The Decline Of Historic Bible Protestantism by Dr. Ronald Cooke – Introduction

WHY NO BIBLICAL EVALUATION TODAY?

Leonard Ravenhill, in his bestseller Why Revival Tarries, made a very piercing observation when he wrote: “Evangelists today are wide-eyed to the might of Communism, but tight-lipped at the menace of Romanism.” This statement was made about twenty years ago. Times have changed since then. And evangelists for the most part today (at least the famous ones) are not even concerned about the might of Communism. However, it is still true that most evangelists and most ministers and most Americans are completely silent when it comes to a Biblical evaluation of Romanism or any false religion today.

One of the reasons for this is the great ignorance of the Bible that exists in Protestantism today. One dear lady in a service the writer conducted in a good, fundamental church confessed that she did not know enough to ask a question. The meeting had been thrown open for questions at the end. She was honest enough as she shook my hand to say, “I didn’t know enough to ask a question.” This was in a good, separated, fundamental church. So although there is much preaching about the Bible today, the great truths of the Scriptures, as they pertain to justification and redemption, are seldom mentioned.

Another reason is the rise of secularism and humanism. As J. Sidlow Baxter points out while writing on another subject:

There can be no doubt that the holiness movement became eclipsed by a bigger issue. That issue was the grim battle to preserve the validity of Christianity as a whole against the deadly assaults of nineteenth and twentieth century rationalistic criticism… in all denominations those holding to the evangelical faith were compelled to sink minor differences… and join hands in common cause against the one common deadly foe.¹

Biblical evaluation has also been eclipsed by a bigger issue. With the rise of humanism, many feel that all church differences should be dropped and that all should unite to defeat this one common deadly foe.

Therefore, it is considered not only bad taste but a journey into the unnecessary to evaluate other religions today. Because of this tolerance, anyone who dares to even timidly question the antics of those who compromise the great truths of the Gospel is in for a veritable roasting by the leading lights of modern Christian journalism.

It is difficult to biblically evaluate another religion. Yet the Bible cuts across man-made religions of all kinds, and to be a true minister of the Word calls for biblical evaluation of error and heresy.

We live in a generation which is uncritical in the area of religion. According to Christianity Today, David McKenna, President of Seattle Pacific University, said that today’s students tend to be uncritical, and George Brushaber of Bethel College observed: “They don’t have much recognition of the traditions of history from which they come… no sense of the historical church.”² In other words, the ignorance of a theological perspective is monumental today.

So it is considered passé to biblically evaluate the modern church. If an aggressive church hires Bozo the Clown for $10,000 to boost its Sunday School attendance for that Sunday, no one is supposed to raise so much as a whisper. If Jerry Lewis, the unconverted Jew, appears on Oral Roberts’ television show as the star, no one dare question such a practice. When Billy Graham applauds the visit of the Pope to Poland and visits and preaches in Roman Catholic churches prior to that himself, no one is supposed to biblically evaluate such conduct. If one dares to even question such antics, he is immediately branded as a hatemonger, one who is playing into the hands of the Communists and the enemies of religion, and is therefore subject to be relegated to the dustbin of history. He may even be called something worse! One incensed minister in Scotland said in reference to some who had the temerity to question Dr. Billy Graham’s inclusion of modernists on his platform in his Scotland crusade that when the guttersnipes had crawled back into the sewers from which they had emerged, Dr. Graham’s ministry would continue. So we can readily see that to biblically evaluate the spirit of our times—the Zeitgeist, as the sociologists would call it—is fraught with peril and misunderstanding.

Actually we should welcome biblical evaluation as Christians. Spurgeon said, “If I am wrong, correct me, and I will bear it cheerfully, and you expect the same from me.” Faithful are the wounds of a friend, the Scriptures tell us, but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful. Every man is fallible; therefore, every man should welcome biblical evaluation.

However, it is strange in the midst of the ecumenical spirit which does not allow biblical evaluation that it is all right to criticize certain things. Our leading evangelical magazines can and do criticize quite severely certain areas of modern religion. MOODY MONTHLY, for instance, in its July-August issue of 1979 biblically evaluates no less than 77 cults and false religions. Now this is a very commendable effort on the part of this magazine as far as it goes. But there is no evaluation given of the Roman Catholic cult, the largest cult of all in Christendom; even though it does expose the little-known Liberal Catholic Church!

Van Baalen, in his standard work, CHAOS OF CULTS, thought it necessary to biblically evaluate some of the better-known cults of today. Walter R. Martin, in a recent monumental study, KINGDOM OF THE CULTS, surpasses Van Baalen and brings his work up to date. His work is an excellent effort again as far as it goes and was widely praised by leading evangelical magazines, ministers, and scholars.

So apparently it is accepted by the higher echelons of evangelicalism to biblically evaluate Mormonism, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the Seventh-day Adventists, but not the largest cult of all—the Roman Catholic cult. Neither of these writers thought it necessary to deal with the cult of Rome.

The Reformers called the Roman Catholic religion a sect and not a true church because they had the Pope as the head and not the Lord Jesus Christ. It is interesting to notice the trend away from the thinking of the Reformers today, even on the part of those who claim to follow them to the letter.

In a recent issue of the PRESBYTERIAN JOURNAL, readers were asked to give their opinion of a modern revision of the Westminster Confession of Faith. It was very revealing of the ignorance of Reformed doctrine to notice that several people wanted the reference to the Pope as Antichrist removed from any modern reworking of the Westminster Confession. They all assumed with equal ignorance that such a thought was preposterous! That the Pope is an antichrist is not at all preposterous but an actual fact, and that a Pope could be the Antichrist is certainly not unthinkable.

Romanism has always been considered a counterfeit religion by historic Bible Protestants of all denominations. While Protestants have differed among themselves in certain areas, they have historically been united on salvation by grace through faith. This great doctrine has been the common denominator of all Protestant groups, so that a line of demarcation was always made between all Protestant denominations and the counterfeit of Romanism. Today this line of demarcation no longer exists.

When well-known fundamental and evangelical speakers on radio and television speak of denominations, they frequently include the Roman cult in their inclusive statements. In recent days we listened to a leading fundamental television preacher make the statement that there are believers in all denominations—Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, Catholic, etc. He included the great counterfeit giant of Romanism with other Protestant denominations. This is done, we believe, to keep the money flowing from as wide a source as possible, but it is a reckless course to follow in the light of eternal truth and in the light of eternal judgment.

Why, if we can be so generous in our inclusive statements, do we not include Seventh-day Adventists, Mormons, and other cults where believers might be residing? If we can boldly assert that there are believers in apostate Protestantism and idolatrous Romanism, why not in misguided Mormonism or non-real Christian Science or Mrs. White’s Seventh-day Adventism? For it is certainly true that there is more Bible studied in erroneous Adventism than there is in apostate Protestantism or sacramentarian Romanism.

So while some may glibly assert that there are believers in all denominations, the true minister of the Gospel cannot be so glib. The true minister realizes that truth is paramount. Where truth is repudiated, can true faith exist? Historically, if people were saved in the Roman cult, they repudiated it and left it. Therefore, no true minister should ever give any solace to any disobedient person who claims to be a believer but who remains in company with those who deny the Lordship of Christ and the truth of the Bible.

There may be disobedient believers in some of these groups, but upon whose authority can we glibly announce this as fact? We are far too glib and nonchalant with the truth of the Word today. This glib attitude contributes to the lack of self-examination and to the presumption evident in many churches today. “We are one in the Spirit, and we are one in the Lord” is the theme of the ecumenical church today, and it is sung by many misguided and flippant church members who pat themselves on the back for their great tolerance of those who differ with them.

This false pride is very evident today. Many “Christians” seem to be more concerned about being thought tolerant and open than about being true and steadfast. Tolerance is all right in non-essentials, but it causes eternal loss when we tolerate those who propagate salvation by works.

The whole area of tolerance needs to be studied today. It is one thing to tolerate all kinds of dissent in society and allow men to be free in their consciences, but it is quite another to tolerate everything in the Church of the living God, which is supposed to be the pillar and ground of the truth! Biblically ignorant Christians parade their ignorance under the guise of tolerance, and the result of this foolish parade is devastating in the area of Biblical Christianity. The decline of biblical Protestantism is obvious today. The very term “Biblical Protestant” is a term of opprobrium and defamation today, generally reserved for the Protestants of the North of Ireland.

The decline of historic Christianity is real today. To be a true believer a person must understand the Gospel. He must recognize the Word of God as authoritative, that is, that its teachings and precepts are binding upon him. No one can be a believer and exist in a spiritual vacuum; yet this apparently is what some seem to think today. The Word seems to have lost its authority in the lives of many professing Christians today.

Divorce has reached epidemic proportions, not only in society but among Christians and even among those in the Christian ministry. Ministers calmly divorce their wives and marry another woman and carry on in the ministry even in fundamental, separated, Bible-believing churches. As this book is being written, the PITTSBURGH PRESS carries the story of Bob Harrington, the Chaplain of Bourbon Street. It tells of his divorce, and then his quick remarriage to his secretary. One of Harrington’s famous records was, “It’s Fun Being a Christian.” We can imagine what the cynics are saying now. On the sports page we read of Alvin Dark’s testimony, and we learn that he also was recently divorced and remarried. Another story tells us that Craig Morton of the Denver Broncos is picked up for drunken driving, and the article goes on to say that Morton is a born-again Christian. What in the world are we producing? When Christian leaders—at least they are sought out as speakers by many church and youth groups—calmly talk of divorce and remarriage as if they were discussing mere temporary peccadilloes. Now we understand that in rare cases there may be grounds for divorce, but it is the quick remarriage which disturbs us greatly. We know of couples who have been divorced and then have had their lives straightened out and have come back together again. The quick remarriage destroys any possibility of a future reconciliation or at least seriously complicates such a hope.

It is one thing to thump the pulpit as we declaim with verve the inspiration of the Bible; it is quite another to make that inspired Word the rule for our lives. The reason that the great spiritual vacuum exists today and why conduct is so lax no doubt stems from an ignorance of the Bible. People are urged to turn to Christ today by cheap psychological tricks. Some who claim to be fundamental and Bible-believing teach their congregations that the way to be an aggressive soul-winner is to ask the person ten questions that they can answer yes to, then ask them if they want to receive Christ. The person, who has been psychologically prepared, then answers the eleventh question with a yes, too, and is then considered won to Christ. It should not surprise us then that so much confusion reigns in the church today.

We seem to have a difficult time realizing that although it is possible to mass-produce just about everything today, we cannot mass-produce Christianity. When one famous super-aggressive church pastor openly boasts that even the FBI couldn’t find 75% of his church members on Sunday morning, it is obvious that there is something seriously wrong even though he makes a joke of it. What he is saying is that 4,000 of those whom he baptized, told they were eternally secure, no longer come to church. Yet they are considered Christians and considered as sure candidates for glory, according to the teaching of this man.

How far we have strayed from the New Testament is not easily measured. But it is obvious that what some men preach as the Gospel is as far removed from the truth as Heaven is from Hell. The New Testament never speaks of it being fun to be a Christian, nor does it teach that it is easy to become a Christian. The Lord Jesus Christ—and I would to God that Christian leaders would listen to what the Lord Jesus says—said that unless a person sits down and counts the cost, he could not be His disciple. The Lord Jesus states three times in the fourteenth chapter of Luke that we CANNOT be His disciple unless we meet His stringent demands.

Biblical evaluation is absolutely essential today if one is to remain a Biblical Christian. There is so much hypocrisy and presumption in the Church today that unless one evaluates everything one reads by the Scriptures, one is sure to be led astray, or if not led astray, completely neutralized in the Battle for Mansoul.

For instance, many books and articles have come out against Dr. Moon’s Unification Church. He has been thoroughly dissected and examined and exposed. He has even been blasted by the major networks on several occasions. Millions of Americans thought this was necessary. The tragedy of this whole scenario is apparent to those who regard the Bible as not only inspired, infallible, and inerrant, but also authoritative. For while it is true that the Moon cult has ensnared thousands of Biblically ignorant young people, the Roman cult has ensnared seven hundred million precious souls.

One of the criticisms leveled at the Moon cult was that Mr. Moon set himself up as another Christ. This was rightly declared to be blasphemous. However, the silence was deafening concerning the worship and veneration which the Pope blasphemously arrogates to himself. This writer has yet to see one word condemning this perennial blasphemy in any of the books or papers or magazines that so boldly speak out against the Moon Cult. The Moon Cult, in its official publication, claims 30,000 followers in the U.S. and 2 million worldwide. Yet this little, insignificant cult comes in for all kinds of articles, books, and news media propaganda directed against it. The Roman Cult, which is far more insidious, far more powerful, and which is also directed by a “foreigner” (one of the allegations made against the Moon Cult is that it is Korean and not American), receives every kind of favorable coverage in evangelical magazines, fundamental papers, and the news media at large. It even received unprecedented free coverage when the major networks carried half-hour specials on the Pope’s visit to Poland. The Black Madonna was beamed into an estimated fifty million homes, and the celebration of the Mass was given full exposure. Yet there was no public outcry such as was directed against poor little Mr. Moon, who is really no threat to America at all compared with the Pope of Rome.

Is this disparity between the exposure of Mr. Moon and the lack of exposure of Romanism ever explained? It is not. Our evangelical magazines, which carry articles many times that are not worth reading, never seek to explain what is happening in America today concerning the biggest cult of all. They will dissect the Satanists, the Moonies, the despised cults, and in the case of some fundamental papers fight over baptism, hair, or some other picayune subject, but totally ignore the complete takeover of our networks, news media, and country by the counterfeit propaganda of a false religion of monumental proportions! When one realizes what is happening, it can be said without exaggeration that such a situation is incredible. The Scriptures tell us that the “god of this world” BLINDS the minds of those who believe not. His blinding potential seems to be working on a much wider range today.

Romanism makes every other cult pale into insignificance beside its massive power base, its international financial empire, its cosmopolitan aura, its universal appeal, its accumulation of error, and its enduring persecution against those who disagree with its dogmas. The question that needs to be answered today is: “Why do evangelicals, fundamentalists, and those who claim to be following the Reformers no longer look upon Romanism as a cult?”

A writer in CHRISTIANITY TODAY, while dealing with the Roman Catholic terror campaign in Ulster, blasted Dr. Ian Paisley for being so intransigent when dealing with those who differ from him only in the matter of “churchmanship.” Now the kindest thing that can be said about such a writer is that he is a spiritual ignoramus. For if he is not an ignoramus, then he is an outright deceiver. Romanism to the Biblical Christian differs completely from the Biblical faith for which Paisley contends, and there is obviously much more than mere “churchmanship” which is at stake.

Cornelius Van Til, one of the most profound thinkers in America today, obviously recognizes that there is much more than mere churchmanship at issue between Romanism and Biblical Christianity. Van Til says: “The philosophy with which Romanism has made its alliance is no more and no less anti-Christian than is the philosophy of Sartre or any of the modern existentialists.”³ He goes on to point out that: “The Reformation sought to set Christianity free from any form of alliance with apostate philosophy. It called men back to the God and the Christ of the Scriptures and therefore to the Scriptures as the direct revelation of this God and this Christ. Only thus, the Reformers knew, could they identify themselves as creatures and as sinners and find assurance of salvation through the grace of God in Christ. Only thus could they have forgiveness of sins through the merits of the Redeemer through his death on the cross. Only thus could there be a transition from wrath to grace in history.”⁴ He adds:

Those who live in the camp of “historic Protestantism” may well agree that the Barthian and the Roman Catholic systems are alike because they are “open.” But this is true because they are closed to God’s revelation through Christ in the Scripture.⁵

It is apparent to a theologian of Van Til’s stature that Romanism is closed to God’s revelation of Christ in the Scripture. That there is something more than mere churchmanship or vestments which is at stake, that Rome is wrong at its very foundation.

The alliance of Rome with apostate philosophy demonstrates the overall ambivalence of the Roman Catholic system. On the one hand Rome claims to be reviving Biblical studies; on the other it affirms the restrictions of the Council of Trent on the right of private judgment and sets up the “fathers” as the true interpreters of Scripture. It claims to be re-examining the doctrine of justification by faith while stressing the necessity of salvation by works. It announces to the world the primacy of Scripture but at the same time enforces the anti-scriptural teachings of the councils and the infallibility of the Pope. As William C. Standridge points out in his book, “WHAT’S HAPPENING IN THE ROMAN CHURCH?”:

The fact that the church has succeeded in keeping within its confines hundreds of religious orders—conservatives, liberals, and progressives, people who promote the distribution of the Bible, and those who oppose it, charismatics and non-charismatics, those who remove statues from their churches and others who pay out millions to promote the beatification of new saints, is certainly not a sign of weakness but of strength.

He goes on to conclude:

It is a well-known fact that in every religious and political crisis that has shaken Europe for centuries, the Vatican has been able to rely upon priests devoted to both sides of each question, and thus able to protect the interests of the church no matter who might come out the winner.

This is demonstrated today as well by the fact that there are priests operating full-time anti-communist campaigns, and other priests openly professing Marxist economic doctrine. Anyone who believes that these differing opinions within the church prove that the church is falling apart just doesn’t understand the basic principles of how the church really operates.⁶ Rome’s ambivalence is carefully orchestrated so that she will be able to wind up on the winning side. Her strategy is certainly working well in today’s uncritical, passive, and apathetic atmosphere.

Rome is not just in error on some points of doctrine. She is opposed to the authority of the Scripture. Hans Küng, one of Romanism’s profound ecumenical scholars, was, according to Van Til, “compelled at every major point to introduce a polemical note against the teachings of the Reformers.”⁷

Van Til sums up this section of his masterful work by pointing out that the Council of Trent could not hold back a radical CONDEMNATION of the Reformation, and that even today those who think like the Reformers must engage in a conflict with Rome. Few, if any, are engaging in a conflict with Rome today; rather, Romanists are now welcomed on an equal basis into many Protestant gatherings, especially since the advent of the modern Charismatic movement.

(To be continued.)