The mainline Reformed Churches have been seduced by the Church of Rome into surrendering the primary tenets of Protestantism. In the quest for ecumenical unity, Protestantism has changed drastically without moving Rome one inch in her theological positions and idolatrous forms of worship. Now the Reformed Churches and Rome regard themselves as more alike than different:-
From [D]@gmail.com:
Five Centuries After Reformation, Catholic-Protestant Divide in Western Europe Has Faded
As Protestants prepare to commemorate the 500th anniversary of the Reformation, a new Pew Research Center survey finds that the prevailing view among Catholics and Protestants in Western Europe is that they are more similar religiously than they are different. And across a continent that once saw long and bloody religious wars, both Protestants and Catholics now overwhelmingly express willingness to accept each other as neighbors – and even as family members.
The survey also shows that one of the major theological controversies of the Protestant Reformation no longer starkly divides rank-and-file Catholics and Protestants in Western Europe. Today, majorities or pluralities of both groups say that faith and good works are necessary to get into heaven – the traditional Catholic position. Fewer people say that faith alone (in Latin, sola fide) leads to salvation, the position that Martin Luther made a central rallying cry of 16th-century Protestant reformers.
Yet differences remain between the two Christian traditions. Geographically, Protestants are still concentrated in the north and Catholics in the south of Europe. In many countries, sizable minorities among both Catholics and Protestants (roughly four-in-ten or more Catholics in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Italy and France and comparable shares of Protestants in Switzerland and the UK) say the two groups are more different religiously than they are similar. And Protestants and Catholics who consider religion to be important in their lives are more likely to take their respective church’s traditional position on salvation compared with those who say religion is less important.
Differences do indeed remain, and are not likely to be resolved, which is the whole point of unity in diversity (Cf. This Joint Declaration . . .) Rome is satisfied with this state of affairs, because she has uprooted Protestant church leaders and laity alike from their foundation rock, the Bible, from which the five Solas are derived. Higher Criticism, the creation of Rome, destroyed Bible Christianity in the Protestant world over the centuries. This is the basis on which the Catholic-Protestant divide has faded in spite of the remaining differences.
Another report is in basic agreement with the article cited above; but it also provides a penetrating analysis of the varying beliefs of Evangelical Protestants in America which complicate the process of assimilation by Rome:
500 Years After Reformation, Many Protestants Closer to Catholics than Martin Luther
Pew finds less than half of Protestants in many countries believe both sola fide and sola scriptura.
In 1517, Martin Luther staked his soul on two revolutionary ideas: sola fide, that justification is dependent on faith alone; and sola scriptura, that Scripture is the only ultimate authority for Christian belief and practice and does not need oversight from church leaders or tradition to be read and understood.
The 95 theses Luther nailed to the door at Wittenberg served as the catalyst for one of the world’s largest religious splits, as thousands broke off from the Roman Catholic Church. His legacy, 500 years later, is 560 million Protestants across the globe, making up more than a third of the world’s Christians.
But many of them don’t actually agree with him.
Today, half of American Protestants say that both good deeds and faith in God are needed to get into heaven (52%); the same number believe that in addition to the Bible, Christians need guidance from church teachings and traditions, according to two studies released today by the Pew Research Center.
The numbers don’t change in Western Europe. In Luther’s home country of Germany, 61 percent of Protestants believe good deeds are needed for salvation. In John Calvin’s Switzerland, 57 percent agree, as do 47 percent in Abraham Kuyper’s Holland. . .
“In fact, in every country [in Western Europe] except Norway (where 51% of Protestants say salvation comes through faith alone), belief in sola fide is a minority view even among Protestants,” Pew reported. (For this study, Pew defined sola fide as “faith in God alone is needed to get into heaven,” and defined sola scriptura as the “Bible provides all religious guidance Christians need.”)
About half of Catholics and Protestants in Europe now say that the two religions are “more similar than they are different,” while only about a quarter say they’re “more different than they are similar.”
In America, where many followers of the Reformation fled to escape Catholic persecution, more than half of Protestants now say that Catholicism is more like Protestantism than the two are different (57%).
However, most Americans know the two aren’t exactly the same. When asked to define Protestantism in their own words, a plurality of adults said “not Catholic” (32%) or generally Christian (12%).
Though American Protestants were largely able to pinpoint Martin Luther as the inspiration (71%) and the movement’s label as the Reformation (70%), just 3 in 10 said they believed in both sola fide and sola scriptura (by Pew’s definitions).
If Luther has an heir, it appears to be the white evangelical.
“White evangelicals are the only Protestant subgroup analyzed in the survey in which most take the opposite position,” Pew said.
Almost 6 in 10 said the Bible provides all the religious guidance Christians need, while almost 7 in 10 said that faith alone is needed to get into heaven.
Fewer white evangelicals believe in both sola fide and sola scriptura (per Pew’s definitions) at the same time (44%), but the number is still higher than for black Protestants (19%) and white mainline Christians (20%). (Two-thirds of black Protestants identify as evangelical, according to Pew.)
White evangelicals are also least likely to believe in the Catholic teaching of purgatory: 24 percent, compared to 31 percent of white mainline Christians and 47 percent of black Protestants.
Perhaps predictably, white evangelicals who attend church weekly are even more likely to believe in sola fide and sola scriptura (per Pew’s definitions). Eighty percent believe in faith alone, 68 percent believe in the Bible’s ability to stand alone, and 59 percent believe in both. The vast majority don’t believe in purgatory (86%).
Education ups the numbers even further. Among white evangelicals who attended college, most believe in sola fide (81%) or sola scriptura (72%); in fact, most believe both (65%). Just 7 percent believe in purgatory. . .
“Analysis of the data shows that for Protestants, knowing that only Protestantism traditionally teaches that salvation comes through faith alone is closely linked with believing that salvation comes through faith alone,” Pew reported. “Among Protestants who know that only Protestantism traditionally teaches that salvation comes through faith alone, about three-quarters (77%) embrace the concept of sola fide. But among the much larger share of Protestants who are not aware that sola fide is solely a Protestant teaching, far fewer (35%) believe that faith is all that is needed to get into heaven.” (Underscored emphasis added.)
What a sad and incongruous statement this is: "But many of them [the 560 million Protestants across the globe] don’t actually agree with him [Martin Luther.]" They cling to the name "Protestant" while denying the fundamental tenets of the Protestant faith. This is a manifestation of the "strong delusion that they should believe the lie prophesied by the Apostle Paul." Mark the course of deception by Rome:
She ensnared the Protestant world with Preterism and Futurism, thus destroying the prophecies which identified her conclusively as the Antichrist. She played upon the vanity of Protestant theologians to seduce them into engaging in "Higher Criticism," which has destroyed the Bible as the only source of Truth and rule of faith and practice. The end result is that the Protestant world as a whole is in the clutches of "the Dragon," and is totally oblivious of the fact (Cf. Rev. 12:3-9; Rev. 13:2b; Rev. 16:13-14.) The survey results reported above reveals American Protestantism in a state of unbelief and confusion. Interestingly, the author of the survey report states, "If Luther has an heir, it appears to be the white evangelical." Appearances can be very deceiving. The two outstanding marks of contemporary white Evangelicals are their commitment to union of Church and State under the inspiration and manipulation of Rome, and their relentless pursuit of supremacy over the entire body politic under their idea of "Christianity." The following article sounds a warning against Christian Theocracy:
Evangelicals, politics, and theocracy: a lesson from the English revolution
The current cycle of primary elections has re-ignited old debates about the place of religion in American political life. Those candidates identified as evangelicals, such as Ted Cruz, are often represented as proposing a top-down reconstruction of American society, encouraging a “moral minority” to take power in order to impose its expectations upon the culture at large. To the extent to which this is true – and the assumption can be contested – these candidates are developing some of the most controversial themes in modern evangelical thought.
This ambition to reform American culture shows the extent to which evangelical political thinking has changed. For much of the twentieth century, American evangelicals tended to disavow active political engagement, while praying for cultural reform. This political passivity began to change in the mid-1970s, when both candidates for the White House identified themselves as evangelicals, and especially after the early 1980s, when evangelical leaders began to build the ecumenical coalition that would drive conservative politics into the next decade. This change was informed by the publications and activities of a number of key figures, especially Frances Schaeffer, whose name is well known in histories of the Christian Right, and his less famous, but more controversial, fellow-traveler, R. J. Rushdoony.
The voluminous and demanding publications of Rushdoony did most to underwrite the new culture of evangelical engagement. In such publications as his massive Institutes of Biblical Law (1973), Rushdoony proposed a radical platform for political change. Developing themes latent in his Reformed and Presbyterian tradition, he denied the existence of natural law and argued instead that all government had to be reshaped according to biblical norms. At times that could sound innocuous. “God’s goal is a debt-free society which is also poverty-free,” he suggested. And he argued for lower tax, on the basis that governments should not claim a greater share of their citizen’s property than the tithe demanded by God.4 But Rushdoony understood that the godly society he imagined would only be made possible by a legal revolution.
Rushdoony argued that crimes – and their punishments – were to be defined by the Bible. That’s why he could consider alternatives to incarceration. Drawing on case law in the Pentateuch, he argued that crimes involving property should be resolved through restitution rather than imprisonment, but breaches of the first seven of the Ten Commandments – including idolatry, blasphemy, murder, adultery, and dishonoring one’s parents – should be punished by death. These positions may seem to be so extreme as to be irrelevant to the contemporary political climate, and Rushdoony’s name has not often been cited in this cycle of primaries, but when candidates propose a flat tax of 10%, or punishment for women who have undergone abortions, they are echoing his ideas. Whatever their similar goals, nevertheless, those evangelicals pursuing the top-down reformation of American society are overlooking Rushdoony’s warning about how these goals should be achieved.
The article goes on to describe the ultimate failure of the radical Puritan government of the mid-17th century in England, and ends with the following paragraph:
The end of the English revolution reminds evangelical political leaders to be alert to the limitations of top-down reform. Rushdoony understood that “the key to social renewal is individual regeneration,” for “man must be remade if the world itself is to be saved.” Human beings are not changed by politics alone. Perhaps, as the cycle of primaries continues, the most influential modern theorist of the requirements of biblical law may also become the most telling voice against its imposition.
The warning will neither be heard nor heeded by the Christian Supremacists. They are so illiterate in the knowledge of Bible prophecy that they probably do not know what is predicted in Rev. 13:11-17. They will be swept to the pinnacle of power by the principalities and powers, the rulers of the darkness of this world, and spiritual wickedness in high places (Eph. 6:12; Rev. 16:13-14.) They are blind to their ultimate end as prophesied in Rev. 19:19-20.
Far from being the heirs of Martin Luther, what they represent and are in the process of achieving is antithetical to Martin Luther's teachings:
LUTHER'S VIEWS OF CHURCH AND STATE
1. Congregation of Saints. To Martin Luther the Church in the truest sense comprised a community of saints, a congregation of genuine believers wherever they may be found. Since his central theological tenet was sola fide, Luther viewed the Church as the sum total of men who experience a genuine faith-grace relationship with God. As pointed out by William A. Mueller, the Church conceived of in this way "is rather a spiritual entity that is being built, as it were, from above." John M. Headley cites Luther's work Operations on the Psalms in which the Church is defined as the spiritual collection of the faithful wherever they may be. Such a Church is not bodily or visible, neither can it be geographically confined. Just as faith is not a tangible entity that can be perceived by the senses or confined within physical limits, so the true Church, as understood by Luther, transcends any natural boundaries. It is primarily a spiritual entity because the relationship that characterizes its members is a spiritual one. This understanding of the Church was reflected in the Augsburg Confession (1530) which stated: "Also they teach that one holy church is to continue forever. But the church is the congregation of saints, the assembly of all believers."
It seems to be the consensus of scholarly opinion that Luther viewed the Church as a spiritual, invisible communion of believers; spiritual because of the primary qualification for membership, and invisible because it is impossible ultimately to determine the presence or absence of faith. J. W. Allen maintains that to Luther "the Church Universal on earth, consists of those only who know and do the will of the Lord." . . .
Without doubt Luther included in the visible church others apart from the elect. But this did not involve a continuation of the medieval idea of general membership in the Church. The medieval church could not be defined as the communio sanctorum, the invisible community of saints. Spitz nicely distinguishes between the medieval theory of the Church and that of Luther by pointing out that "in its most literal meaning Schleiermacher's famous definition applies to Luther's view of the Church—the relation of the Catholic to Christ is determined by his relation to the Church; the relation of a Protestant to the Church is determined by his relation to Christ." Luther included the non-elect in the visible church only because he saw the impossibility of determining who were the elect and who were not. He did not regard membership in the visible church and participation in its sacraments as the means of grace and salvation. Whatever his later attitude to the territorial church, in the early period up to 1525 Luther's theology ruled out identification of the Church with the political community.
It is clear that the Evangelical concept of theocracy is diametrically opposed to the true Church as conceived by Martin Luther. The fact that differing proportions of conservative Evangelicals believe in Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide do not make them the heirs of Luther. This is especially so in view of the extent to which they have strayed from true Bible Christianity:
How the Bible Belt lost God and found Trump
He’s a divorced adulterer who ran a gambling empire, so how did America’s Moral Majority get so evangelical about Donald Trump?
My host was Wayne Flynt, an Alabaman who has made the people of the southern US his life’s work. A 76-year-old emeritus professor of history at Auburn University, he has written empathetically about his region in books such as Poor But Proud. A Baptist minister, he still teaches Sunday school at his church and delivered the eulogy at last year’s funeral of his friend Harper Lee, author of To Kill a Mockingbird.
I took my place in the book-lined study of Flynt’s redwood house in Auburn, Alabama, to hear his thoughts on the local economy, but the conversation turned to a central mystery of US politics. Trump would not be president without the strong support of the folks Flynt has chronicled — white residents of the Bible Belt, raised in the do-it-yourself religious traditions that distinguish the US from Europe. [5] I wondered how a thrice-married former casino owner — who had been recorded bragging about grabbing women by the genitals — had won over the faithful.
Flynt’s answer is that his people are changing. The words of Jesus, as recorded in the Gospels, are less central to their thinking and behaviour, he says. Church is less compelling. Marriage is less important. Reading from a severely abridged Bible, their political concerns have narrowed down to abortion and issues involving homosexuality. Their faith, he says, has been put in a president who embodies an unholy trinity of materialism, hedonism and narcissism. Trump’s victory, in this sense, is less an expression of the old-time religion than evidence of a move away from it. . .
The irony is that evangelicals turned to politics to prevent that very outcome. Fearing that so-called secular humanists would impose a moral order of their own through government action, born-again Christians began flocking to the polls in the late 1970s. Their impact was undeniable. They were the shock troops of the Reagan Revolution of 1980. They rescued Trump last year after many political analysts had counted him out, reckoning that the changing demographics of the US had made a white conservative like him unelectable.
When the Christian right burst to prominence, its calls to defend the unborn were a rallying cry. But unyielding opposition to abortion was not a traditional evangelical position. In 1971 — two years before the Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision legalising abortion — the evangelical Southern Baptist Convention, the largest US Protestant denomination, endorsed abortion in cases of rape, incest, “severe” foetal deformity or where there was “the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental and physical health of the mother”. As recently as 1976, it said it believed government should play a “limited role” on abortion matters.
Abortion only became a leading concern of the religious right when the late firebrand Jerry Falwell and other leaders of the Moral Majority seized upon the issue towards the end of the 1970s. In the decades that followed it became a sure-fire way to mobilise conservatives unmoored by a variety of political and social changes that followed from the 1960s — ranging from federal efforts to take away tax breaks from racially segregated Christian schools to movements promoting the rights of women and homosexuals. (“God made Adam and Eve,” Falwell liked to say, “not Adam and Steve.”)
The Christianity of the Evangelical Religious Right is a delusional sham. It has served the Church of Rome's purpose very well in paving the way for forming the Image to the Beast, converting the United States into a Theocracy. This is an extraordinary fact given the influence of Zionism in blocking the way to the papal objective in Jerusalem; and it is also partial evidence of the extinction of Protestantism. The Roman Catholic Church comprises right and left wings. The same applies to the churches of the former Reformation. The Evangelicals on the right are matched by the Social Gospel churches on the left:
The Social Gospel refers to the emphasis of a primarily Protestant movement in the late 19th century and early 20th century, to apply Christian principles to social problems.
Being part of the "modernism" trend with a strong emphasis on social justice, the movement is a rival to evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity. Members of the movement see it as a return to the beginning of Christianity, that is to the message of Jesus.
In the United States, prior to World War I, the Social Gospel was the religious wing of the progressive movement which had the aim of combating injustice, suffering, and poverty in society. In this context, it is seen as having provided the philosophical underpinning for the New Deal. After the war, the movement shifted its focus to the civil rights arena, and later, became outspoken in its opposition to the Vietnam War.
With the ascendancy of the "Christian right" beginning in the 1980s, the Social Gospel agenda declined in the United States, but examples of its continued existence can still be found, notably the organization known as the Call to Renewal.
The author of the following article sees a match between the Left and Right in regard to the Social Gospel. In effect he reasons that the objectives of the Right are equivalent to a Social Gospel. Historically this is not so in the strict sense of the term "Social Gospel;" but his thoughts are interesting in their comparison of the contrasting positions of Left and Right, and inadvertently sheds light on the Romanism of both Left and Right:
The Dangers of Moralizing and The Social Gospel of the Left and Right
Living a life of good works is not going to keep anyone from hell.
Attempting to legislate a city, state, or nation into righteousness is a wasted effort that will yield no eternal rewards. That doesn't mean we should do away with laws against murder, rape, stealing, and fraud. Romans 13 tells us that the purpose of government is to reward the righteous and punish the wicked. God created civil government for the purpose of maintaining a stable and just society so the other two institutions God created-the family and the Church-could go about their respective biblical mandates. Cities, states, and nations need laws. Some Christians have, and I pray will continue to have, a godly impact in government as individuals. But collectively, the Church needs to realize how foolish it is to spend so much time and money trying to force our biblical values onto an unsaved culture.
The way to produce a change in any culture is to preach the Gospel. It is only as individuals place their faith and trust in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior that people are changed, families are changed, values are changed, and thus communities and cultures are changed. You cannot change a culture simply by fighting the symptoms of a depraved and sinful culture. A culture reflects the values embraced by the people living in a city, state, or nation, and until you change an individual's values, you will not change a culture with legislation or moralizing. A person's actions are based on his or her values, those values are based on the person's worldview, and that worldview consists of his or her theology, philosophy, ethics, etc.
The unsaved humanist is not going to change his or her values until the worldview based on a theology that denies the God of the Bible is changed. That means the goal of the New Apostolic Reformation and some of today's New Religious Right to legislate "kingdom values" through the seven mountain mandate, as they call it, is a waste of time and money. Preaching a biblical Gospel, on the other hand, is never a waste of time and money.
I believe many of the NAR and New Religious Right members fail to preach the Gospel simply because they themselves are not saved. Many do not dare preach a biblical Gospel because they want to work with all the world's religions to establish their own version of the Kingdom of God on earth, and it is hard to get invited to speak at Mormon and Catholic conferences if you insist on preaching the Gospel of Christ. . .
The real advocates and practitioners of the Social Gospel reflect the influence of Rome's teaching which emphasizes "good works" as an essential part of Justification. The Religious Right which has advanced Theocracy in America seeks to establish righteousness by the power of the State. Neither the Left nor the Right can succeed in establishing a righteous nation; but both are Romanized and advancing the Roman Catholic objective of world domination. Both have betrayed the Gospel of God and the Reformation, and are now deliberately or unwittingly promoting a form of Christianity that is in harmony with Rome's dogma on Justification and her Social Teaching, which it should be noted includes Subsidiarity and Solidarity, both now exercising an overwhelming influence on the legislative policies of the United States:
Subsidiarity and the state’s moral obligation (If hyperlink does not work, google the title. The web page is online.)
Ready or not, 2017 could prove to be the year of unanticipated subsidiarity—the idea that social needs should be addressed at the lowest level of personal, civic, or governmental authority capable of responding to them.
Though Trump lost the national popular vote by nearly 3 million votes, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan claims the election of Trump is a voter mandate to dismantle federal-level social services that have served some of the nation’s poorest and most vulnerable citizens. Ryan’s antipathy toward the Affordable Care Act, shared by the Republican congressional majority, is well established, and repealing the national healthcare program is already the Republicans’ top priority. But Ryan’s desire to reform Medicaid and Medicare will surprise voters who had come to accept these programs as imperfect but reliable safety nets.
In the past Speaker Ryan has rhetorically deployed the Catholic social teaching of subsidiarity in order to justify targeting federal programs such as Medicaid and Medicare. The spectacle of the next four years may show the federal government’s retreat from a variety of social and civic challenges that had previously benefited from federal aid.
Expect pullbacks not only in healthcare but in financial and banking industry oversight, efforts to mitigate climate change, and the enforcement of labor and clean air and water standards. How should Catholics respond? State and local governments will need to step up and fill the regulatory or social voids that will open up as the federal government recedes.
The church may need to take a more activist role. U.S. Catholic bishops may applaud alterations to the Affordable Care Act that liberate Catholic and other faith institutions from a problematic contraception mandate, but they will surely continue to make a moral argument for universal healthcare as a human right and will certainly butt heads with the incoming administration over the treatment of immigrants in the United States. . . (Underscored emphasis added.)
The concept of Solidarity is seriously flawed, especially in the context of the body politic of the United States. Nevertheless, Roman Catholic advocates of this essential part of Rome's Social Teaching bemoan the fact that the Republican Congress is ignoring it, as recognized in the last article cited. (Cf. Subsidiarity and Solidarity are Inseparable.) In any event, it is clear that the Roman Catholic Social Doctrine is aggressively being implemented in America. This has a critically important bearing on the unfolding prophecies of Rev. 13.
The following article confirms the connection between Protestants and the Church of Rome in promoting the Social Gospel, and illustrates the utter confusion in the Protestant world about the degree of separation from Rome that the true Gospel of God demands. The very first paragraph reveals the delusion that the Gospel of God can be preserved while "cooperating with Roman Catholics on social and political matters":
Don’t compromise the gospel in social cooperation, says Mohler at TGC workshop
Evangelical Christians must not compromise the gospel when cooperating with Catholics on social and political matters, said R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, at The Gospel Coalition National Conference on the Protestant Reformation.
Evangelicals partnering with other groups in shared matters of social concern is often necessary — such as with Catholics in the pro-life movement — but should never eclipse the importance of doctrinal differences between the two.
"We can be involved in common moral concerns with Catholics, but we should not call what we are doing a ministry,” said Mohler during his April 4 workshop titled “When to Stand Together, When to Stand Apart: Principles for Social Cooperation without Compromise.”
Such “co-belligerence” is essential when Protestants and Catholics find themselves fighting on the same front. But evangelical Christians should never succumb to the strong temptation to minimize the gospel for social or political benefit, he said.
"What we can't do is ever cooperate, on any level, in such a way that we pull back our theological conviction in order to meet some other end,” Mohler said.
As the Apostle Paul predicted, God has sent strong delusion to those who "did not receive the love of the Truth, that they might be saved". Because of their determination to repudiate the principles of the True Gospel, the God of Heaven has permitted them to continue their backsliding into the trap set for them. Rome is happy to receive them into the fellowship of the Great Apostasy:
Francis rolls out ‘social gospel’ case for Catholic/Orthodox unity
Sometimes what a pope doesn’t say can be just as important as what he does, and such was the case in Turkey on Sunday as Pope Francis laid out his vision for unity between Catholics and Orthodox Christianity.
Francis offered several motives for pursuing closer ties, yet conspicuously absent was the imperative most often cited by more conservative Catholics and Orthodox: Making a common stand against secularism, especially permissive sexual morality.
In effect, the pope’s case rested not on the wars of culture, but on the social gospel. . .
Knowing that concerns about papal power have long been a stumbling block, Francis insisted that full communion “does not signify the submission of one to the other, or assimilation.”
He then ticked off three reasons why Orthodox and Catholics should come together: to defend the poor, to end war and heal conflicts, and to help young people to see past materialism and to embrace a “true humanism.”
“There are too many women and men who suffer from severe malnutrition, growing unemployment, the rising numbers of unemployed youth, and from increasing social exclusion,” Francis said.
“We cannot remain indifferent before the cries of our brothers and sisters,” he said. “They ask us to fight, in the light of the Gospel, the structural causes of poverty: inequality, the shortage of dignified work and housing, and the denial of their rights as members of society and as workers.”
As with Orthodox Christianity, the Social Gospel is also a central element in Rome's drive towards ecumenical unity with the Evangelicals:
The Francis "Infect": Pope Francis Is Changing Evangelicalism's Attitude Toward Rome
While it is not surprising that Pope Francis’ visit to the United States enamored the Catholic faithful and even the secular establishment, his warm reception by evangelicals is something that, at least many years ago, would have been considered quite newsworthy. In recent years, however, Protestants and evangelical Christians have warmed up to Roman Catholicism, and Pope Francis has only furthered the comraderie between the two groups as many evangelicals admire the pope’s populist style and message of care and concern for the poor and oppressed. The grassroots ecumenism that has become a hallmark of evangelical churches during the past several decades encourages ministry, unity, and appreciation for all who simply “call Jesus, ‘Lord,’” regardless of what another may believe about the doctrine of salvation, the church, or even the authority of the Bible. Thus, it is now no surprise that many evangelicals—whether the leaders of the movement or those who weekly sit in the pews—speak highly of the Roman Catholic Church and Pope Francis, praising him as a man of God who loves and preaches the gospel. Since the rise of Pope Francis, many notable evangelicals and charismatics such as Rick Warren, Luis Palau, Kenneth Copeland, and Geoff Tunnicliffe have praised the pope, and some have even referred to him as “our pope” (Rick Warren) and have stated that a “new era” of evangelical-Catholic relations is now in order (Geoff Tunnicliffe of the World Evangelical Alliance).
Christianity Today, the mouthpiece of modern evangelicalism, has frequently lauded Pope Francis, who has even adorned the cover of one issue (the December 2014 issue included the cover story “Pope Francis: Why Everyone Loves the Pope”). Only decades ago, fundamentalist and evangelical Christians viewed Roman Catholicism as a dangerous religious system that spreads a false gospel of works, elevates a mere man as the vicar of Christ on earth, and propagates the belief that the magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church is the final authority regarding the interpretation of the Bible. What has changed? Has the Roman Catholic Church changed? Not at all! Evangelicals have changed. The quest for unity with Rome has led to a change in attitude toward not only the Roman Catholic Church but, more generally, the importance—or lack thereof—of doctrine and its role in the life of the body of Christ and the individual Christian. . . (Underscored emphasis added.)
The last paragraph in the above quotation gets to the heart of the matter. Bible doctrine is no longer important in the relationship between Evangelicals and the Church of Rome. This actually applies across the board to all of the Protestant churches, Mainline and Evangelical; and Rome has made it clear that this is a satisfactory arrangement:
Don’t confuse Christian unity with uniformity, Francis urges
Christian unity dialogue is not about one Church being absorbed into another, nor the eradication of difference. Rather, Pope Francis said yesterday, it is about coming together in Christ.
On Thursday, Pope Francis spoke about Christian unity and ecumenism, specifically what they are not. Namely, they aren’t about uniformity or the total absorption of one religion by another, but instead consist of a common communion in Christ.
“Ecumenism is true when Christians are able to shift the focus from themselves, from their arguments and formulations, to the Word of God who demands to be heard, accepted and witnessed in the world,” the pope said Nov. 10.
“Because of this, the various Christian communities are called not to ‘compete,’ but to cooperate.”
Of course, there is a huge difference between what the Roman Catholics define as the Word of God, and that contained in the Bible:
Pope Francis: 'The Word of God Precedes the Bible and Surpasses It'
On April 12, 2013, Pope Francis, in a meeting with the members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, explained succinctly the Catholic understanding of Scripture, shared with the Orthodox Churches, but rejected by most Protestant denominations.
The meeting was held at the conclusion of the annual assembly of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, and the Holy Father noted that the theme of the assembly this year had been "Inspiration and Truth in the Bible."
As the Vatican Information Service reported, Pope Francis emphasized that this theme "affects not only the individual believer but the whole Church, for the Church's life and mission are founded on the Word of God, which is the soul of theology as well as the inspiration of all of Christian existence." But the Word of God, in the Catholic and Orthodox understanding, is not confined to Scripture; rather, Pope Francis noted,
Sacred Scripture is the written testimony of the divine Word, the canonical memory that attests to the event of Revelation. However, the Word of God precedes the Bible and surpasses it. That is why the centre of our faith isn't just a book, but a salvation history and above all a person, Jesus Christ, the Word of God made flesh.+
The relationship between Christ, the Word Made Flesh, and the Scriptures, the written Word of God, lies at the heart of what the Church calls Sacred Tradition:
It is precisely because the Word of God embraces and extends beyond Scripture that, in order to properly understand it, the Holy Spirit's constant presence, who guides us "to all truth," is necessary. It is necessary to place ourselves within the great Tradition that has, with the Holy Spirit's assistance and the Magisterium's guidance, recognized the canonical writings as the Word that God addresses to his people, who have never ceased meditating upon it and discovering inexhaustible riches from it.
The Bible is a form of God's revelation to man, but the most complete form of that revelation is found in the person of Jesus Christ. . . (Original italics; underscored emphasis added.)
Pope Francis' statement of the Catholic understanding of Scripture is not new; but a reiteration of the blasphemous dogma of Rome formulated in Vatican I & II. This outrageous formulation of dogma seeks to make Jesus Christ the embodiment of all of Rome's false doctrines, idolatry, and pagan practices. In a manner similar to the Eucharist, it professes to give the Pope power and authority over the person of our Lord, the "Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending . . . which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty" (Rev. 1:8.)
Contrast the Pope's declaration with the definition of Christian unity in the context of the Word of Truth, given by Jesus Christ Himself, the subject of Rome's blasphemy:
John 17
8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.
14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
Can anyone legitimately doubt the meaning of "the words which thou gavest me," "thy word," and "their word," in verses 8, 14, 17, and 20? This is the true basis of Christian unity. What the Pope has said brazenly contradicts the words of Jesus Christ in the very prayer on which the papacy and apostate Protestantism profess to base their quest for unity.
Pope Francis also contradicts these words of Jesus:
John 5
39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
Here is another text which clearly identifies the Scriptures:
Luke 24
27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
Jesus Christ Himself established the Scriptures as the only source of Truth and the revelation of His identity and mission. It is not too strong a statement to say that ecumenical Protestants have made a pact with the Devil, of whom Jesus said, "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." (John 8:44.)
The broad sweep of the Protestant churches' repudiation of the Five Solas, the collaboration of Rightwing Evangelicals and Catholics in the creation of Theocratic governance in the United States, and the ecumenical force of the Social Gospel, do not exhaust the wide range of Romanization of Christianity and the world. Nevertheless, their collective impact by itself is strong evidence that the end is near.
"When Protestantism shall stretch her hand across the gulf to grasp the hand of the Roman power, when she shall reach over the abyss to clasp hands with Spiritualism, when, under the influence of this threefold union, our country shall repudiate every principle of its Constitution as a Protestant and Republican government, and shall make provision for the propagation of papal falsehoods and delusions, then we may know that the time has come for the marvelous working of Satan, and that the end is near." (5T 451.)
4 This Evangelical Christian Supremacist policy statement is in harmony with the relentless Religious Right Republican governmental policy of cutting taxes in America as the prevailing version of the Roman Catholic principle of Subsidiarity.