Outcome Based Religion

The Purpose Driven Slide into Apostasy


Part Two




Many pastors have destroyed my vineyard, they have trodden my portion under foot, they have made my pleasant portion a desolate wilderness. They have made it desolate, and being desolate it mourneth unto me; the whole land is made desolate, because no man layeth it to heart.

Jeremiah 12:10-11



Perhaps one of the more insidious aspects of the Emerging / Purpose Driven / Church Growth movement – hereafter referred to as Outcome Based Religion (OBR) - is the that the primary tactic for soliciting the interest of the ‘seeker’ is the very same which Satan used with Eve in the Garden which brought about the fall of mankind - the three-fold temptation which appeals to our inherent selfish and sinful nature – lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes and the pride of life. (1 John 2:16) Note that John says that such is not of the Father but of the world. Satan showed Eve that the fruit was pleasant to the eye (lust of the eyes) good for food (lust of the flesh) and that if she partook she would ‘be like god’ (pride of life). Compare this strategy with what is going on in the OBR camp; Visual Stimulation - the deliberate construction of ambient, casual meeting places, colour coordinated decor, soft lighting, the removal of visually offensive ‘religious’ objects, and money generating ‘programs’1 (lust of the eyes). Sensual stimulation - pleasant sounding messages which stroke the self esteem of the ‘seeker’, non confrontational ‘sermons’ that have more to do with lifestyle than they do righteousness, a great sounding band bopping to contemporary rock tunes, and money generating ‘events’ (lust of the flesh) Finally, Elitism, the boast factor - association with like minded ‘kids of the King’ who also think they share the Creator’s Kingdom power and authority in the here and now (pride of life).


The question therefore begs to be asked, why then would professing believers within the OBR camp use a strategy known to be satanic in order to win the lost? Probably because it works and seeing this whole movement operates by an ‘end justifies the means’ ideology it is embraced without question nor scrutinized by the Word of God which actually forbids it. It saddens and infuriates me simultaneously that OBR ‘prophets’ are boasting vast numbers of converts into the Kingdom. These are not converts at all, not at least in a biblical sense. These poor, deluded souls and their fake faith are the product not of the conviction of the Holy Spirit, but of the spin of a clever sales pitch with a pinch of ‘Christian’ psychology mixed in for good measure. Folks, I assure you the blood of these souls will be on the hands of the OBR proponents – every last shameful one of them.


In this second part of our report with thanks to author Mac Dominick we will be looking at the downward spiral of the professing church into apostasy throughout the 20th century and I can assure you it makes for some sobering reading. Mac writes:



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


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


“’The League of Nations’, said the Archbishop of Canterbury, at Geneva, ‘may go far to make the Kingdom of God a reality in our lifetime’…’The League of Nations’, says Dr. Jowett, has for its aim ‘the transformation of the kingdom of this world into the Kingdom of God…’  2   [Which, not surprisingly is the same objective of the Charismatic Dominionist movement – ed.]


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


Inevitably when these philosophies began to infiltrate mainstream Christianity, the modernism born in Germany almost two centuries earlier began to infect mainstream denominations like an incurable cancer (as a Roman Emperor, Constantine knew Christianity could not be defeated from without but rather from within. In order to destroy the church of the Messiah, it had to first be infiltrated). Heresies spawned in the 20th Century that scorned the fundamental doctrines of the Word of God culminated in the dogma of Twentieth Century Modernism:


·         The Bible is the result of a human evolutionary process

·         Dismissal of miracles

·         No validity to Biblical historical accounts (i.e., -- no Adam or Eve, no Flood)

·         Many Old Testament events are merely myths

·         No Virgin Birth, Deity of Christ, Bodily Resurrection

·         Gospel narratives are not factual

·         No accurate idea of what Jesus was really like

·         Historical-critical approach to Bible interpretation  3


One need not have a degree in theology to see the correlation between these corruptions of the truth of God with the philosophical blasphemy instigated in the 19th Century. The hand of Hegel, Darwin, Marx, Wescott, and Hort is readily apparent in this blatant approbation against Almighty God. By the 1900s, the philosophies of these men were spreading like a raging wildfire through churches in the United States and igniting fierce controversies within denominational bodies. While most Fundamentalists chose to fight these battles within their respective denominations until about 1930, separatist groups from every denomination later emerged as the hierarchies of each denomination fell like the leaves of an autumn rose into the hands of liberal infidels. The situation deteriorated to the point that some denominations refused to even produce official doctrinal statements that would indict the heretics within their ranks. It was in this climate that the term “Fundamentalist” was coined. Though the term was coined in 1920, it was explicitly defined by the World Congress of Fundamentalists in 1976:


“A Fundamentalist is a born-again believer in the Lord Jesus Christ who:


·         Maintains an immovable allegiance to the inerrant, infallible, and verbally Inspired Bible;

·         Believes whatever the Bible says is so;

·         Judges all things by the Bible, and is judged only by the Bible;

·         Affirms the foundational truths of the historic Christian Faith:


1.     The doctrine of the Trinity

2.     The incarnation, virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, bodily resurrection, ascension into Heaven, and Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.

3.     The new birth through regeneration of the Holy Spirit

4.     The resurrection of saints to life eternal

5.     The resurrection of the ungodly to final judgment and eternal death

6.     The fellowship of the saints, who are the body of Christ;


·         Practices fidelity to that faith, and endeavors to preach it to every creature;

·         Exposes and separates from all ecclesiastical denial of that Faith, compromise with error, and apostasy from the Truth; and

·         Earnestly contends for the Faith once delivered.


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


Author David Beale commented: “Unless a man holds and defends the Faith of Scripture, and is concerned for the salvation of the lost, he is not a true Fundamentalist.” 4


In 1924, a group of 149 Presbyterian ministers in Auburn, New York penned the “Auburn Affirmation.” Under the guise of “peacemakers” who simply wished to end divisiveness within the denomination, this group explicitly repudiated the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture. 5


The liberal Christian Century magazine summed up the climate of the 1920s very well when it stated:


“Two worlds have crashed…There is a clash here as profound and as grim as between Christianity and Confucianism…The God of the Fundamentalist is one God; and the God of the Modernist another…The inherent incompatibility of the two worlds has passed the stage of mutual tolerance.” 6


Finally realizing there was no revival from apostasy, Fundamentalists followed the example of Spurgeon in separating not only from those who denied the Fundamentals of the Faith, but also from those who associated with them. A.W. Tozer exemplified this principle when he declared, “I have preached myself out of nearly every pulpit in North America.” 7


One should take note at this point that Spurgeon and Tozer (not to mention Schofield, Gordon, Ironside, Jones, McIntire, Machen, et al) would not be very popular in many evangelical churches today. Not only would they be deemed as too divisive, but they did not preach nearly enough messages on relationships, self esteem, personal finances, parenting techniques, etc. to attract a modern crowd large enough to make the payment on the building.


Just as the new radical center “third way” political views have made those who are deemed “politically incorrect” the object of prolific scorn, the “greater evangelical community” has in essence branded today’s Fundamentalists as “religiously incorrect” (though they may not use that exact term, they have coined other derogatory terms such as “Fightin’ Fundies”).  [MLC Andrew Evans condescendingly used this insulting term on more than one occasion whilst senior pastor of the Paradise Community Church in Adelaide, South Australia and Evans is not alone in his contempt for those who cling to the fundamentals of the Faith – ed.] While some who disgracefully wear the Fundamentalist badge deserve to be branded due to their nasty attitudes and demagoguery, the “religiously incorrect” label is reserved for those who, in defence of the Faith (and in a Scriptural manner), propagate such things as a “critical spirit” against other high-profile religious celebrities like Max Lucado, Paul Crouch, Chuck Colson, Pat Robertson, Bill McCartney, Jack Van Impe, Billy Graham, or Pope John Paul II (the Dead). In defence of the biblical Fundamentalist, his position should be as ordained by the Word of God:


“…mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which you have learned and avoid them.  For they are such which serve not our Lord Jesus Christ…and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.” (Rom. 16:17-18)


The decade of the 1930s brought more sweeping changes to the lives of those in the Western World. The Great Depression caused many to reject the Modernist fable that man was in control of his own destiny, and forced individuals from a self-sufficient, in-control posture to that of simple survival. This sudden nosedive into survival mode made families closer and forced individuals to reassess their priorities. [This paragraph alone disproves the claim that wealth, prosperity, and ‘influence’ can be taken as an automatic ‘blessing’ of God. A closer look reveals that God’s blessing – individuals being forced to reassess their values, families becoming closer, etc. – came during extreme hardship. These are the days of anarchistic behaviour – stealing, pillaging, rampant selfishness – these are not days of hardship and suffering, but rather opulence, plenty and, sadly, indifference. True wealth, from God’s perspective, comes through the Refiner’s fire of trial, not the offering plate [Rev. 3:18] - ed.]


As a result of these and other factors, separatists in the Fundamentalist camp made great strides in the decades of the 1930s and 1940s through the organization of Bible conferences, establishing Bible Colleges, Radio Ministries, and the founding of broad-based Fundamentalist organizations such as the American Council of Christian Churches and the National Association of Evangelicals. Fundamentalist leaders such as Charles Woodbridge, Carl McIntire, John R. Rice, Bob Jones, Charles Fuller, M.R. DeHaan, Harry Ironside, R.G. Lee, and many others carried the torch for the suddenly vibrant separatist movement.


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


·         New Evangelicals would address the social issues that Fundamentalists avoided. New Evangelicals would include, along with salvation, a “social philosophy.”

·         New Evangelicals would not “delve into personalities that embrace error.”

·         The Christian should not be “obscurantist in scientific questions as to creation, the age of man, the universality of the Flood, and other debatable biblical questions.”

·         Intellectual questions should be answered within the framework of modern learning and there should be liberty in minor areas.  8


In addition, Dr. Ockenga specifically designated and promoted four agencies for the advancement of New Evangelicalism:


·         National Association of Evangelicals

·         Fuller Theological Seminary

·         Christianity Today

·         Ecumenical Evangelism led by Billy Graham Ministries  9


As President of Fuller Theological Seminary, Dr. Ockenga made their goals very clear: “We want our young men to be so trained, that when they come from a denomination they will go back into their denomination adequately prepared to preach the Gospel and defend the faith and to go forward in the work of God.”




·         The Bible demands separation – not infiltration.

·         The Bible also is clear that Christians are to have no tolerance for false teachers or false doctrine

·         In contrast to Outcome-Based Religion, the Bible does not teach that the end justifies the means


In opposition to the Fuller methodology, Francis Schaeffer stated, “Evangelism which does not lead to…purity of doctrine is just as faulty and incomplete as orthodoxy that which does not lead to a concern for, and communication with the lost.”  10


Evangelism is not mutually exclusive of doctrine. How can the message of the Gospel coexist with those who deny the Deity of Christ, the Virgin Birth, the Bodily Resurrection, Justification by Faith, or the Inerrancy of Scripture? The reality is that in an environment of false doctrine, as is the case of a religious organization whose hierarchy professes to the teachings of Modernism or Catholicism, the infiltrator must compromise his position to avoid embarrassment, exposure, and/or ultimate expulsion. When the infiltrator plays this script to its logical conclusion, one compromise leads to another until overt apostasy once again rules the situation, and the infiltrator himself embraces false doctrine.


Woodbridge accurately summed up the situation when he stated:


“The New Evangelicalism advocates toleration of error. It is following the downward path of accommodation to error, cooperation with error, contamination by error, and ultimate capitulation to error.”  11


Evangelism in the absence of sound doctrine fails to perpetuate itself.


Enter stage left; the Ecumenical Movement began with the major Protestant denominations as an impetus for worldwide unity and cooperation among Christian churches. Though the event historically perceived as the founding of the Ecumenical Movement was the World Missionary Conference in Edinburgh in 1910, such attempts had been made as early as the mid-Nineteenth Century. 12 Unity among believers is absolutely biblical and is to be encouraged. However, the modern Ecumenical Movement is patently unbiblical. This movement began as an effort to first unite denominations, expanded to bring the wandering sheep in the Protestant denominations back into the fold of the Church of Rome, and has now evolved to the point that common ground is being sought among all of the world’s religions. [This movement is also known as ‘Synchrotism’. I remember looking on with curiosity some fifteen years ago, listening to a Roman Catholic priest preach a sermon before a gathered throng of three thousand Pentecostals at the Paradise Community Church, Adelaide, South Australia, a man who, thereafter received a warm round of applause. How could this possibly be so between denominations so theologically diametrically opposed – or so it would seem? Answer: creeping compromising Synchrotismed.]


In 1942, the Federal Council of Churches issued a platform calling for a “world government, international control of all armies and navies, a universal system of money, and a democratically controlled international bank.”  13


On November 29, 1950, the Federal Council of Churches merged with several other interdenominational organizations to form the National Council of Churches. The National Council of Churches then gained membership in the World Council of Churches.


History once again repeated itself after World War II. Just as the move toward a world government under the League of Nations was attempted after World War I, the illuminist elite once again organized a world assembly in the United Nations. This One-worldism was also simultaneously duplicated in the theological realm with the founding of the World Council of Christian Churches. The WCCC was formed in 1948 with 147 denominations of Protestant and Orthodox origin. This organization became the new bastion of Protestant Liberalism and Modernism. Founded on the unscriptural principal of “’unity of the churches’, the new vision is for the unity of all religions and, in fact, all of mankind.” 14 The inaugural meeting of the WCCC (August 1948) extended an invitation of membership to “churches which accept our Lord Jesus Christ as God and Savior,” but did not bother to qualify the interpretation of that statement. 15 At this same meeting, the organization’s goal was clearly stated by General Secretary of the WCCC, W.A. Visser’t Hooft:


“…there can be and there is finally only one church of Christ on earth…we are aware of the situation, that we do not accept it passively, that we move forward towards the manifestation of the ONE HOLY CHURCH.”  16


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


“We could describe the error of the WCCC under a number of categories. We could speak of it’s Doctrinal Heresy, its Modernism… Universalism the simple fact is that the WCCC fails every Biblical test which could be applied. It is patently and grossly unscriptural.”  17


E.J. Carnell, President of Fuller Theological Seminary, had these less-than-flattering words:


(The World Council of Churches Statement of Faith)  is not praiseworthy enough to suit orthodoxy, for the only heresy it catches is Unitarianism. The holes in the mesh are so wide that a sea of theological error can safely swim through. This proves that the ecumenical movement is more concerned with unity than it is with the truth.”  18


The basic premise of the WCCC is the establishment of this mystical “Kingdom of God” on Earth. This is the same old song sung to the same old tune. The idea of establishing the “Kingdom of God” is as old as the formation of the Church of Rome. This stream of thought flows through the pages of history from the Roman Church, through the British Empire, and into the Twentieth Century under the auspices of the League of Nations. However, God will not enlist the help of man to establish His Kingdom on the earth, and the Kingdom of God on earth is not and will not be revealed in the Church. The Kingdom of God will be established only at the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. He alone—without the aid of man—will establish His Kingdom, and He then will rule the entire earth from Jerusalem for 1000 years—the Millennium.


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


The First Vatican Council was adjourned in 1870 after establishing definitions to the “doctrine” of papal infallibility. 19 The Second Vatican Council opened October 11, 1962 under Pope John XXIII and closed December 8, 1965 under Pope Paul VI. The decrees and declarations of Vatican II signalled a shift in Catholic thought that resulted in not only a schismatic civil war within the ranks of Catholicism, but also raised serious questions as to the true source of the changes. The essence of these changes began in 1959 when Pope John XXIII called the Council “to complete the work of the First Vatican Council.”  20  In 1961, he set a historical precedent by permitting Catholic observers to officially attend the third assembly of the World Council of Churches, and he also afforded places of honor to Protestant and Orthodox observers at all of the Vatican II sessions.  21 The resulting bombshell labeled the “Decree on Ecumenism” included the following excerpts:


·         All who have been “justified in faith in baptism” [as opposed to Biblical faith – ed.] are members of the Body of Christ; they all have the right to be called Christian; the children of the Catholic Church call them brothers.

·         The Catholic Church believes that the separated churches and communities “are efficient in some respects.” But the Holy Ghost makes use of these churches; they are a means of salvation to their members.

·         Catholics are encouraged to join in Oecumenical (sic) activity, and to meet non-Catholic Christians in truth and love…

·         Catholics are not to ignore their duty to other Christians…even so…Catholics sincerely believe that theirs is the Church of Christ; everything necessary must be done that others may clearly recognize it as Christ’s Church.

·               …Theologians and other competent Catholics should study the history, teachings, and liturgy of separated Churches…

·               In appropriate circumstances prayers for unity should be recited jointly with non-Catholic Christians…

·               …Important differences remain…but…the fact that Christians believe in the divinity of Christ and the fact of reverence for God’s word revealed in the Bible

·               In the cause of ecumenism, the Catholic must always remain true to the Faith that he has received…22


The new concepts initiated by Pope John XXIII and Vatican II were a radical departure from the historical position of the Roman Catholic Institution. Even to suggest that Protestant and Orthodox Church members were Christians, (much less to use the term “brothers”) was in complete contradiction of traditional Catholic doctrine. Traditionalists within the Catholic Church accused the authors of the Vatican II documents of “favoring modern philosophy over traditional Catholic doctrine;” favoring Humanism, Naturalism, and Evolution; refusing to condemn Socialism and Communism; and making agreements with “Masonry,” the World Council of Churches, and “Moscow.”  23 Time has proven these accusations correct, and some even suggest that Vatican II was such a radical departure from established Catholicism that one must seriously consider the possibility of a major coup within the walls of the Vatican. In the words of traditional Catholic, R. P. Georges de Nantes:


“At the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), the two men posing as Catholic popes, John XXIII and Paul VI, led the whole body of Cardinals and Bishops out of the Catholic Church and into their Vatican II sect…”  24


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


The 19th Century witnessed the laying of the foundation for the events of the first six decades of the 20th Century. By 1965, the stage seemed set for the alliance of Protestants and Catholics to unite and form the One-world Church, though the Romanists will NEVER accept full equality with their ‘separated’ brethren. The one thing the Church of Rome will NEVER do is change its spots! In an Associated Press report released Tuesday July 10, 2007 Pope Benedict proclaimed that other Christian communities were either defective or not true churches and that Roman Catholicism provides the only true path to salvation. It would appear Vatican II was just a ruse or at the very least, a United Nations based infiltration into the ‘Christian’ faith as many watchmen have long asserted.


Fundamentalists in the 60’s were not only embroiled in the battle with the Modernist-Roman Catholic alliance, but also faced the Outcome-Based threat of the New Evangelicals. With Fundamentalism engaged in battle on two fronts, the Mega-church seemed to be positioned to end the threat of a fragmented Fundamentalism – the plot thickens and becomes curiously brimstone-esque in odour.


In part 3 of this report we will look at the rise of the Charismatic movement and its influence on the instigation of Outcome Based Religion – don’t miss it!



Tony Dean

Moriah Ministries Australia

© 2007



End Notes


1.     The first written records of the use of money date from 1200BC, in the area of land now known as Southern Algeria, although then it was covered with water. Inscriptions in stones record that 'twelve shekels' were paid into the bank account belonging to Algar Hammurabi, in return for 'use of his daughter'. Twelve shekels in today's money would buy you hundreds of prostitutes, all better looking than Hammurabi's daughter, who was by all accounts rather dull. How curious that too many ‘churches’ prostitute themselves chasing this temporary little trinket in the pursuit of power and influence so as to ‘impact society for god’. What an antithesis of the original commission given to the 12 by the Messiah Himself, those who were instructed to take NO money, nothing that would hold money, no food or even additional clothing, only a staff which represented His authority. They were to trust the Lord’s provision in all things not their own devices. The OBR ‘evangelist’ of today trusts in his own provision because he sends himself on his own missions and fools himself into believing he is doing it for God. Mark 6:7-9 – And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits; And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse: But be shod with sandals; and not put on two coats. Mark 6:7-9 (emphasis mine) (a scrip is a leather wallet or pouch)

2.     “Modernist Millennium,” Perilous Times Newsletter, Volume 2#16

3.     Cloud, David. “Fundamentalism, Modernism, and New Evangelicalism,” www.Whidbey.net/˜dcloud/tbns/fundamen1.htm.p.2

4.     Beale, David O. “In Pursuit of Purity: American Fundamentalism Since 1850,” Unusual Publications, Greenville, SC, 1986. pg.348.

5.     Ibid. pg.156

6.     Ibid pg. 157

7.     Hunt, David. “Am I a Fundamentalist?” The Berean Call newsletter, August, 1998. pg.1.

8.     Dollar, George. “A History of Fundamentalism in America.” Bob Jones University Press, Greenville, SC. 1973. pg.204.

9.     Woodbridge, Charles. “The New Evangelicalism’” Bob Jones University Press, Greenville, SC.

10.  Murray, Iain H. “Evangelicalism Divided’” The Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh, UK. 2000. pg.77

11.  Woodbridge. pg.15.

12.  “Ecumenical Movement”. The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th Edition. http://www.bartleby.com/65/ec/ecumen-mo.html 2001.

13.  Burns, Cathy. “Billy Graham and His Friends”, Sharing Press, Mt. Carmel, PA, 2001. pg.189.

14.  Reynolds, Marion H. “The Truth about the National Council of Churches,” www.fundamentalbiblechurch.net/tbcwcc.htm pg.2.

15.  Murray. Pg.21.

16.  Reynolds, pg.4.

17.  Groupwatch. Interhemispheric Resource Center, Albuquerque, NM, 1988. www.irc-online.org pg.2.

18.  “The Second Vatican Council”, www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/v1.html pg.1.

19.  “The Second Vatican Council”, pgs.13-14.

20.  Georges de Nantes, R.P. “Summary of the Principal Errors of Vatican II Ecclesiology,” www.truecatholic.org/v2ecclesio.htm January, 1984, pg.3.

21.  Ibid.

22.  Jeffrey, Grant. Final Warning, Frontier Research Publications, Toronto, 1995, pg. 161

23.  Hayes, Kathleen. “Black Virgin, Black Christ,” NRI Trumpet, 5/91,p.1.

24.  This aspect is discussed in detail in the article “Rome’s Year 2000 Penance” at www.cuttingedge.org



Critical Resources


·         Outcome Based Religion, Purpose, Apostasy and the New Paradigm Church – by Mac Dominick