscripts rejected by the Reformation, but it became the father of almost all modern versions. Its translation of the prophetic passages related to Antichrist lent itself to the new futurist theology. Protestant author and former Secretary of the Protestant Truth Society, Albert Close wrote in 1916: “The Jesuits have enticed our theological professors and the Plymouth brethren to fire high over the head of the great Antichrist; one in the past the Praeterist, the other in the future the Futurist Antichrist. Between these two schools the whole Christian ministry has been mixed up, and is practically sitting on the fence. Few ministers now preach Daniel or Revelation.” Of course that remains the case today.

Given the impact in the theological colleges and the wider church of the new Higher Criticism in the climate of Darwinism and advancing humanism it is not surprising that the new understanding of Bible prophecy spread as quickly as it did. The Scofield Reference Bible appeared in the 1920s and was greatly influential especially among Pentecostals. Full of scholarly footnotes, it incorporated Futurist theology into its Dispensationalist scheme in such a way that few were able to distinguish it all from the inspired Scriptures. Dispensational Futurism has subsequently spread widely in evangelical circles especially among Charismatics and is now accepted by the majority of Christians as the new orthodoxy. This has seriously weakened the spiritual armoury of the church. With the Antichrist yet to appear and the Papacy vindicated from its accusers, the authority of Scripture was enhanced among those who sought reconciliation with Rome. The Counter-Reformation, so hostile and confrontational towards heretics in the past had emerged with a new face and a new strategy, and an ecumenical Bible. In 1910 at the Edinburgh World Missionary Conference the modern ecumenical movement was born.

Antichrist was no longer the Roman Papacy, except to a diminishing remnant, but a political world ruler who would appear at the end of the age. A few generations would pass and Christians raised on or drawn to the new Bible versions and the new eschatology would be ready to abandon and even repent of the Reformation separated position regarding Rome (this is also the Constitutional position). The new climate in which tolerance and unity is preferred to truth ensured this would happen. The “ancient landmark” could be removed within the Church of England. It was, at Keele, in 1967.

The First National Evangelical Conference met at Keele in April 1967 with 1000 clergy and laity taking part. It has been described as having marked a turning point in Anglican evangelicalism in the twentieth century. And now thirty years after Keele, the majority of evangelicals who are still in the Church of England look back with considerable satisfaction at what they see as the great achievements of the Keele Conference. They believe it was at Keele that at last the unity, which they had longed for and prayed for, became a reality. Those who were regarded as conservative evangelicals repented of their withdrawal and their sectarian attitudes and began to engage with the wider church and the world.

The conference had been primed to deal with the new policy of Anglican evangelicals towards ecumenism. The ecumenical movement had gained wide acceptance within the Church of England and beyond, and careful preparations had been made for the Keele Conference to successfully launch the “new evangelicalism” which was to unite evangelicals with their Anglo-Catholic and liberal brethren.

Dr Michael Ramsay, the Anglo-Catholic Archbishop of Canterbury, was there to open the Conference. It was highly significant that he was the Conference’s choice. It set the tone for what was to follow. Ramsay was sympathetic towards reunion with Rome. He had officially visited the Pope in the Vatican in 1966 and described the whole ecumenical enterprise as “the Holy Spirit working in us, uniting us in love and building us up in truth.” He looked upon evangelicalism as sectarian, and even heretical, and took the opportunity afforded him by the conference to lecture a passive audience on their need to draw closer to Anglo-Catholics.

“Let us recognise,” he said, “that amongst us Anglicans, some may have experienced the centrality of the Cross in ways different from others. For instance, those who value, as others do not, such things as sacramental confession or the Eucharistic sacrifice.”

Bishop J.C. Ryle’s warnings about the dangers presented by Anglo- Catholicism still echo down to us from the last century. The Anglo- Catholics, formerly known as the Tractarians, had long had a well- concealed plan for Church and nation to be reunited with the Church of Rome. Societies within their movement pursued this aim. They included the Society of the Holy Cross, the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament and,Society most particularly, the Order of Corporate Reunion – much of their business done in secret. At the end of the last century an article on the “Newest Fashions of Ritualism” appeared in a Jesuit publication, The Month. It declared that “At any rate the ritualists are doing a good work, which in the present state of the country, Catholics cannot do in the same proportion; they (the ritualists, or Anglo-Catholics) are preparing the soil and sowing the seed for a rich harvest, which the Catholic Church will reap sooner or later.”

Cardinal John Henry Newman, hero and Saint to most Anglo-Catholics, and most influential leader of the Oxford movement, was said by Clifford Longley to have written the agenda of the Second Vatican Council from the grave. Newman’s contribution to the cause of reunion with Rome is highly valued by the Vatican and he seems sure to emerge as the first Ecumenical Saint of the Roman Church. His defection to Rome in 1845 was described at the time it happened, by a future prime minister, as possibly the greatest religious crisis since the Reformation. How far things have moved since then!

Through the Anglo-Catholic movement, Newman’s reformulation of doctrine (which is synonymous with continuing revelation) has had enormous influence inside and outside the Church of England. It has greatly influenced many Charismatics and liberals (and evangelicals too!) and provided good food for ecumenical believers. Newman’s essay called The Development of Christian Doctrine, which he began as an Anglican and finished as a Roman Catholic, was the proof-text for those who helped put together the Agreed Statements of ARCIC (The Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission). As such it has helped to bring about the original goal of the Tractarians of convergence with Rome. The final ARCIC report, approved by the General Synod in 1986 and by the Lambeth Conference of Bishops in 1988, and the report’s 1994 “Clarifications”, show Anglican doctrine and practice on Ministry and the Lord’s Supper to be reformulated in line with the Council of Trent. When Newman had met with Cardinal Wiseman in the Vatican in 1833 he had asked him on what terms the Church of England would be received back into the Roman fold. “By swallowing Trent whole” replied Wiseman. This has now been accomplished on behalf of the Anglican Communion. Only the issue of Women’s ordination stands in the way of merger—or rather take-over—by the Church of Rome.

Whether such an outcome, such success for the Counter- Reformation was envisaged by those who determined the agenda at Keele is not known. But most of the facts and solemn warnings that I have referred to must have been well known to the evangelical leadership. But at Keele warnings of this kind were brushed aside by Dr. John Stott, who chaired the Conference. He and the other leaders were set on accommodation with the Anglo-Catholics. Earlier in 1963 a skirmish had been fought by these progressives with those who held fast to separation from doctrinal compromise. The Anglo- Catholic ritualists succeeded in a court action in making mass vestments and stone altars lawful. As a result of this many reformed evangelicals departed the Church of England at that time. Their loss made the task of those who were set on accommodating the Anglo- Catholics at Keele that much easier.

John Stott warned the Assembly at Keele that evangelicals had “acquired a reputation for narrow partisanship and obstructionism and that they needed to repent and change….The initial task for divided Christians is dialogue, at all levels and across all barriers. We desire to enter this ecumenical dialogue fully. We recognize that all who ‘confess the Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour according to the Scriptures and therefore seek to fulfil together their common calling to the glory of one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit [that is the World Council of Churches basis—Authors note] have a right to be treated as Christians, and it is on this basis that we wish to talk with them.’” This Statement made clear that the Keele Conference was accepting not only Anglo- Catholics and liberals as fellow Christians but Roman Catholics too. Let us just pause to consider the enormity of this. Thirty years ago the Church of England’s most widely respected evangelicals, headed by John Stott, determined that ALL Roman Catholics are saved. It is interesting to note that it was 27 years before leading evangelicals on the other side of the Atlantic did the same, with Evangelicals and Catholics Together.

The influence of Billy Graham and his new evangelicalism played its part at Keele. Graham’s apparently hugely successful ministry had long since accepted Catholics and liberals as fellow Christians. His example, in Martyn Lloyd-Jones words, “of Christian fellowship without agreement in the truth of the gospel, had shaken people’s convictions as to what exactly it means to be an evangelical.”

The sea change in the evangelical attitude to ecumenism ratified at Keele by Anglicans greatly influenced the other denominations. Dr Martyn Lloyd- Jones, probably the greatest preacher of the twentieth century, led the opposition to the departure from Protestant evangelicalism that Keele represented. Lloyd-Jones believed that far from providing the solution to the main problems of the church, Keele left the Church with much bigger questions to answer.

“What is a Christian?”, for example, and “What is a church?”. The abandoning of the stand of the Reformers against counterfeit Christianity and the downgrade of doctrine implicit in Keele’s Statement meant in fact that true unity among evangelicals was no more. Addressing the British Evangelical Council in 1969 and citing the Scripture in 1 Corinthians 14, verse 8,—“For if the trumpet gives an uncertain sound who shall prepare himself for the battle?“—Dr. Lloyd Jones made clear that he saw the enemy as not just present, but rampant, in the camp. “Sound the alarm”, he thundered, “Sound the alarm.”

Opposing the new unity movement was a lonely task for him. So many of those leaders who had previously shared his views were shifting their position. For example, according to Iain Murray, Dr. J.I. Packer, once so close to the Doctor, changed his view between 1963 and 1965 to the very position that he had once criticised as inconsistent with evangelicalism. His endorsement of the Keele Statement was a telling blow to Dr. Lloyd-Jones, and others, with whom Dr. Packer had previously allied himself.

It was a very few years before, in 1961, that Jim Packer described the doctrine of justification by faith alone, sola fide, as, “like Atlas, it bears a world on its shoulders, the entire evangelical knowledge of saving grace.” But his position on this defining doctrine changed as well, perhaps at that same time prior to Keele. His revised view has been recently demonstrated by his signing of Evangelicals and Catholics Together, the document that has rocked American evangelicalism. In a 1994 article, Why I Signed It, he refers to Sola Fide (faith alone) as “small print.” He asked the question: “May ECT realistically claim, as in effect it does, that its evangelical and Catholic drafters agree on the gospel of salvation?” “Answer Yes and No.” “No”, Professor Packer says, “with respect to the ‘small print.’” Thus Sola Fide, a burning issue for Reformation martyrs, and an issue which “bears a world on its shoulders”, is relegated to “small print.”

Martyn Lloyd-Jones felt that, by compromising with ecumenism, Anglican evangelicals were putting their denomination before the gospel and downgrading doctrine. Personal relationships, and superficial unity, tolerance and love were preferred to the confrontational truths of Scripture. He urged evangelicals to come out of the denominations united in the truth of God’s word. How this was to be accomplished he felt was for others to determine, but he was convinced that it could happen and should happen. There had to be clarity—rather than the confusion that was overtaking the understanding of the gospel. “We should not be asking”, he said, “‘How can we have a territorial church’, ‘how can we have unity and fellowship’ or ‘how can we find a formula to satisfy opposing views?’ We should be asking, ‘What is a Christian? How does one become a Christian? How can we get forgiveness of sin and what is a church?”’

Keele legitimised compromise for evangelicals within the established Church. But, at Nottingham, the second National Evangelical Anglican Conference (NEAC II), which followed 10 years later, gave compromise its seal of approval. The ecumenical charismatic movement, which had begun in Britain in the early 1960s, had been opposed at Keele by that Conference’s organisers. But at Nottingham it was highly praised. The Nottingham Statement declared: “We see a particular significance in the charismatic movement, especially in its strong witness to the primacy of God.”

And it was at Nottingham that leading charismatic, David Watson, friend and mentor to John Wimber, spoke of the Reformation as “one of the greatest tragedies that ever happened to the church.” He went on to tell the conference how he had come to sense the profound grief that God must feel at the separation of his body.

The Charismatic Renewal movement had begun in the United States in the 1950s and rapidly swept across the Christian world. It was widely seen as a great work of the Holy Spirit, a new Pentecost. Para-church groups within the movement like the Full Gospel Businessmen’s Fellowship International brought Roman Catholics and Protestants together “under the banner of love” in what they called the “unity of the spirit.” They placed emphasis on experiential testimony rather than Scripture.

It was less than two years before Keele that the Second Vatican Council gave its blessing to what they called this new movement of the Holy Spirit. The “separated brethren could now be welcomed back into the fold,” announced Jesuit Cardinal Augustin Bea to the delegates in 1965. The heretics had become “separated brethren” and their abandoning of sound doctrine meant that they could come back to the Mother Church. The Vatican officially adopted its own renewal movement. To what extent this movement was spontaneous, or planned, we do not know. But with all the emphasis on gifts and experiences, it certainly helped to sweep aside doctrinal differences. At the same time it demonstrated, as did the Billy Graham crusades, what the evangelist called “the role in the Christian family of our Catholic brethren.” With the reinstatement of Catholics as “brethren” in the minds and hearts of so many, the once secure fortress of biblical separation was breached. Keele was the formal surrender to the forces of new evangelicalism. Nottingham made the surrender unconditional.

The momentum from Keele and Nottingham and from the new evangelicalism seemed irresistible. The new spirit of tolerance and “love” outlawed arguments over biblical truths. Unity through compromise of doctrine was sought as the will of God to transform the church. The great doctrines of grace and reformed theology were seen as the province of those living in the past, fighting the same old irrelevant battles behind crumbling ramparts. Conservative evangelicals, who would have no track with ecumenism, were marginalised, being seen as unloving and intolerant.

The decision by the Keele Conference of a majority of evangelicals to dialogue with ecumenism was of immeasurable spiritual consequence. It was extraordinary that such a momentous change should be brought about by those very Christians best placed to understand its implications and without serious protest too! In a very real sense evangelicals had ceased to be evangelicals. Doctrine had been relegated from its position of supreme authority to a lesser position. The high view of Scripture was abandoned: God’s Word was no longer infallible. The part played in this by the acceptance of modern Bible versions in place of the King James was surely very considerable. “Thus saith the Lord” was allowed to give way to “depending on what version you have”—reminding us of the serpent’s seed of doubt, “has God said?”

From Keele the slippery slope has rapidly led us downwards and we see the consequences today in the Church of England and in the other Protestant denominations too. During the past thirty years there has been such radical and profound change in the Church of England that this once great institution seems to have lost its very identity. The collapse of Protestantism at Keele and Nottingham had sold the pass to the new evangelicalism; and accelerated the downgrade of doctrine. The abandoning of our God-given Reformation heritage— enshrined in the 39 Articles and formularies of the Church of England—has “removed the ancient landmark, which our fathers have set.” -Proverbs 22:28 The Scripture from Joel 2:17—“…Spare thy people, O LORD, and give not thine heritage to reproach, that the heathen should rule over them: wherefore should they say among the people, Where is their God?” Where is their God? That question is now very relevant to our national church, to its Bishops, priests and laymen—so many of them so uncertain of their faith. It is a question that the nation is asking of itself as that once august body that many of us can remember falls further into disrepute.

At Keele and afterwards, the ancient landmark was removed; and our heritage was given to reproach. There was an act of betrayal. The legacy of those who gave their lives for the truth of the Word of God was abandoned. The verdict of Keele and Nottingham was that the martyrs of the Reformation were mistaken; they were party to one of the greatest tragedies that ever happened to the church. For all but a very few in the Church of England the flame of Hugh Latimer’s candle was extinguished—the blood of the martyrs denied.

The same is true in the Free churches too. Free churches are no longer so free; indeed they are no longer so non-conformist. There is conformism —conformism to the spirit of the age—the spirit of tolerance and unity. We have seen even the Bible-based Baptist denomination succumb to this seductive spirit. Carried along by the stream that became a river that flowed from Keele, the Baptist Union gradually moved its position until in 1995 it routed those who remained in opposition and voted overwhelmingly to fully participate in Churches Together in England.

The new evangelicalism provides for love at the expense of truth. But this is not the expression of love of the bride of Christ, but rather of the harlot of Revelation 17. What has become of the love of truth, the jealousy for purity in doctrine and the hatred of idolatry? Where is the urgent concern for the souls of more than a thousand million religious Catholics, Orthodox and Anglicans in the ecumenical Church today, without assurance of salvation, in bondage to the sacraments and to a system of works and ritual? Where are hearts of compassion for those who seek truth and are imprisoned by deception? Where is the cry for the cleansing of the church and for deep repentance because we have failed them, our own kinsmen, by pretending not to see? Where today are the preachers who do not persistently avoid the clear message of Revelation 17; or “the man of sin” and “mystery of iniquity” of 2 Thessalonians 2; or the persecuting “little horn” of Daniel 7, in the time of the fourth kingdom, “wearing out the saints of the most high”. Where are the watchmen who sound the alarm? Why do they who hear the sound of the trumpet not take warning?

The fact is that in this land of such a precious heritage, very few pastors are prepared any longer to call to remembrance the sacrifice of the martyrs of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The cause of those martyrs—of denying the sacrifice of the Mass as an appalling blasphemy, and the identification of the Papacy as Antichrist—that cause is now the preserve of the very few.

The Reformation provided Christians with two great truths—the just shall live by faith (and not by the works of Romanism or any other religion) and that the Papacy is the Antichrist as revealed in Scripture. If we lose the second we unquestionably do injury to the first, and that is being amply demonstrated today. Pastors won’t preach it; they fear the disapproval of men—they should fear the disapproval of God. Few there are who scorn popularity and are ready to lay down their reputations, let alone their lives. But “evil abounds when good men stay silent.”

At his enthronement as Archbishop at Canterbury in 1991, George Carey spoke of the example to us of former archbishops who were martyred. He named the Benedictine monk Alphege and he named Thomas a Becket, both of whom were canonised by the Roman Catholic Church; and then he spoke of William Laud. Both Becket and Laud sought to bring the Church of England under the authority of the Church of Rome and into her faith and practice. Conspicuous by its absence from George Carey’s recollection of martyrs was the name of Thomas Cranmer, the Protestant martyr, whose quincentenary had been commemorated in a rather muted manner the previous year. George Carey’s enthronement involved a commitment to upholding the 39 Articles of Religion and the Book of Common Prayer, for both of which Cranmer was the man, under God, most responsible. The present Archbishop’s commitment to the Articles and Prayer book has been borne extremely lightly. During his latest visit to the Pope in the Vatican, George Carey did have some good things to say in defence of the Reformation, but he continues eagerly to seek full unity with the Roman Church. This ambivalence illustrates and epitomises the leadership problem of today’s church—man- centered and totally inconsistent.

As the Apostle Paul wrote to the Galatians: “…so say I now again. If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.” -Galatians 1:9-10

The same ambivalence and inconsistency is apparent in the Alpha course which is beginning to spread like a bush fire not just in the UK, but across the USA and Canada, too. In the spirit of Keele, doctrinal differences are glossed over; indeed Catholic theologians have endorsed the Course and, backed by Cardinal Hume, plan their own Roman Catholic Alpha courses in 1997. Alpha stems from Holy Trinity Brompton Church, which was first in the United Kingdom with the ‘Toronto Blessing’, as it was with the ‘Kansas City Prophets’. Like ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics Together), in America, the Alpha Course is providing a highly successful means of reconciling the irreconcilable. The Promise Keepers Movement, another import from the USA launched in England in November ‘97 likewise builds bridges without foundations.

The consequences of surrender to ecumenism at Keele and elsewhere have been very apparent to the nation as well as the church. Given such a free hand, the Church of Rome with its mastery of the media has been positioning itself to take over when the Anglican Church has disintegrated beyond recall. To what extent the Church of Rome’s agents are assisting in this process is not revealed to us, but history relates very clearly what lengths the Pope’s followers will go to in order to further the cause of the “Mother Church.” The Catholic Herald is now confident enough to predict: “The days of the Anglican Church are numbered, and most of its worshippers will return to the true faith of their distant mediaeval forbears.” Many of them already have returned, at least in spirit.

Earlier this year The Times and The Daily Telegraph both gave front page coverage to the news that the Church of England has arranged for the return of the relics of St. Thomas a Becket, on loan from Rome, where they were sent for protection at the time of the Reformation. Fragments of bone and brain tissue, they are the first relics to be displayed at Canterbury Cathedral since the Reformation.

The tomb of Thomas Becket in Canterbury and the spiritual presence of this “Saint” of the Roman Catholic Church in the principal Anglican Cathedral has proved important for the ecumenical movement, and will continue to be so. In 1982 Pope John Paul II and Archbishop Runcie prayed together at Becket’s shrine, and in 1989, the Archbishop of York, John Hapgood, led pilgrims who had arrived for the first multi-faith gathering at the cathedral into the shrine as their final destination. The three strands of this fully ecumenical pilgrimage had earlier converged at another place, another “sacred site” where Henry II had paid penance to the Pope following Becket’s murder in 1170. Services are now held annually across the country on the 29 December to commemorate Becket’s “martyrdom” with unusual media attention. Becket’s “martyrdom”, which stemmed from his preferred allegiance to the Papacy rather than the Crown, may well prove to be important in the revival of the principle that the State should not have power over the Church.

The public perception of Becket’s life and death has been greatly altered in this ecumenical century by plays and films like Anglo- Catholic T.S. Eliot’s Murder in the Cathedral. Even more so in relation to Sir Thomas More, who, according to Foxe’s Acts and Monuments, scourged and tortured in his garden “those guilty of reading the Scriptures and holding purely Protestant doctrines”. Robert Bolt’s film A Man For All Seasons, which has established Thomas More as a great and godly Christian man unequalled in his faith in Christ, is based on history rewritten, ecumenical propaganda. A year of “England’s Christian Heritage” began in May 1997 with a celebration of the 14^th Centenary of Saint Augustine’s arrival in Britain. At his inauguration the Archbishop of Canterbury said that Augustine had brought Christianity to the British Isles from Rome. This is also no more than ecumenical propaganda. There is a wealth of evidence that Christianity had taken root in these islands at the end of the first century, and saints of Christ such as Alban and Patrick were martyred or persecuted for the sake of the gospel centuries before Augustine arrived to enforce papal supremacy. This year of Christian heritage that is said by its organisers to herald a “fresh spiritual breeze” and “a religious stirring” features numerous pilgrimages celebrating pre-Reformation Saints. The veneration or worship of Saints and relics is reversion to spiritism and necromancy, which are condemned in the Bible; but their practice is consistent with the Pope’s recent advice to his flock “to call on dead ancestors for protection.”

The accelerating reversion to pre-Reformation Christianity—to superstition and idolatry—is supported strongly by well-respected Catholic columnists such as Paul Johnson, who have prayed all their lives for England to be restored to Mary’s dowry. The press has given extraordinary prominence to the very public conversions to Rome of public figures such as Ann Widdecombe, John Gummer, Alan Clark, Charles Moore, and, most significantly, the Duchess of Kent. So much has been made of these conversions, and yet, in this ecumenical age that we now live in, it’s not supposed to matter.

Multi-faith worship has followed on—not unnaturally—for once the gates are thrown open all may come in. Reflecting this, the leading members of the Royal family have embraced other religions. The Commonwealth Day Service, especially dear to Her Majesty the Queen is no longer recognisably Christian, and she has not listened to the protests of two thousand evangelical clergymen concerned about the insult done to the unique claims and supremacy of the Lord Jesus Christ. It was Prince Philip who in 1989 launched the International Sacred Literature Trust to significantly contribute to inter-faith dialogue; and Prince Charles, the heir in waiting, whose allegiance is to faiths rather than faith, has gone out of his way to encourage Islam. The Muslims now plan to build 100 new mosques in the next three years—describing this project as “the biggest expression of religious faith in Britain for centuries.”

In November 1992 the Church of England Synod deferred to the prevailing politically correct view and voted in the measure to ordain women. Dr David Samuel, who resigned his ministry in the Church of England as a result of the adoption of this measure, described something of his reaction at that time. “This was a decision that would have enormous implications and would set the course and direction of the Church of England for the future, and that course would be one of ever increasing divergence from Scripture, from its formularies, from orthodoxy and from truth. If the official doctrine of the Church of England can be changed arbitrarily by a show of hands in the Synod, then it has been undermined and revealed to be a fiction.” It is likely that within a very few years there will be women bishops in the Church of England and archbishops too.

Then there is the “Christian” gay and lesbian movement. It was as long as twenty years ago that the NEAC Conference at Nottingham resolved that, “There should be a full welcoming voice in the Christian fellowship for the Christian homosexual.” It was just a few months before that the Lesbian Gay Christian Movement was launched. The service at Southwark Cathedral in November 1996 “celebrated” its twenty-year anniversary. Protest at the Cathedral and across the nation was minimal. Informed observers in the General Synod now believe that the ordination of practising homosexuals is a foregone conclusion. Robert Runcie announced last year that when he was Archbishop of Canterbury this was already happening.

Once evangelicals allow compromise to enter in, and fail to stand their ground on the rock of Scripture, continuing retreat is inevitable. It is well known that leading evangelicals including John Stott convinced themselves that there is no literal Hell. Now just a few years later the doctrine of eternal punishment has been “officially” abolished by the Synod of the Church of England. Annihilationism is the reformulated doctrine of the Anglican Church—flying in the face of 2000 years of orthodoxy and the plain teaching of our Lord in Scripture. Another decision of the Synod is that cohabitation before marriage is now no longer “living in sin.” The teaching of the New Testament in relation to fornication is crystal clear. But this is the new hermeneutic and the new evangelicalism. With the Synod legislating against the clear teaching of Scripture there must have been many who were reminded of the psalmist’s question, “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” -Psalms 11:3

Meanwhile pulpits are physically disappearing, stone and other altars reappearing, crucifixes abound, roods are returning, as are confessions and “holy places” and “holy water”; and more and more ministers are styled as “priest” and “father”, contrary to Scripture. The law is rarely preached in the church today. In the new ecumenical climate of live-and-let-live preachers do not want to run the risk of offending their congregations and losing numbers. It is sobering to learn from the press that a 1997 survey has revealed that less than 25% of Anglican vicars now know the Ten Commandments. Without the law how does one properly preach the Gospel?

Within the Church of England the Reform Group of Anglican Evangelicals was formed from those who opposed much of what had been agreed at Keele. They expressed their disillusionment with the post-Keele direction of the church by advocating non-payment of part of the parish’s share of the diocesan budget. They continue today to oppose some of the unbiblical trends in the Church of England. But they have no clear-cut position in relation to the ordination of women issue, nor do they take a stand with regard to separation from the ecumenical movement. The Church of England (Continuing) separated from the Anglican Church after the Women’s Ordination measure was passed by General Synod in November 1992. It seeks to preserve the real identity of the Church of England through the Authorised Version of the Holy Scriptures, the 39 Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal. David Samuel, the Presiding Bishop, has described these texts as the identity card of the Church of England without which those who belong would be mere vagrants in Christendom.

In bringing this brief survey to a conclusion I feel I must speak of the very real danger, both political and spiritual, that confronts us as our new government and those behind the scenes who influence it weaken and dismantle the Union and prepare us for submergence into a federal Europe. To what extent the retreat of Protestant evangelicalism, epitomised by Keele, has been responsible for the drift into abandoning our cherished independence, only the Lord knows. But as I have sought to argue, our precious and God-given heritage has been betrayed; the lessons of history and the far-sighted precautions of our forefathers in protecting our liberty—enshrined in the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement and the Coronation Oath— have been sidelined, sadly not least by the Queen. And the malign experience of the Papacy in our nation’s affairs in the past has simply been ignored.

We know that as a nation we deserve judgement. The defection of evangelicals from their Protestant Reformed legacy has, not surprisingly, paralleled that of the Monarch and her Parliament. At her coronation Her Majesty recognised the authority and supremacy of Holy Scripture: “This is the most valuable thing this world affords. Here is wisdom. This is the royal law. These are the lively oracles of God.” She then promised to “maintain to the utmost of her power the Laws of God, the true profession of the Gospel and the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law.”

In other words, the Queen committed herself, and the Crown-in- Parliament, to upholding the statutes and laws of Holy Scripture and the Christian faith. However, during her reign, we have seen the royal assent given to radical legislation totally opposed to Christianity as revealed in Scripture, and plainly fostering immorality. Bills facilitating divorce, legalising abortion and homosexuality as well as encouraging adultery and pornography have laid the basis of today’s moral crisis in society. There are many signs that we are reaping the whirlwind of God’s righteous anger and judgement, not least in the devastation being brought about by collapsing family values which has been experienced by the Queen herself. What we are seeing unfolding at breathtaking speed is the withdrawal of the grace and blessing of God that many of us had come to take for granted—as a result of our national apostasy. As a nation we may be about to pay a very heavy price.

Our religious liberties are at stake. As Adrian Hilton, in his 1997 book, The Principality and Power of Europe, writes: “Evangelical Christians are classified by the European Union as a ‘sect’, and any group that does not belong to the majority church (Roman Catholic) is viewed by many MEPs with suspicion.” This classification is nothing new. The early church was branded an heretical sect, and this was the earliest basis of persecution. Of course, any impending persecution will not be on overtly religious grounds: an enlightened European Union would consider this abhorrent. Persecution will be political, as it was with the early church, with accusations of “disturbing the peace” or “inciting sectarianism” as in the Book of Acts chapters 16 and 17. David Hallam MEP has confirmed that a European resolution on sects and cults permits the European police force Europol to carry out surveillance on such group’s activities. He adds: “In Europe this could include Christians.”

With Protestantism’s surrender, Apostate Christendom is swiftly unifying world religion, which under its veneer is as intolerant and bloodthirsty as it ever was. Once religions of the world combine with the New Age to form one great ecumenical and multi-faith monopoly, God’s little flock will yet again be as lambs to the slaughter. Bishop Ryle’s words encourage those evangelicals who will not compromise: “This is the church which does the work of Christ on earth. Its members are a little flock and few in number, one or two here and two or three there—a few in this district and a few in that. But these are they that shake the universe; who change the fortune of kingdoms by their prayers; these are they who are the active workers for spreading the knowledge of pure religion and undefiled; these are the lifeblood of the country, the shield, the defence, the stay and the support of any nation to which they belong.” Let us be encouraged therefore and “stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free.”

Galatians 5:1 “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.”

Continued in The British Monarchy In Peril

All chapters of The Foundations Under Attack: The Roots of Apostasy

This is the next chapter of the book, The Foundations Under Attack: The Roots of Apostasy – By Michael de Semlyen

B. Papal Rome and the EU
Richard Bennett and Michael de Semlyen

Papal Rome is widely respected and admired by the world. She is seen as well organized, successful and influential, as well as dignified and authoritative. The aura of uncritical acclaim around the person of successive popes is unique to the Church of Rome. No other global institution has it. Her pronouncements on moral issues carry great weight. So well regarded is the Papacy today that the acceptance of her extends even to Evangelicals, most of whom have ceased to question her doctrine.

US President George W. Bush, First Lady Laura Bush, and former US Presidents George Bush and Bill Clinton before the Catafalque of Pope John Paul II at his funeral on April 4,2005. “… With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication.. ,” – Revelation 17:2

The rest of this section is essentially the same as an article already posted on this website. If you haven’t read it yet, please see, Papal Rome and the European Union – by Richard Bennett and Michael de Semlyen

Continued in The Foundations Under Attack The Roots of Apostasy

All chapters of The Foundations Under Attack: The Roots of Apostasy

This is the next chapter of the book, The Foundations Under Attack: The Roots of Apostasy – By Michael de Semlyen

Epilogue
A. “Notes from a former Charismatic to Christians in the Charismatic Movement”

Calvary and Pentecost – the Balance Lost

Gradually, and without many appearing to notice it, the balance has been shifted away from Calvary and the accompanying crushing antagonism of false religion endured by our Lord and by His disciples ever since; and onto Pentecost and the work of the Holy Spirit. This makes for a gospel based primarily on happenings and feelings and on receiving from God rather than giving to Him. We are called to serve and suffer, not to reign and prosper. “For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on Him, but also to suffer for His sake:” -Philippians 1:29

This shift of emphasis from Calvary to Pentecost, accompanied by the weakening of the Word and disregard for doctrine, has opened the floodgates to error and heresy on a scale not seen before, perhaps at any time in the whole history of the church. In a remarkably subtle way it has undermined the centrality of the death of Christ and His once and for all sacrifice and atonement for sin.

Turning to Ourselves

Personal testimonies of conversion and much new reading matter tend to be self-orientated and experiential rather than centered on sin, repentance, and the call to the cross. The great seduction is to turn us from heaven to earth, from the true God to the altar of self, from denial to esteem of self, from God’s truth to Satan’s lie. This ties in closely with the New Age teaching which has invaded the church with its message of man’s self-sufficiency drawn from Eastern religions.

Thus is the door opened for “the experiencing of the real presence” and other forms of extra-Scriptural activity to emerge. Many conservative evangelicals feel that this has been the legacy of the Charismatic Movement and are accordingly hostile to it and everything about it.

The Holy Spirit and His gifts tend to occupy center stage, and Charismatic Christians glory much in miracles and healings, signs and wonders. But, “God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ… .” -Galatians 6:14

God gives His gifts as He chooses to give them, but there is also the massive counterfeit which claims to be renewal rather than heresy, and leads into so much error. The error so often relates to proportion. ‘Without proper proportion, a medicine becomes a poison’, and faith becomes folly. The Scriptures are added to in countless prophetic messages and “words from the Lord” which are not to be found in the Bible, not in any version. “But,” protests the Charismatic enthusiast, “the God that I worship is a big God; he wouldn’t limit himself to the contents of just one book.” He certainly doesn’t, but very understandably, He has limited us. “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you. neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.” -Deuteronomy 4:2

The Bible can easily become a kind of “lucky dip” with Scripture used to confirm preconceived ideas and desires as well as to promote favoured theories and schools of thought. Clear guidance is not forthcoming from leadership, as so many preachers are afraid of offending their congregations or prejudicing their reputations.

The New Heresies

The Word of God is used in a selective and irresponsible fashion to justify “naming and claiming” and “positive confession”, as well as the exercising of “dominion” over our circumstances through the “word of faith”. Just how the interpretation of a single Scripture apparently unsupported in the rest of the Bible can form the basis for an entire movement or system of belief is difficult to understand. Yet this happens again and again as Christians who feel themselves enlightened by the renewal have gradually abandoned the old paths for the new. Examples of such derivative verses are Genesis 1:28 (And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.), the basis for “the Dominion mandate”; Isaiah 53:5 (But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.), the authority for universal healing; Romans 8:19 (For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.), the “Manifest Sons of God” movement; Acts 3:20-21 (And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.), restoration of the kingdom by the church; and John 14:13 (And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.), “naming and claiming” and “prosperity”. In support of these formularised expressions of faith, Psalm 105:15 is often cited, “touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm”, meaning don’t criticise anything taught by any recognised Christian ministry. This verse may have already come to mind for those readers who are unhappy with what is argued in this booklet.

Apart from the cults, which most Christians realise deny the divinity of Christ and His atonement, a plethora of heresies has been imported from the United States, where the mixture of moral majority and Kingdom Now theology, “televangelism”, and right-wing politics has proved irresistible to so many sincere Christians. Among them and under the appealing veneer, it is not difficult to glimpse the familiar old heresies of Arianism and Gnosticism in new guise.

Constructing the Kingdom, Marketing the Gospel

The reclaiming and restoring of Christ’s kingdom, “strategic evangelisation”, and the Biblical reconstruction or Christianization of society are all on the agenda. Business groupings, many of them multi-national, are being set up to reorganise, equip, share skills, prosper, and pray for businesses according to “kingdom principles”. In the United States experiments arc being conducted for whole communities to be organised or “reconstructed” in this way. Before His scourging, Jesus told Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight.” -John 18:36 The Charismatic church is taken up with “doing a new thing”. Growth, strategy, planning, organisation, claiming territory, setting targets and goals, liberation theology, and the social gospel arc all part of it. But how do we reconcile all of this with the Bible’s instructions to “walk in the old paths where is the good way” and to “remember the former things of old”? -Isaiah 46:9

Praise marches and other ecumenical gatherings, which set out to claim the ground, the place, the town or country in the name of Jesus, have been part of the strategy for church growth as well as for inter-church unity. Many believers who have taken part in them question whether these marches really have Biblical warrant or whether they are just “a good idea.” Songs like “We’ll Take This Land for Jesus” inspire the marchers, and Scriptures out of the Old Testament, relating to gaining territory and marching around the city walls arc often quoted, but it is hard to see how it can be squared with the teaching of the New Testament. In fact it doesn’t seem to accord with the message of the Gospel at all. The great commission is the assignment of the church to call believers out of the kingdoms of this world not to take back the kingdoms of this world for Christ.

The wider strategy of claiming “half of the world for Christ” by AD 2000 and all the other projects for the Decade of Evangelism made an unscriptural presumption. In their zeal for mission, they placed so much emphasis on the decade ahead that they undermined the preparedness of the church for our blessed hope, the imminent return of The Lord Jesus Christ. There is a tremendous need for revival today, and all of us should long for and pray for this and for a great harvest of souls. But no revival was ever founded on our own efforts or on a planned campaign. It can only be a sovereign work of God.

Counting Heads: Tares among the Wheat

Is the practice of numbering people any more acceptable today than when King David did it? David afterwards confessed to God, ‘I have sinned greatly in what I have done.” (2 Samuel 24:10) Statistics relating to “commitments” or conversions at crusades for projecting church growth or “marketing” the Gospel are gravely misused. It must ever be stressed that only the Lord knows His own. The inevitable result of a head-counting mentality is the undiscerning inclusion of tares among wheat in the Body of Christ. Some pastors justify this by pointing out that there is to be no separation until the time of the harvest. But the Lord’s teaching on the parable of the wheat and the tares makes very clear that this parable refers to the world and not to the church.15 The Body of Christ is not supposed to have tares that resemble the wheat within the Body.

The modern church is thought to be filled with Christians who have stopped at conversion. They are seen as saved but not submitted—born again, but not “baptized in the Spirit”. They are said to have decided for Christ, but are not yet ready to be in obedience to Him and all of His Word. Of course we cannot know or judge, but such are unconverted sympathisers. They call Him Lord, but they do not know Him. Without question the Gospel preached in awakening power will cause men to search the Scriptures, to hunger and thirst after righteousness and not to rest until they know that they have that blessed assurance that they are born of God. A pastor who insists that those who claim simply to love Jesus and affirm His Lordship are assuredly brothers in Christ is irresponsible before God. This “easy- believism” denies the Christ of the Bible who was nailed to the cross by false religion. “And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, arid do not the things which I say?” asks Jesus in Luke 6:46. We are called to obedience to the Scripture, to answering temptations as He did with “it is written, we shall live by every word of God”; (Luke 4:4 “And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.”) to demonstrating love for Him by keeping His commandments; (John 14:15 “If ye love me, keep my commandments.”) to affirming that His Word is truth; (John 17:17 “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.”) and to contending earnestly for it. (Jude 3 “Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you. and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.”)

The Importance of Doctrine

“Doctrine is the immune system of the church which is infected with spiritual aids. Diseases and afflictions, heresies and false teaching are rife. The patient is very sick.” People have become so taken with “experiences” and “relationships” that they have tended to relegate the doctrine of the Word of God to a secondary position. There is a widely held belief that as long as you claim to “love Jesus” then you must be “one in the Spirit.” The problem that the Scripture poses is that it reveals “another Jesus”, “another Spirit”, and “another Gospel”. We must ever seek to discern the Spirit, as we are warned that “Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.” (2 Corinthians 11:14) Of course, experience and relationships are important, but they must flow from a correct understanding of doctrine, rather than provide the principles upon which we form our beliefs.

In today’s climate, doctrine is out of fashion. Relativism rules, contributing to what Spurgeon called “the downgrade” of truth. “What is truth? ” Pilate asked Jesus. (John 18:38) The certainty that used to be has been squeezed out by the world in the church with its liberal and “higher critical” approach to all things.

“This Bible version says this and that version says that.” The definitive and final word is no more; and thus the manifestations of God’s power—the phenomena—become the focus of faith. Crucial matters of doctrine that cause offence to some are suppressed or by-passed. Paul warned Timothy that “the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap unto themselves teachers, having itching ears.” (2 Timothy 4:3) That time has come. Few Christian ministries are now being established with clear Statements of Faith; nor are congregations across the denominations today familiar with their own Articles, Confessions, and Creeds, as every assembly of Christians once was.

As the inter-Church process gathers momentum, few Christians are willing to face up to the question of ecumenical unity, searching the Scriptures as the Bereans did. Liberalism (or “has God said?” Genesis 3:1) among Church leaders and theologians has prepared the ground for this kind of unity, as the modern critical approach to the Scriptures questions the certainties and undermines the very foundations of faith. Although this is probably the single most important issue in the church today, it is rarely discussed and debated among the wider congregation, and little attempt is made to educate people about what is involved. Even churches that style themselves as reformed manage to avoid facing up to things. It is seen as so very much easier, and more loving, to find a formula, work out a compromise and concentrate on other things. But the issue will not go away. For the issue is that of the Gospel itself, of sola fide and sola Scriptura (faith alone and Scripture alone), of Christ and only Christ. The alternative to this is idolatry. There is no middle ground, no neutral position, no fence to sit on. No ambiguity, half-truth, or compromise is acceptable to God. As the prophet Elijah said to the people before the great victory at Mount Carmel: “‘How long halt ye between two opinions? If the Lord be God, follow him: if Baal, then follow him And the people answered him not a word.” (1 Kings 18:21)

“And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.” 2 Timothy 4:4

The Narrow Way

… “narrow is the way that leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. ” Matthew 7:14

The Scriptures are full of warnings and admonitions to keep us all on the narrow path. We are intended to guide one another accordingly; and by Scripture to reprove, correct and instruct in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16), “that we henceforth be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive”. (Ephesians 4:14) This is not “negative”; this is life as we are expected to find it and live it; it is the pilgrim’s progress through our sinful world.

Un-Christian Practices

Nor are followers of Christ being given clear direction relating to un-Christian practices. It is encouraging that several denominations have now begun to tackle Freemasonry. However, few churches are prepared to deal properly with homosexuality or with Alternative Medicine including homeopathy and hypnotism. The issues of abortion and the sanctity of life are avoided from the pulpit. Many liberal “evangelicals” now favour abortions in principle, and an Archbishop of York was the leading advocate in the House of Lords in favour of experimentation on human embryos. Few Christians in the public arena will openly oppose abortion altogether and stand firm on the magnificent Scriptures that so clearly emphasise our human identity before conception, according to God’s providence. “Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there were none of them.” (Psalm 139:16) The vote in The Commons, on the night of Monday, 23 May 1990, with a huge majority in favour of experimentation on embryos, was both monumental and shocking. One evangelical described it as “the greatest rebellion of man against God since the Garden of Eden.” Graduating from the license we have awarded ourselves to terminate life, we have now chosen to play God to the extent that henceforward we shall actually select life.

The Word of Faith

The frequent preaching of John 14:13, “whatever you ask that will I do”, and Matthew 21:22, “whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive”, so easily can become an abuse of Scripture. Over emphasis may lead directly to “positive confession” and faith in faith as a power that we can direct. But “Thy will be done”, not mine, is the Lord’s prayer. “Faith never knows where it is being led,” said Oswald Chambers, “but it loves and knows the One Who is leading.” “Faith in faith” within a church can also undermine individual freedoms and the proper functioning of the Body of Christ. For example, churches’ expansion programmes are funded by “faith”, just as are “televangelist” ministries in the United States. The claim is that “if the faith isn’t properly exercised, God cannot or will not act.”

The prophetic leading of those few privileged “apostles” or “prophets”, who are the new elite who hear the Lord’s voice or who “see pictures” or have had a special experience, very often determines the direction of the church and its resources. Disagreement may be seen as hostile, even as an attack on the “level of faith” exercised by the fellowship.

The “Toronto Blessing”, which came out of the Word of Faith movement, was (and is) believed to be such a special experience. To obtain it, a pilgrimage to Toronto was (and is) necessary, reminiscent of a mystical experience sought at Lourdes or Fatima. Many evangelical churches imported this very mixed blessing which proved to be divisive and disruptive.

God Must Heal

If someone isn’t healed, under Word of Faith, there has been a failure in the exercise of faith. The alarming insistence on healing and the selection of Scripture to oblige God to heal, which seems to borrow from Christian Science, plays a major part in many tragedies and causes carnage in the Body of Christ. God is sovereign. He heals when He heals and provides us wonderfully with the faith to pray, believing we will receive even when sometimes we don’t. To insist on formulae for health constructed somehow from the Scriptures is to cling to our earthly substance instead of our Christian hope. It also creates casualties. Guilt and failure of faith, which can be devastating, are laid on those Christians who have lost loved ones. Charismatic believers are encouraged, if not conditioned, to stand fast on a “word of faith”, an isolated portion of Scripture that they feel certain the Lord has given them, which relates to their personal well-being. They may continue to “positively confess” or hold fast to this promise of health or prosperity, while their declining circumstances clearly demonstrate there is no possible reason for doing so. In this way sick dependants have been allowed to die without medical help and capable able-bodied businessmen have drifted into bankruptcy. To the outsider faith has become folly.

The “prosperity schools” and “word of faith” ministries have much to answer for in this regard, as have church leaders who fail to speak out clearly against such practices. The shepherds must guide the sheep. Christ’s teaching calls for His disciples to bear hardship and persecution and accept the path of affliction and of suffering and to carry our cross. The New Testament and the history of the church reveal that God’s servants spent little or no time concerning themselves with their earthly bodies, nor with their worldly possessions. Instead they were carried forward by their hope of heaven and their desire to share the Gospel and contend for the faith. Those men and women did not place their faith in their circumstances, in prosperity, or earthly reward; or in visions, miracles, or prophecies and isolated words from Scripture. They placed their faith in Him, “the King eternal, immortal, invisible, only wise God.” (1 Timothy 1:17) They simply took Christ at His Word, which directs all of us to, “take no thought, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on … But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.” (Matthew 6:25, 33)

Faith in God or Faith in Man?

The totality of Christ’s saving work on the cross; the fact that we did nothing, nor can do anything to contribute to our own salvation, and that our faith itself is a gift from Him; (Ephesians 2:8) the wonderful doctrine of justification by faith alone—all of this is under attack from many directions. The focus of faith has shifted away from preaching and from the Word onto the sacraments, onto gifts and signs and wonders, or onto both. In the United States Charismatic Bible Ministries, a major organisation founded and supported by many of the best known American Charismatic leaders, has had as its motto, “Unity and love through signs and wonders”. This is very far from sola Scriptura and “faith and faith alone.”

Evangelism – Commitment and Compromise

Unquestionably the Lord has much used Billy Graham’s gift of evangelism in the past. But for many years the Billy Graham Organisation’s crusades, very much part of the ecumenical movement, were “re-dedicating” thousands of Roman Catholics alongside the many others who had gone forward in response to the invitation that is made. Many thousands of men and women, stirred by the Scriptures and responding to what they thought to be the call of God through the famous evangelist, have been sent back to Roman Catholic places of worship, having been “re-dedicated” to that faith, according to the organisers. Here is the demonstration that “Commitment to Christ” and obedience to His Word are not the same thing. Few would want to cast doubt on the sincerity of those who go forward to answer the call on such an occasion. However, only God knows whom He has called to discipleship. In his book, You Call Me Lord, John MacArthur sums up the problem very clearly.

The Lord Jesus taught that the cost of following Him is high, and that we should weigh it carefully before embarking on the journey. (Luke 14:28) The way is narrow and few find it. (Matthew 7:14) He also makes it clear that there are those who call Him Lord, who perform signs and wonders, and who do wonderful works in His name, who are not destined to enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 7:21-23)

Looking to Men rather than Christ

“Cursed be the man who trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord. “Jeremiah 17:5.

One of the most serious problems in the church is that men are looking to men, and not to Christ. Many of today’s Christians are so impressed with the reputation of well-known preachers and evangelists and dazzled by their style, that they are inclined to drop their guard and abandon discernment. For example, when the teaching is given by one who may have a PhD in theology, an eloquent preaching style, an air of humility, and a considerable reputation, it can all too often be enough to convince most of today’s Christians that the message comes from God. It very often does not. Gatherings organised around celebrities have the apparent merit of attracting large numbers. At such performances the message tends to be a weak one and references to the gospel come across almost inevitably as part of the entertainment, with Christ receiving the strong endorsement of the celebrity. The impact of such an occasion is to send everyone away happy, but one wonders whether many or indeed any at such gatherings are challenged or troubled by the conviction of sin.

Nowhere in the Scriptures is the Gospel preached as an extension to other activities, organised to bring in the target audience. Such events, which include pop concerts and joyful celebratory services on TV, are readily justified in public relations terms as creating a positive witness or image for Christianity. It is recognised that no one is likely to be confronted with gospel truths that might cause offence, but it is felt that making church more attractive, loving, and welcoming is a worthy objective. But does the Creator of the universe, the jealous God of the Old Testament, really need the help of popular culture or the fame of men to reach His elect? The great danger in this form of evangelism is that it causes us to look to men and to compromise with the world. The popularity of the celebrity with Christians and non-Christians alike is seldom impaired and often enhanced on such occasions, and this gives us a guide. “Woe unto you when all men speak well of you! For so did their fathers to the false prophets.” (Luke 6:26)

Whatever happened to our Christian hope, our treasure in heaven? What became of the longing for his coming, the eager expectation for the day of the Lord? Where is the sense of the holiness of the Lord—the reverend fear and awe of the Almighty God, the creator and judge of the world? Where is the fervent prayer, the love of truth, the jealousy for purity in doctrine and the hatred of idolatry? What has happened to the urgent concern for the souls of more than a thousand million religious Anglicans, Orthodox, and Catholics in the world today without assurance of salvation, in bondage to the sacraments and to a system of works and ritual? Where is a heart of compassion for those who seek truth but are imprisoned by such deception? Where is the cry for the cleansing of the church and for deep repentance because we have failed them, our own kinsmen, by pretending not to see? Where are the preachers today who do not persistently avoid the clear message of Revelation 17? Where are the watchmen who sound the alarm? Why do they, who hear the sound of the trumpet, not take warning? (Ezekiel 33:3)

In the confused climate, perhaps the primary cause for failure in the church is the conspicuous absence of leaders who lead. There are many leaders who follow, many who look across one at another and lead by being led, by following the prevailing wind of change in the church. But few are the shepherds who guide the sheep onto and along the narrow path. Where are the men and women of courage to stand against the tide, men of boldness to preach the gospel of obedience and sacrifice, of integrity to stress the cost of discipleship and of humility who know the certainty of knowing that they do not know? Where are the Christian leaders scorning popularity who are ready to lay down their reputations and lose their lives? Where, too, are the pastors, responsible before God, determined to guide their flocks into green pastures regardless of the price that might be paid; shepherds who warn, as Paul did, of grievous wolves, of false brethren, and of the existence and prevalence of another gospel and a different spirit? Where are the leaders who know, as Matthew Henry has reminded us, that “evil abounds when good men stay silent”? Where are the men of faith like the reformers of old, like Whitfield, Spurgeon and Ryle, fearless and constant, holding fast with their followers to that liberty in which Christ had made them free? “Controversy in religion,” as Bishop Ryle reminded the church, “is a hateful thing.”

The Apostle Paul was the most divisive and controversial character portrayed in the entire book of Acts. Because of this, he was beaten with rods, stoned and left as dead, chained and left in a dungeon, dragged before magistrates, and barely escaped assassination. Yet so pronounced in him were his convictions that it came to a point when the unbelieving Jews in Thessalonika declared: “These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also.” (Acts 17:6)

Were Ryle and other great men of faith alive today they would scarcely recognise the popular and comfortable Christianity which “celebrates” at every opportunity and merely seeks the world’s approval instead of confronting its sin and need for the Saviour. They would be horrified by the accommodation with false religion, knowing that this must undermine and eventually destroy the foundation of our lives. “If the foundations be destroyed what can the righteous do?” (Psalm 11:3) They would deplore the weak and equivocal leadership, which accommodates so much false doctrine and causes confusion for those who try to follow.

In an address to the British Evangelical Council in 1969, one among them, and truly a prophetic voice in his generation and beyond, expressed their likely reaction very powerfully, with a message as important today as then. Citing the Scripture in 1 Corinthians 14:8, “For if the trumpet gives an uncertain sound who shall prepare himself to the battle?” Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones made clear that he believed that the enemy are not just present but rampant in the camp. “Sound the alarm,” he thundered, “Sound the alarm.”

Continued in Papal Rome and the EU

All chapters of The Foundations Under Attack: The Roots of Apostasy

This is the next chapter of the book, The Foundations Under Attack: The Roots of Apostasy – By Michael de Semlyen

Foreword about this chapter.

I wondered if I should post this chapter or not because I don’t wholly agree with everything the author is teaching from his Calvinist viewpoint. He says,

“Arminianism is soul damning. It assumes that the human heart is a fit place for Christ to dwell and it takes for granted that the human person initiates salvation. We often hear appeals or invitations such as: “accept Jesus into your heart, as He Himself asks you in His Word;” and ‘behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear My voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.’” (Revelation 3:20) The misuse of this text to imply that salvation does in fact begin in the human heart is a serious deception.”

My opinion:

I have never ever in all my 53 years of following the Lord Jesus Christ heard or read this doctrine before! If there is no free will involved, why would Jesus even say such a thing? “If any man hear my voice, and open the door…” That sure sounds like free will to me. Jesus is asking people to make a choice either for Him or against Him. If there is no free will, why does the Bible even tell us to “choose“?

Joshua 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; …

Deuteronomy 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

It’s “free grace through Christ alone” that the Catholic Church especially doesn’t like. They want us to be bound to their institutionalized religion and receive the Catholic sacraments which they claim gives us grace. And even then when we die unless we come up to the Catholic standard of sainthood, we still don’t have enough grace and we will suffer years in purgatory for our sins! They say mere belief in Jesus Christ is not sufficient. And the ironic thing about it all is a great majority of Catholic priests are probably far more sinful than the average Catholic! Some of them engage in Black satanic masses.

I like what most of what the author, Michael de Semlyen, has to say about how Protestantism was derailed by the Jesuits, but I don’t understand why he would write anything at all if we don’t have a free will to choose good over evil! What’s the point in writing anything if as Calvinists say, “I’m dammed if I do and dammed if I don’t.” I’m posting articles to reveal truth based on my knowledge and understanding of the Bible. What good does it do when people have no free will to choose to believe it or not?

Anyway, that’s my opinion for what it’s worth. I don’t follow Calvin. Mr. de Semlyen at the end of this chapter says to give Charles Spurgeon the last word. I don’t think so. I don’t follow him either. I only know what the Bible tells me about soteriology, the doctrine of salvation. It says in Acts 16:31,

And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

That’s a command. It’s a command from God to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. If you can choose to disobey a command, that means you have a free will to do so. May the reader decide which is right.

Chapter 15
The Abandoning of the Protestant Reformed Religion

Apparently careless of all that has gone before, leading evangelicals have chosen to ignore the lessons of the past and the testimonies of the saints and martyrs of Jesus. Seduced by the wiles of the devil in compromising their once sound doctrine, they have bowed to the “modernising” pressures of the world, abandoning their Protestant identity, embracing ecumenism and accepting individual Roman Catholics as brothers and sisters in Christ. The first and second National Evangelical Anglican Conferences that met at Keele and Nottingham in England in l967 and 1977, respectively, launched and furthered the new policy of Anglicans towards the fast growing ecumenical movement. There was a new desire on the part of the new evangelicals to be united with ritualistic Anglicans, essentially Roman Catholics in belief and practice; and also to liberals who believed in a fallible Bible. But, as the Prophet Amos inquired: “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” Amos 3:3

Well-respected English evangelicals such as John Stott and J.I. Packer, whose writings have been held in high esteem by conservatives for many years, endorsed the statements from these Conferences, and in so doing set aside Gospel truth in favour of accepting fellow Anglicans as true brothers and sisters in Christ.

John Stott, author of Basic Christianity, who chaired the first “NEAC” at Keele, gave that Conference a warning that “evangelicals had acquired a reputation for narrow partisanship and obstructionism and that they needed to repent and change.” He made clear that the Conference was accepting not only Anglo-Catholics and liberals as fellow Christians but Roman Catholics too:

Dr. Jim Packer, author of Knowing God, who just a few years before in 1961 had described the doctrine of justification by faith alone, sola fide, as “…like Atlas, it bears a world on its shoulders, the entire evangelical knowledge of saving grace,” changed his position in the early 1960s on this defining doctrine and signed up to Keele. Much later, in 1994, he demonstrated his revised, new evangelical view by also signing Evangelicals and Catholics Together, the document that has rocked American evangelicalism. In an article “Why I Signed It”, Professor Packer refers to Sola Fide as “small print.” He asked the question: “May ECT realistically claim, as in effect it does, that its evangelical and Catholic drafters agree on the gospel of salvation?”…“Answer – Yes and No.” “No”, Professor Packer says, “with respect to the small print.” Thus Sola Fide, a burning issue for Reformation martyrs, and for Professor Packer an issue that once bore a world on its shoulders, is relegated to “small print.”

Evangelicals and Catholics Together

What many Christians believe to have been the most significant event in almost five hundred years of church history took place on March 29, 1994. On that day twenty leading evangelicals and twenty leading Roman Catholics signed the joint declaration, Evangelicals and Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium. Ten years later, on May 30, 2004, The New York Times reported on this alliance between Catholics and Evangelicals that is redefining Christianity in America.

The Evangelical and Catholics Together document, which overturns the Reformation and does devastating damage to the cause of Christ, was actually begun as a specific task in September 1992. Larry Lewis of the Southern Baptist Convention, Jesse Miranda of Assemblies of God, John White of the Geneva College of the National Association of Evangelicals, and others, including two Jesuits, Avery Dulles and Juan Diaz-Vilar, joined Colson and Neuhaus in the writing process. All of this was under the watchful eye of Jesuit Cardinal Idris Cassidy, the Head of Rome’s Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, said by Neuhaus to have given “very active support throughout the process.” The document urges “Catholics and Evangelicals…to stop aggressive proselytisation of each other’s flocks,” which is code for, “Evangelicals must not preach the True Gospel to Catholics.” It further states, “Leading Catholics and Evangelicals are asking their flocks for a remarkable leap of faith: to finally accept each other as Christians.”

As former Roman Catholic priest and author, Richard Bennett laments in his excellent book Catholicism: East of Eden,

Hence, the Counter Reformation objectives of the Council of Trent have almost been accomplished. The distinctive doctrines of the Reformation, which separated Evangelicals from the Arminianism of Popery, are set at nought by our own “Protestant” leaders.

True and False Ecumenism

True ecumenical unity is clearly defined in the Scriptures. In the words of the Apostle Paul, “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all. and in you all.” (Eph. 4:4-6) Thus followers of Christ who place their faith solely in the one triune God and His written Word, as did the Lord and the Apostles after Him (Sola Scriptura), are one in body, in Spirit, and in truth. They are saved before the all-Holy God by grace alone (Sola Gratia), through faith alone (Sola Fide), and in Christ alone (Solo Christo), and all glory and praise is to God alone (Soli Deo Gloria). Through the centuries, these five biblical principles or “solas” have helped the persecuted church hold fast to the simplicity of the Gospel. True ecumenism is fellowship or working together in adherence to these “solas” which maintain the foundation of true unity in the Lord. To the degree to which these key basic biblical standards are embraced, true unity will be evident.

On the other hand, false ecumenism, typically institutionalised, joins together professing Christian groups in common causes and activities, with one or more of the parties involved unconverted. While purporting to confess the Lord Jesus Christ according to the Scriptures, for the most part the five biblical principles, the “solas” that display the basis of true unity in the Lord are compromised. The extent to which these principles are not upheld usually indicates the degree of submission of the particular church or organisation to Rome.

The World Council of Churches is such an institution. Those organisations participating within it have no agreement on any of the five principles demonstrating the foundation of true unity solely in the Lord Jesus Christ. Likewise the Pope and his Church, in apostasy from the true Gospel, are without any of the five biblical standards. Counterfeiting the body of the Lord Jesus Christ, they are intent on finding successful ways to bind all to the visible, active and attractive pontifical throne.

Let us recall the Jesuit statement in the notorious letter found in Archbishop Laud’s study: “Our foundation is Arminianism.” What was written in the letter has proven to be prophetic: “It flourisheth and beareth fruit in due season” and “we hope (it) will purge the Protestants from their heresy”. Yes, it does flourish in our day; and the majority of Protestants have been purged from their faith of Free arid Sovereign Grace. This faith, the one and only true Gospel which the Papacy set out to overturn with its Counter-Reformation launched at the Council of Trent (1545-1563), is often now derided even by professing Protestants as “Hyper-Calvinism”. The Jesuits and Arminians would seem to have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.

And the prophet saith: “When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the LORD shall lift up a standard against him.” (Isaiah 59:19) Friends, this is a solemn matter. The end result of Arminianism is this: “There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed from their filthiness.” (Prov. 30:12) Is it not to the Arminian that the LORD saith: “He feedeth on ashes: a deceived heart hath turned him aside, that he cannot deliver his sold nor say, is there not a lie in my right hand?” (Isaiah 44:20) Woe Arminians! “.. .because with lies you have made the heart of the righteous sad, whom I have not made sad.” (Ezekiel 13:22)

From his pulpit at the Metropolitan Tabernacle C. H. Spurgeon was forthright in his declarations of the doctrines that he believed comprised the revealed truth of God:

To lay aside the regeneration of the divine Person of the Holy Spirit and to replace this by faith and confidence in a man-centered message is fatal. In such teaching instead of a divine Person being the sole efficient cause of being “born again”, an individual’s thoughts and affections remain on himself. This is religion substituting for a real relationship with the living God. Indeed, sinful man likes to have it so; he wishes to have all aspects of life under his own control. In this respect, Catholicism and Arminianism serve him well, they both appeal to his pride. The great problem with all of this is the inner emptiness and unregenerated lifestyle that goes with such teachings.

Contrasting with this, the real Christian hope is that the Spirit of God will beget a man to new life in Christ. Those who are begotten to a new and spiritual life are quickened to a new and lively hope. In the words of the Apostle Peter, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.” (1 Peter 1:3)

Where there is true faith and love of the Lord, there is in the midst of all things “a joy unspeakable and full of glory.” (1 Peter 1:8) In Arminianism however, this foundation of deep inner fellowship with the Lord is missing. The belief that salvation begins by Christ first coming into the sinful heart of a man is unscriptural. The dead and ungodly person can be made acceptable to God only by being “in Christ”, as the New Testament makes very clear: “To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved” (Ephesians 1:6) Compared to this, Arminianism is soul damning. It assumes that the human heart is a fit place for Christ to dwell and it takes for granted that the human person initiates salvation. We often hear appeals or invitations such as: “accept Jesus into your heart, as He Himself asks you in His Word;” and ‘behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear My voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.’” (Revelation 3:20) The misuse of this text to imply that salvation does in fact begin in the human heart is a serious deception.

The invitation expressed in Revelation 3:20-21 is given after the Lord had rebuked the Laodiceans with a list of reprehensible sins, and then commanded them to repent, “… I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.” (Revelation 3:19) Fellowship with the Lord is not without repentance and faith. The misuse of this text without this vital foundation is destructive to all Christian living. A person’s only hope lies outside himself and in Christ Jesus by His worth and power. Christ Jesus Himself proclaimed the spiritual deadness and wickedness of the human heart: … “that which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: all these evil things come from within, and defile the man.” (Mark 7:20-23) In the Scripture, salvation is seen consistently to be in Christ.

Editor’s note: I don’t agree with Michael de Semylen’s views about this. Why would Jesus ask us to open the door if we have not the free will to do so? Why would Jesus even say such a thing if we have no free will to choose Him? When we say, “Jesus, come into my heart” it means to me Jesus is the One most loved in the seat of our emotions, the One who loved us so much to die for us. And we likewise would die for Him if called to do so some day. It doesn’t mean we are seeking salvation within ourselves.

God’s holiness is the distinguishing factor among all of His essential characteristics. We need to be in right standing before the All Holy Sovereign God on the terms He prescribes. God’s Word determines that one cannot be right before God and remain true to Arminian teaching. As we have seen, it contradicts and opposes the truth of the Bible on the defining matter of how any person enters into a relationship with Him. You may cling to such teachings and traditions to your own eternal peril, or you may do what so many men and women have done before you.17 Turn to the Sovereign God in faith alone for the salvation that He alone gives, by the conviction of the Holy Spirit, based on Christ’s death and resurrection for His own elect, and believe on Him alone, “to the praise of the glory of his grace.” (Ephesians 1:6)

We quote Spurgeon again and let him have the final word on this crucial matter:

“Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.” Jeremiah 6:16

Continued in Notes from a former Charismatic to Christians in the Charismatic Movement.

All chapters of The Foundations Under Attack: The Roots of Apostasy

This is from a PDF file on Berean Beacon Loving Catholics and Exposing Catholicism

Papal Rome is widely respected and admired by the world. She is seen as well organised, successful and influential, as well as dignified and authoritative. The aura of uncritical acclaim around the person of successive popes is unique to the Church of Rome. No other global institution has it. Her pronouncements on moral issues carry great weight. So well regarded is the Papacy today that the acceptance of her extends even to Evangelicals, most of whom have ceased to question her doctrine.

Why then should we take a position contrary to this avalanche of present-day approval? We do so because we are commanded by the Lord God to proclaim His truth and His warnings. For all is not at all as it seems. We believe that the late great British preacher Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones was correct when he proclaimed that “the Roman Catholic Church is a counterfeit and a sham; it represents prostitution of the worst and most diabolical kind . . . It binds the souls of its people absolutely, just as Communism and Nazism did, and it is itself a totalitarian system.”¹

Papal Pronouncements on Europe

On August 31st 2003, Pope John Paul II entrusted the future of the new Europe to the Virgin Mary. In the words of the Catholic news agency Zenit,

The official teaching of Rome makes clear that this statement concerning “the Christian roots of the continent” is a facade. When the Pope or his Church use the term “Christian” they mean “Roman Catholic”. A recent official decree of Rome condemns “the tendency to read and to interpret Sacred Scripture outside the Tradition and Magisterium of the Church.”³ Rome officially proclaims that the Christian Church of Christ is the Catholic Church. In her decree she states,

Just as the Nazis declared non-Aryans to be non-humans, so now the Church of Rome declares other churches to be non-churches. Her official words are,

In the same document, Dominus Iesus (September 5th 2000), footnote 51 refers to a decree which states,

The Vatican as a “Unique Contribution” to the EU

The EU already has most of the attributes needed for nationhood. It has a passport, a flag, a single currency and an anthem. It is also drawing up in its constitution the further characteristics of nationhood such as a president, international ambassadors and a foreign secretary. The Vatican carefully gives soul to all of this by claiming that this is “a unique contribution to the building up of a Europe open to the world”. The Pope in his Ecclesia in Europa states,

“Particular Churches in Europe” is simply a pretense. The Vatican views itself as the Particular Church, and officially states,

From the decrees published it is clear that, apart from the Church of Rome establishing herself as the “unique contribution to the building up of a Europe open to the world”, she claims for herself “legal recognition” in accord with her own “civil legislation”. This has been the basis of the Vatican’s political manipulation over the centuries. While Rome carefully prepares her own legal place, she will tolerate no rivals – “the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate are not Churches in the proper sense.”¹¹ Most certainly they are not to be included as part of the “unique contribution to the building up of a Europe open to the world”!

As author Adrian Hilton has warned in a recent article in The Spectator,

The Real Meaning of the Popes message to Europe

The Ecclesia in Europa pronouncement is one of the cleverest produced by Pope John Paul II. It is a masterpiece that purportedly proclaims the Christian message, while in fact it teaches the rites and rituals of the Papacy. For example the concept of the “Gospel of hope” is mentioned forty times in the dissertation. The message however is not one of hope; rather it is an adept counterfeit. For example Paragraph 74 begins by stating, “A prominent place needs to be given to the celebration of the sacraments, as actions of Christ and of the Church ordered to the worship of God, to the sanctification of people and to the building up of the ecclesial community.” The Pope thus presents his physical, symbolic sacraments as the efficacious cause of salvation. In place of the direct obedience to Christ Jesus demanded in the Gospel of faith, the sacraments are purported to be “actions of Christ”. This is where the Vatican’s pretense of “hope” lies. Such sacraments are declared necessary for salvation in the official teaching of Rome,

By setting aside the direct work of God in Christ Jesus, the sacraments of Rome are an attempt to steal from Christ His Priesthood and an attempt to rob Him of His power as Mediator. The Roman Church attempts to rob God the Holy Spirit of His peculiar work as the Sanctifier, by attributing His power of giving grace to its own rituals. Thus it attempts to rob God the Father of His prerogatives of justifying and forgiving sinners. This is the reality behind the concept of the “Gospel of hope” that permeates the Pope’s message to Europe.

Throughout the centuries, Rome has substituted her sacraments for the Gospel in a consistently degrading insult to the grace of God. Shameful to God and damning to men is the Pope’s memorandum to Europe. We are at a seminal moment in history, as the Holy Roman Empire re-emerges as a European Superstate. Throughout her history the Papacy has remained self-governing and invincible to every restraining force other than that of the power of God in the Gospel. Bible believers need to be aware of the times in which we live, we need to study the history of the EU in order to see the outworking of the guile of Rome.

A Short History of the EU

After the destruction, ruin and enormous human cost of the Second World War, statesmen and politicians resolved to ensure that it would never happen again. In 1946 Sir Winston Churchill suggested in a famous speech at Zurich in Switzerland that, “we must build a kind of United States of Europe”. This was not, as Euro-enthusiasts have often insisted, a commitment for Britain to participate in the European project. Churchill envisaged a Western Europe of free independent sovereign nations, not an undemocratic federal Superstate. Together the nations would reach for a destiny of unprecedented co-operation and harmony.

In 1950 the Schuman Plan proposed the supra-national pooling of the German and French coal and steel industries in order to lay the basis of European economic unity. The partial merger of the economies of the two traditional enemies would ensure continuing peace between them. French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman and German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer signed the agreement, The Treaty of Paris, as co- founders of the Franco-German Coal and Steel Confederation. Like their colleagues Jean Monnet and Paul Henri Spaak, they were both devout Roman Catholics who shared the vision of successive post-war Popes for a re-Catholicized and united Europe. Adenauer and Schuman, along with Alcide de Gasperi, all three “founding fathers”, are in the process of being made into “Saints” by the Vatican as a reward for founding the new Europe “on Roman Catholic principles”.

The European Economic Community (The EEC), established in 1957 by The Treaty of Rome brought in Italy, Holland, Belgium and Luxemburg to join France and Germany, removing trade barriers between member states and unifying their economic policies. It made clear to those with sufficient stamina to read the Treaty’s lengthy and turgid document that the aim of the project was always to achieve political unity in economic disguise, “an ever closer union”.¹⁴

In 1962 the Common Agricultural policy was introduced with a single European market and price fixing, which has consistently favored French farmers. The Northwest Technocrat commented on the developing design of the European project at that time, “Fascism in Europe is about to be reborn in respectable business attire, and the Treaty of Rome will be finally implemented to its fullest extent. The dream of a Holy Roman Empire returning to power to dominate and direct the so-called forces of Christian mankind of the Western world is not dead, but still stalks through the antechambers of every national capital of continental Western Europe, in the determination of the leaders in the Common Market to restore the Holy Roman Empire with all that that means!”¹⁵

Nearly thirty years later, the London-based Sunday Telegraph was to express the same concern in a major article headed “Now, a Holy European Empire?” It stated,

In 1967 Prime Minister Harold Wilson announced that Britain would apply to join the European Community (the Common Market). The British people voted to do so in a referendum in the belief that they were joining a closer trading relationship, a kind of club, rather than being bound into an evolving Superstate. Unfortunately no more people had read The Treaty of Rome in the 1960s than had read Mein Kampf in the 1930s. Politicians and opinion formers, who should have known better, accepted assurances that no loss of sovereignty was involved in acceding to the EEC.

In 1973, Prime Minister Edward Heath, who definitely did know better, committed Britain into membership of the EEC. Ireland and Denmark joined the same year. In 1979, the European Parliament was established in Strasbourg with its first direct elections. The word “economic” was carefully dropped from the name of the project that was now to be described as the European Community (EC). Greece joined the EC in 1981, which was the year of the Single European Act – enacting the gradual transfer of executive, legislative and judicial powers from member States to EC “instrumentalities”. Spain and Portugal signed up to the EC in 1986, making a total of twelve member states. In 1990, East Germany joined as part of a united Germany.

In February 1992, The Maastricht Treaty, or Treaty of European Union, was signed at Maastricht in Holland by the foreign and finance ministers of the member states. Its objective was to bind the twelve nations into cooperation or “ever closer union” on a range of issues other than economic and trading. To this end the EC was renamed The European Union. The Maastricht Treaty established economic and monetary union, which would lead ultimately to all member states sharing a single currency. The religious dimension, although not apparent, was the key to what was being formed. Among European leaders who were most influential in furthering the Maastricht agenda were Jacques Delors and Dutch Prime Minister Ruud Lubbers (both Jesuit educated) as well as devout Catholics German Chancellor Kohl and Prime Minister Felipe Gonzales of Spain. These four leaders were all products of the Roman Catholic Social Movement, which believes that “there is no nobler task than the unifying of our continent” and views the idea of a united Europe as essentially a Catholic concept.

The Amsterdam Treaty followed and was signed in 1997 as a further notch of the ratchet of “ever-closer union”, meaning in fact, ever diminishing sovereignty, following the principle of acquis communautaire (which asserts “that what has been acquired cannot be taken away”). The Amsterdam Treaty gave more powers to the unelected Commission and particularly to its unelected President as the initiator, administrator, mediator, negotiator and guardian of the Treaties. The Treaty of Nice, signed by Prime Minister Tony Blair in December 2000, was the last in the series of treaties, which have progressively drained the UK of its sovereignty. At Nice there was finally and irrevocably established the EU as a sovereign federal state. A new European criminal code, Corpus Juris, will replace the classic, longstanding British criminal code. Vital elements such as Trial by Jury and Habeas Corpus are missing from this new code.¹⁷

EU Supreme Power

Even before the Treaty of Nice came into force, the EU Constitutional Convention, presided over by former French President Valery Giscard d’Estaing, produced its first draft of a constitution for Europe in October 2002. On 13 June 2003 a final version of the draft Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe, was produced. Quoting from the London Daily Telegraph,

Under the new Constitution’s rules, no nation is to be allowed to secede from the EU except by a two-thirds majority vote of member states in agreement with the secession.

The Same Spirit – of Domination

The EU will acquire competence in “all areas of foreign policy, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy”; though major decisions must be unanimous. The European Court, which acquires vast powers, will ensure that member states “actively and unreservedly support the EU’s common foreign and security policy”. Article 8 of the draft Constitution, which also imposes “an obligation of loyal cooperation vis-à-vis the Union” of member states, reinforces the supremacy of EU law over the laws of member states.²⁰ An EU attorney-general will be able to prosecute “cross-border crime”, a catch-all term that will allow Brussels the supreme jurisdiction throughout the EU. The Constitution lacks any serious democratic dimension and is clearly designed to strengthen the EU power structure for the benefit of the European elite. Doubtless the intention is to force it through with the minimum of real democratic scrutiny.

This spirit of absolute autocracy that is to govern the EU is frighteningly akin to the spirit that rules in the Vatican, “The First See is judged by no one.”21 Rome’s stamp upon the pages of history has ever been “no accountability”. Its laws also state, “It is solely the right of the Roman Pontiff himself to judge, in cases mentioned in can. 1401: 1. those who hold the highest civil office in a state.”²² The same spirit of despotism in both systems loudly proclaims supreme caution.

“The Abandoning of a Thousand years of History”

The Treaty that establishes the new Constitution, due to be agreed by the Intergovernmental conference in 2004 is far more extensive than any previous treaty. Derek Heathcote-Amory, the Conservative Party representative at the Constitutional Convention, rightly described it as “bigger than the treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice rolled together.” The implications of such huge changes, “the abandoning of a thousand years of history”, have not been really understood by the majority of the British people. Little by little, treaty by treaty, first the EEC, then the EC, then the EU; people have become used to Europe and bored with it; and with so many scare stories about Brussels, so-called dangers threatening their independence and sovereignty, so many eurosceptics “crying wolf”. It has all being going on as long as they can remember – and, after all, Britain does have the fourth largest economy in the world, and in the main they have prospered. The problem is that the wolf is now at the door!

Many of those who cherish Britain’s independence and who do not want to give away that for which two world wars were fought to retain, realize this. If the move to establish the Constitution for Europe is ratified by the UK parliament, it would be the first time that the United Kingdom has adopted or acceded to a wholly written constitution. How can the UK adopt such a constitution, having never had one before? The answer would seem to be straightforward. The people must give their consent. However if the Labour government has its way there will be no referendum. Tony Blair, who is said to have set his sights on the top job as President of the “United States of Europe”, has made clear that there will be no referendum. He does not want it because he knows he cannot win it. Also a referendum campaign would educate the people in both what is proposed and what has already happened. The Prime Minister agreed to hold a referendum on the Single Currency before he came into office in 1997, but to date he has hesitated to do so, as “the conditions have not been right” – again, meaning that he would have lost it.

The EU’s Power Symbols

The EU Parliament’s main base is Strasbourg in France. The city symbolizes the dream of Franco-German integration that was at the heart of the Holy Roman Empire of Charlemagne. In December 2000, the European Union opened its new Parliament building there. It is patterned after Dutch artist Pieter Breugel’s famous painting of the Tower of Babel. Breugel’s painting portrays the Tower unfinished, as does the new EU building, which is built to appear unfinished in close resemblance to the painting. Outside the Parliament building is a statue of the goddess, Europa, riding a Bull. Inside, the dome displays a colossal painting of the Woman riding the Beast. The woman riding the beast symbol also appears on some of the “two euro” coins that have been minted.²³

The same imagery has appeared on EU postage stamps, including the British one issued in 1984 to commemorate the second elections for the European Parliament. The EU’s conscious use of such symbolism creates the impression that it wishes to bring to mind Europe’s desire to rule using all the power it has at its disposal. In Scripture, the Woman riding the Beast is revealed in Revelation 17. The identification with the Church of Rome has long been apparent to Bible believers. This interpretation of Bible prophecy did much to empower the Reformation. Only Papal Rome is a city which is sited on seven hills, a religious system, whose Prelates “are arrayed in purple and scarlet color”, a civil state “with whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication”, historically, with hands that are crimson with the blood of Bible believers, “that has been drunken with the blood of the saints and with the martyrs of Jesus.” Papal Rome is the only worldwide religious system that calls itself and its virgin goddess “Mother”.

History also Unveils what is Now Happening

A brief review of European history helps with this identification of the Papacy with Scripture. After the collapse of the Roman Empire in the fifth century, the Papacy continually sought to establish the same dominance as had the Caesars (in fact successive Popes used the same name – Pontifex Maximus). They did so by weaving together both temporal and spiritual jurisdictions and blasphemously assumed to themselves the office of “the Vicar of Christ”. In that spurious role, in the course of a few centuries, they were able to subjugate the kings of Europe who became their vice regents.24 Thus century-by-century the “Mother Church” succeeded in extending her power, usurping that of civil governments. Under the guise of religion she planted her own hierarchical system of government, with its exhaustive financial requirements, in each of Europe’s kingdoms. The blending of things civil and sacred was the Vatican’s hard to resist method of operation in those dark ages. Unhappily this is still so today, and will be so again, once power and control have been consolidated in the new “United States of Europe”. “Semper eadem”, Rome never changes.

The duplicity of the Papacy’s perpetual mixing of political and spiritual powers could surely not be better portrayed than in God’s Word in Revelation 17. The Apostle John beheld the ten-horned beast, representing the Roman Empire, carrying a woman dressed in purple and scarlet, decked with gold, precious stones and pearls. She is a harlot, and the mother of harlots and abominations, the paramour of kings, the pitiless persecutor intoxicated with the blood of the saints and of the martyrs of Christ Jesus. The angel told John, “The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sitteth.” To explain this singular fact and to avoid guesswork, he adds, “the woman which thou sawest is that great city which reigneth over the kings of the earth.” (v 7) The city is indisputably Rome. The name upon the harlot’s brow is “mystery”. The city cannot be pagan Rome, about which there was no mystery. In contrast, Papal Rome was mysterious and continues to be elusive. Babylon, in the book of Revelation, is a city and an harlot. Jerusalem, in the same book, is a city and a bride. Babylon is the deceptive lover of earthly kings; Jerusalem the chaste bride of the King of Kings. The contrast is between Church and Church, the faithful Church and the Apostate Church.

The Flag – Another EU Spiritual Symbol

The flag of the European Union, blue with a design of twelve stars in a circle derives from the twelve stars that in Catholic tradition are the halo around the head of the Virgin Mary.[25] The stars stem from the belief that twelve is the symbol of perfection and of what is unchangeable. The political purposes behind all of these symbols are much debated; the Biblical significance, however, is revealing.²⁶ According to the European Union publication Europe’s Star Choice: “The flag has its roots in Romanism, takes its symbolism from Romanism, and represents the Roman Catholic ideal.” The design with its halo of stars was inspired by many pictures of the Virgin Mary, the most prominent of which is on the Council of Europe stained glass window in Strasbourg Cathedral.

The EU’s “single market”, “social chapter” and “subsidiarity” are concepts of Roman Catholic social teaching, originating with Pope Pius XI in the 1930s, and adopted by Hitler’s Vatican-backed Third Reich. Nazi Finance Minister Walther Funk, styled as the architect of Hitler’s “New Europe”, issued a compendium of papers in 1942 which contained detailed plans for a Europe bearing close resemblance to the Europe now emerging. Funk’s papers described:-“The European Economic Community”, “The Common European Currency”, “Harmonisation of European Rates of Exchange”, A Common Labour Policy and a European Regional Principle. The last has now become known as the Europe of Regions Policy – England is to be replaced by seven regions, which with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will total ten regions in all. Together they are to replace the United Kingdom!

The Third Reich to be followed by the Fourth

The Third Reich, like the EU, was an attempt to revive the Roman Empire. The higher strategy of the Vatican and the acquiescence of the Catholic Central Party had brought Hitler to power. Instrumental in this strategy were Reich Chancellor Franz von Papen and Papal Nuncio, Monsignor Pacelli, the future Pope Pius XII. Von Papen goes down in history as the man who obtained Hitler his two-thirds majority, signed the law which made him Head of State and was also responsible for the enormously important Concordat with the Church of Rome in 1933. He declared, “the Third Reich is the first power in the world to put into practice the lofty principles of the Papacy.”²⁷ Incredibly, given his responsibility for Nazi atrocities, he was acquitted at Nuremberg and later became Papal Chamberlain to Pope John XXIII. Pacelli, as Pope Pius XII, became notorious for his silence with regard to the Holocaust and the other appalling crimes committed by the Fascists in Europe. The Vatican’s attempts to canonise him have proved highly controversial.

The Nazi leadership was mainly Roman Catholic. Hitler and Himmler were greatly influenced by the Jesuits, as was Mussolini whose Father Confessor was a Jesuit. Hitler said of Himmler, “in Himmler I see our Ignatius de Loyola.”²⁸ Joseph Goebbels was also Jesuit-educated, as was Walter Schellenberg who led the SD or Sicherheitsdienst, the Security Service of the SS, and before being sentenced to death at Nuremberg for crimes against humanity, stated that, “the SS organisation has been constituted by Himmler according to the principles of the Jesuit Order. Their regulations and the spiritual exercises prescribed by Ignatius of Loyola were the model Himmler tried to copy exactly”.²⁹

The lesson and warning of history is that undemocratic regimes whose leaders owe allegiance to the Pope or practise “the lofty principles of the Papacy” pose a threat to individual liberty, and carry out religious persecution. For example, the inquisition was alive and well in the Balkans in the 1940s. “Convert or die” was the choice on offer to 900,000 Orthodox Serbs in the new state of Croatia, run by Nazi puppet Anton Pavelich and Roman Catholic Primate, Archbishop Alois Stepinac. 200,000 were “converted”; 700,000 who preferred to die, were tortured, shot, burned or buried alive. This appalling persecution, carried out mainly by Ustashi priests and friars “for the triumph of Christ and Croatia”, included many of the worst atrocities of the War; certainly the mutilations were horrific, the savagery terrible. ³⁰

Few people know what took place in Croatia during the Second World War: news of it has been simply suppressed. Nor do they understand what happened in the Balkans in the 1990s. The re-establishing of Croatia as an independent state, during the disintegration of Yugoslavia in the 1990s, is instructive. The European Union, led by Germany ignored the protest of Britain and many other nations in pressing for this to happen. The Vatican was the first to recognise the reborn Croatia. Writing in September 1991 in the Sunday Telegraph historian Andrew Roberts expressed surprise that,

None of this is surprising if we know the history of Roman Catholicism. “From the birth of Popery in 600, to the present time, it has been estimated by careful and credible historians, that more than FIFTY MILLIONS of the human family have been slaughtered for ‘the crime’ of heresy by popish persecutors, an average of more than forty thousand religious murders for every year of the existence of Popery.”³² The Scripture speaks propetically of her lust for power and blood; history has recorded many of the gruesome details.

The Papacy has been predominant throughout the whole history of Europe. It has left its mark and record on most of the major nations. In times past it has proven itself to be totally dominant in its control of Kings and Princes. The whole history of the Western world over fourteen centuries has been plagued by the intrigues and machinations of the Church of Rome in unceasing pursuit of her global designs. In the words of the historian J.A. Wiley,

Our Hope and Prayer for Europe

Once again we have come to a defining moment in history. Once more the Vatican is engaged in placing its hallmark and its rituals on the face of Europe to further its familiar agenda. It does so in a number of different ways directed from the highest levels of command in the Vatican. Firstly, it operates directly through its civil ambassadors in each European nation. According to the Catholic Almanac “Papal representatives ‘receive from the Roman Pontiff the charge of representing him in a fixed way in the various nations or regions of the world.’”³⁴ Secondly, the Roman Church also deals directly and legally with individual nations through its many legal concordats. Less directly it operates through its representation and influence in most of the governmental agencies of Europe. This involvement, especially in the area of finance and business, is documented in her Almanac under the heading of “Governmental Organisations”. These include the United Nations, the Council of Europe, the Organisation of American States, the International Organisation for the Unification of Private Law and the International Council on Grain, among others. Rome has her observers and delegates in all of these many listed organisations.³⁵ Finally, she operates through her own people in Europe whose allegiance is first and foremost to the Roman Catholic Church. Many of her people have access to positions in the ruling structure of their nation. As Roman Catholics, they are enjoined by the Vatican to use both influence and position to bring that nation into line with papal policy on any particular issue.

We need to pray that Europe will not be taken back to the state that it was in, spiritually and politically, during the Middle Ages. Roman Catholicism though outwardly and politically strong is inwardly and spiritually feeble. By her laws and ceremonies, her Bishops, Priests and laity are obliged to accept the system that recognizes the Pope as the universal “Sovereign Father” while denying the true Father and the Son. From its traditions, history, and crises, it is evident that it is an institution lacking the Gospel of grace in Christ, one that walks in darkness and in the shadow of death.

In contrast, the true Christian faith may outwardly look small and weak; but inwardly, and in essence, it is the strongest power on earth. That same power liberated most of Europe at the time of the Reformation. It is the power that is in Christ Jesus the Lord, and inseparable from Him. In the words of the Apostle Peter, “blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.”³⁶ The reason for our confidence is our relationship to the risen Saviour the Lord Jesus Christ. He is Lord, the universal King and Sovereign, the Priest and Saviour. Christ Jesus our Lord is a Prophet, anointed with the Spirit and furnished with all gifts necessary for the instruction, guidance, and salvation of His people through His written Word, the Holy Scriptures. He and His Gospel of grace are our hope for the future of Europe. Our inheritance is reserved in heaven, on earth however we “are kept by the power of God through faith . . .”³⁷

We remember that the greatest power of God has often been experienced in times of the greatest declension, such as the time of the 18th century Revival and that of the Reformation itself. “The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined.”³⁸ God in His sovereignty and in His divine timing can bring a people to the Bible, to His truth of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. When He pleases He is able with one word of His grace, to renew Europe by an act of His power, and make His enemies the footstool of Christ. We pray that He will give us the faith of the Reformers and of all those in the history of Europe who have given their lives for Biblical Truth. For the European Union we pray the words of the prophet of the Lord, “Turn thou us unto thee, O LORD, and we shall be turned; renew our days as of old.”³⁹ God can send forth His Spirit when He pleases. He did so at the time of the Reformation; we pray that He will do so again now! We remember the words of John Owen at another tuning point of history. He spoke of his own nation, England, at a time of social disintegration yet looking for revival. We now need that same faith and confidence for Britain and for the future of all the EU,

Watch and Pray; Sound an Alarm in Zion

The Church of Rome is one of the major players in the “creeping totalitarianism” of the New World Order. Her designs on the EU are a major part of the unfolding global strategy. We need to watch and pray as the “Fourth Reich” emerges out of its embryo. A watchman of old was expected to guard against robbers and disturbers of the peace. We are all commanded to be watchmen, “to watch and pray”. There has been a dreadful apathy that has afflicted the household of God, an indifference to the clear threat to our ancient liberties and Protestant identity from both the EU and the Church of Rome. As watchmen of the Lord today we are to guard against false teachers and false religion. We are to watch and discern the actions and words of the one who would seek to supplant the Gospel with apostasy and tyranny. Our task under God is to sound an alarm, “blow ye the trumpet in Zion . . .let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of the Lord cometh, for it is nigh at hand.”⁴¹ Now even more than in the days of old the commands of the Lord are to be obeyed, “son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me.”⁴² As we make our stand, so also we pray expecting to see the power of God at work in Europe, “they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint.”⁴³ We owe the liberty that we yet enjoy to Jesus Christ the Lord. By His faithfulness and perfect sacrifice He has satisfied the demands of the broken law of the All Holy God. It is He, the Son of God, who has made us free. “If the Son of God shall set you free you will be free indeed.”

There is genuine unity of all true believers throughout the world. There is but one faith. All true believers are converted by the same Holy Spirit, and receive the same work of grace, which places them in the Beloved. In Christ Jesus we are spiritually one and called to stand fast in this liberty, and stand firm in His truth. “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be ye not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.”⁴⁴

Notes

(I didn’t hyperlink the URLs because many of them are broken. No sense to click on a hyperlink and get page not found.)

1. Bible League Quarterly (20 Thistlebarrow Road, Salisbury SP1 3RT, England) Oct-Dec 1981
2. Date: 2003-08-31 Code: ZE03083104 http://www.zenit.org/english/ 9/3/03
3. DOMINUS IESUS September 5th 2000 Para 4 http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus- iesus_en.html”>www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus- iesus_en.html
4. Ibid., Para. 17
5. Ibid., Para. 17
6. Henry Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, Tr. by Roy J Deferrari from Enchiridion Symbolorum, 13th ed (B. Herder Book Co., 1957), #469.
7. Sunday Telegraph, July 21st
1991 8. Eccelsia in Europa, Para. 116 http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp- ii_exh_20030628_ecclesia-in-europa_en.html”>www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp- ii_exh_20030628_ecclesia-in-europa_en.html 9/23/03
9. Ibid., Para. 20, 7/15/03 Bolding in any quotation indicates emphasis added in this paper unless otherwise noted.
10. DOMINUS IESUS, Para. 16
11. Ibid., Para 17
12. Adrian Hilton, “Render unto the Pope”, The Spectator, 30 August, 2003, http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old&section=current&issue=2003-11- 15&id=3450&searchText= 11/17/2003
13. Catechism of the Catholic Church (Liguori, MO: Liguori Publications, 1994) Para. 1129
14. Vid Treaty of Rome, Articles 164-188
15. The Northwest Technocrat, 1962
16. Sunday Telegraph, 25 August 1991
17. See Frederick Forsyth “The Abolition of Habeas Corpus” and Lord Stoddart on Corpus Juris, www.bullen.demon.co.uk 11/18/03
18. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, “Few willing to spoil the party for Giscard” in www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/06/14/weu14.xml 6/17/03
19. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard worldwatchdaily.org/index.cfm/ fuseaction/home.sa/a/9699 7/7/03 See also Noel Malcolm, Daily Telegraph 28/7/03 ‘A Federal Constitution with the Heart of a Manifesto’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml? xml=%2Fopinion%2F2003%2F07%2F28%2Fdo2801.xml 11/17/
03 20. www.euroscep.dircon.co.uk/corpus4.htm 11/18/03
21. Code of Canon Law, Latin-English ed., New English Tr. (Wash. DC: Canon Law Society of America, 1983) Can. 1404 All canons are taken from this source unless otherwise stated.
22. Canon 1405, Sec.1 Can. 1401:1 states, “By proper and exclusive right the Church adjudicates: 1. cases which regard spiritual matters or those connected to spiritual matters.”
23. These EU figure-symbols can wee see on the Internet: www.pointsoftruth.com/beastarises.html 7/7/03; http://fp.thebeers.f9.co.uk/europe.htm 7/7/03; http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PatriotSaints/message/270 7/7/03; www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=eu4 7/7/03
24. For fuller treatment, see J. A. Wylie, The History of Protestantism (Rapidan, VA 22733: Hartland Publications, 2002) Orig. publ. 1878. Four vols, particularly Vol. I, Ch. 3 “Development of the Papacy from the Time of Constantine to Hildebrand”.
25. For further detail, see Adrian Hilton, The Principality and Power of Europe: Britain and the emerging Holy European Empire (Box 67, Ricksmanworth, Herts WD3 5SJ, U.K.: Dorchester House, 2000) p. 55.
26. Documentation on these EU symbols are found on the following WebPages: www.pointsoftruth.com/beastarises.html 7/7/03; http://fp.thebeers.f9.co.uk/europe.htm 7/7/03; http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PatriotSaints/message/270 7/7/03; www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=eu4 7/7/03
27. Robert d’Harcourt, “Franz von Papen l’homme a‘ tout faire . . .” (L’Aube, 3 Oct. 1946) in The Vatican Against Europe by Edmond Paris, Tr. from French by A. Robson, First English Ed 1961 (184 Fleet Street, London, EC4: The Wickliffe Press, 1961) p. 271.
28. Libres Propos, Flammarion, Paris 1952
29. Edmond Paris, The Vatican Against Europe (London: Wycliffe Press, 1961)
30. The Vatican’s Holocaust (Springfield, MO: Ozark Books, 1986)
31. Sunday Telegraph, 15 September 1991
32. “No computation can reach the numbers who have been put to death, in different ways, on account of their maintaining the profession of the Gospel, and opposing the corruptions of the Church of Rome. A MILLION poor Waldenses perished in France; NINE HUNDRED THOUSAND orthodox Christians were slain in less than thirty years after the institution of the order of the Jesuits. The Duke of Alva boasted of having put to death in the Netherlands, THIRTY-SIX THOUSAND by the hand of the common executioner during the space of a few years. The Inquisition destroyed, by various tortures, ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND within thirty years. These are a few specimens, and but a few, of those which history has recorded; but the total amount will never be known till the earth shall disclose her blood, and no more cover her slain” John Dowling, History of Rome in Scott’s Church History, Book 8
33. J.A. Wylie, The Papacy, Book III. Chapter III, “Influence of Popery on Government”, www.wayoflife.org/papacy/03-03.htm 9/25/03
34. Our Sunday Visitor’s Catholic Almanac 1998 (Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., 1997) p.168
35. The Catholic Almanac 1998, p171 36. I Peter 1:3
37. I Peter 1:5
38. Isaiah 9:2
39. Lamentations 5:21
40. John Owen, The Works of John Owen (Johnstone & Hunter, 1850-53; Reprinted by The Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh EH12 6EL, 1976) Vol. 9, p 514
41. Joel 2:1
42. Ezekiel 3:17
43. Isaiah 40:31
44. Galatians 5:1

Permission is given by the authors to copy this article if it is done in its entirety without any changes. Permission is also given post this article in its entirety on Internet WebPages.

Our WebPage is: https://bereanbeacon.org/

“Straining at Gnats and Swallowing Camels” (A 1-Page Handout)

By Darryl Eberhart, Editor of ETI & TTT // May 24, 2009 // Website: www.toughissues.org

Note: Many of the “gnats” described in this article are important “subsidiaries” of the New World Order (N.W.O.); however, they are not nearly as important as the “camels” that are described in this article.

Many of the broadcast hosts in the so-called alternative media are “straining at gnats and swallowing camels”. The expression “straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel” can be found in the Holy Bible, in Matthew chapter 23, where the Lord Jesus Christ is rebuking the scribes and Pharisees for their hypocrisy. He tells them in verse 24: “[Ye] blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.”

Many of the alternative media broadcast hosts discuss [i.e., “strain at”] various New World Order (N.W.O.) front groups, such as the Illuminati, the Bilderbergers, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), “Skull and Bones”, Freemasonry, etc. [i.e., the “gnats”], while, for the most part, ignoring [i.e., “swallowing”] the Jesuit Order, its Knights of Malta, and other Jesuit-controlled agents of Papal Rome [i.e., the “camels”] that control and steer all the various N.W.O. front groups!

Many of the alternative media broadcast hosts discuss [i.e., “strain at”] the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), etc. [i.e., the “gnats”], while, for the most part, ignoring [i.e., “swallowing”] the Jesuit Order, its Knights of Malta, and other Jesuit-controlled agents of Papal Rome [i.e., the “camels”] that control and steer those federal agencies by placing their Papal agents in key government positions, such as Director of Central Intelligence! (According to researcher Eric Jon Phelps, author of “Vatican Assassins”, at least six (6) heads of the CIA have been Jesuit-controlled Knights of Malta!)

Yes, many of the alternative media broadcast hosts discuss [i.e., “strain at”] the TEN (10) FEMA regions and the many internment camps [i.e., the “gnats”] that have been prepared for handling “dissidents”, while, for the most part, ignoring [i.e., “swallowing”] the fact there are TEN (10) Jesuit provincials [i.e., the “camels”] assigned to the USA – and that these TEN Jesuit provincials will be running the FEMA regions and the internment camps from behind the scenes. (Two Jesuit prelates – Aloysius Stepinac and Ivan Saric – oversaw concentration camps and orchestrated the religious genocide in Fascist Croatia from 1941 to 1945.)

Many of the alternative media broadcast hosts discuss [i.e., “strain at”] the Jewish neo-conservatives, Zionist Jews, and the Mossad [i.e., “gnats”], while, for the most part, ignoring [i.e., “swallowing”] the Jesuit Order, its Knights of Malta, and other Jesuit-controlled agents of Papal Rome [i.e., the “camels”] that control and steer these “Papal Court Jews”. (Many of these broadcast hosts point to the Rothschilds, yet fail to mention that the Rothschilds, who do have a Jewish background, work FOR the Jesuits. In fact, one of the titles of the Rothschilds is “Guardians of the Vatican Treasury”. Some broadcast hosts point at the Mossad, yet fail to mention that the Mossad was set up by the Jesuit-controlled CIA!)

Many of the broadcast hosts fail to tell their listeners many key facts concerning Church history, world history, European history, and even American history, such as: (1) A Jesuit-controlled front group, the Knights of the Golden Circle, fomented the American Civil War and assassinated President Abraham Lincoln; (2) Almost every key position in the U.S. government during the Wilson Administration (1913-1921) was held by a fourth-degree Knight of Columbus; (3) Jesuit-controlled Papal Rome fomented both World War I and World War II; (4) Roman Catholic dictators, such as Hitler, Mussolini, Monsignor Tiso, etc., were put into power by Jesuit-controlled Papal Rome, and were fully supported by the Vatican; etc.

Why are these broadcast hosts “straining at gnats and swallowing camels”? Are they afraid of offending Roman Catholic listeners, or of losing Roman Catholic supporters? Are they afraid of being thrown off the “network”, or of losing radio stations? If you listen to some of these broadcast hosts who “strain at gnats and swallow camels”, then would you please ask them to explain why they are withholding from their listeners (1) the identities of the real controllers of the N.W.O., and (2) important facts about Jesuit-controlled Papal Rome (e.g., her hatred of civil and religious liberty and her love of Fascism)!

This is the next chapter of the book, The Foundations Under Attack: The Roots of Apostasy – By Michael de Semlyen

Chapter 14
The Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements

John Wesley’s Arminian teachings had inspired the founders of The Holiness Movement, who introduced into the Christian community the idea that “sinless perfection” or “entire sanctification” can be achieved in this life through a second work of grace or a “second blessing.” In time this would become identified with “The Baptism of the Holy Spirit” and the speaking with tongues of Pentecostalism and the Charismatic Movement. In his book The Holiness – Pentecostal Movement in the United States, pentecostal historian Vinson Synan’s description of the arrival of the “first wave” of Pentecostalism (preceding the Charismatic second and the current signs and wonders’ “third wave”) is instructive:

Evan Roberts and the Welsh Revival

At the beginning of the twentieth century, once again there was much talk of “revival”. Historian R.C. Wetzel notes that in 1904, “Evan Roberts began the Welsh Revival.” This comment seems perceptive, for it is unlikely that this year long aberration was begun by GOD, marked as it was with a “de-emphasis on preaching, … interruptions by worshippers, stress on the baptism of the spirit, and Spirit guidance… (and) …Lay preachers such as Evan Roberts at center-stage.. .” This appears to have been a thoroughly Arminian event.

Its historical significance lies in the fact that it was the precursor to, and has been linked with, the “Pentecostal Revival” which began at Azusa Street in Los Angeles in 1906 and is said by many to be continuing today. The Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements records that “in 1904-05 reports came to Los Angeles of a substantial revival that was taking place in Wales, largely associated with the work of Evan Roberts. In Chicago, ‘Holiness’ publisher, S.B. Shaw was the author of The Great Revival in Wales (1905), which was widely read in the Los Angeles area in 1905 and 1906. People who read the book began to establish cottage prayer meetings where they sought God for a similar revival among the churches of Los Angeles.”

Therefore it is clear that the name of Evan Roberts is closely connected with both the Welsh revival and with later happenings at Los Angeles. A quote from the preface written for Frank Bartleman’s book, What Really Happened at Azusa Street, seems to be both ironical and self-contradictory:

In fact, it can be argued that Azusa Street was not, as Pentecostals now insist, a spontaneous “revival”, nor a sovereign work of the Holy Spirit, but was initiated by Evan Roberts in Wales via his correspondence with Frank Bartleman in Los Angeles.

Welsh “Revival” Spreads to North America

Frank Bartleman is described as “the primary chronicler of Pentecostal origins in Los Angeles.” In the preface to his book, originally entitled How Pentecostals Came to Los Angeles, it is stated, “pamphlets telling of the visitation of the Spirit of God in Wales in 1904 provided the spark for the great revival in Los Angeles in 1906. During 1905, as Frank Bartleman corresponded with Evan Roberts in Wales and they agreed in prayer, as he and others spread the message of the Welsh revival … the spark became a spreading flame that burst forth into a world-wide conflagration of Pentecostal Revival in the Church of Jesus Christ.”

The various manifestations and excesses of the Toronto Blessing and its offspring, the Pensacola Outpouring (or Laughing Revival) in the 1990s are nothing new. The same characteristics and phenomena were to be found at Azusa Street and were experienced during the Latter Rain movement of 1948. In all of them the experiences or “blessings” were passed on from person to person. Just as more recently people have travelled to Toronto or Pensacola to obtain the “Blessing”, in like manner an earlier generation travelled to Los Angeles to seek revival and the outpouring or “Baptism of the Holy Spirit” with “the gift of tongues.”

All of these movements have one common denominator—they are all Arminian. They all preached and continue to preach a “gospel” that is unlikely to save. We know that the Sovereign God can save in any situation in which He is truly sought. We also know from the Apostle Paul that “whether in pretence, or in truth Christ is preached” -Phil. 1:18 there can be cause for rejoicing. However, we remember “that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils” 1 Tim.4:1

Scripture teaches us to expect apostasy, not revival. Church history demonstrates this over and over again. This has perhaps never been more true than it is today. For we are now in a time of great apostasy. Counterfeit Christianity is again in the ascendancy, with the foundations of the true faith very much under attack. “Another gospel” is being preached with “another Jesus”, and “another spirit” 2 Cor.11:4 and with “all deceivableness of unrighteousness”. “And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie; That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12

This is a solemn matter. It is Almighty God Himself who sends delusion upon those who “received not the love of the truth.” 2 Thessalonians 2:10 To those whom he has chosen, He says, “But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation and belief of the truth.” 2 Thessalonians 2:13 God’s people will not ultimately be ensnared by apostate movements, which masquerade as “revival”, nor will they succumb to “The Sovereign Drug Arminianism.”

There is a misconception among the great majority of Charismatic and Evangelical churches in our day. It is the belief that the Charismatic Movement is a genuine work of the Spirit of God. But just as Pentecostalism was man-manufactured, so too was the Charismatic Movement, although both surely have very many genuine believers who belong to Christ but are caught up in the deception.

Vatican II and the Charismatic Movement

What should deeply concern all lovers of Truth is the fact that from its beginnings in the early 1960s the Charismatic Movement had the full backing of the Vatican. In 1965, The Second Vatican Council officially opened the way for Charismatic “renewal” within the Catholic Church. It was also decreed that “the Church should become a full and active participant in the ecumenical movement.”

In a previous book All Roads Lead to Rome, this writer described in more detail the early history of the Charismatic Movement and the involvement of the Roman Catholic Church. Cardinal Augustin Bea (Jesuit personal Confessor to former Pope Pius XII and President of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity) spoke to the Council of the need for the Church to “strive to revitalise its own inner life, so that it can be manifested to our separated brethren, an ever clearer image according to the gospel.”

“The ‘separated brethren’ had been ‘heretics’ for many hundreds of years before the Council was convened. Suddenly, with ‘this new movement of the Holy Spirit’ they were ‘welcomed back into the fold.’ David Du Plessis, the Pentecostal leader known as ‘Mr. Pentecost’, was invited to attend the third session of Vatican II as Cardinal Bea’s personal guest. In 1967, two years after the Council officially opened the way for renewal, the first Charismatic ‘Baptism in the Spirit’ experiences of Catholics occurred at Duquesne and Notre Dame Universities. The Church of Rome officially adopted its own renewal movement – the only denomination to do so.”

Remembering Our History

We do well to remember our history. We need to be aware that Vatican II reaffirmed the decrees and anathemas of the Council of Trent in the very same year, 1965, as it welcomed back the “separated brethren.” As we have already seen, in order to counter the Reformation, Trent had asserted free will and denounced the Doctrines of Grace as “accursed.” Important to remember too is the excerpt from the Jesuit letter found in Archbishop Laud’s study in 1627: