Spiritual Adultery: Yoking with Rome and the State

Hosea 2:5 For their mother hath played the harlot: she that conceived them hath done shamefully: for she said, I will go after my lovers, that GIVE ME MY BREAD and my water, my wool and my flax, mine oil and my drink.

James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

“…Rome is called a harlot, never an adulteress; for Christ has never owned her as His Bride…” (D.M. Panton, “A Federated Church,” 1922)

As we make our way to the final moments of history before the Tribulation Period, we know that the lines between the State and the church will continue to become increasingly blurred. The final result will be the rise of the Roman Catholic Harlot (with her many daughters) in fulfillment of prophecy. This will consist of all so-called “churches” under the control of the city of Rome (Revelation 17), which will then be in control of world government. The “Woman,” in control, will be carried and supported by “the Beast” (i.e. the Antichrist and his world government), until the time comes that he no longer needs her Romanist-Theosophical version of “Christendom”:

Revelation 17:3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman SIT UPON a scarlet coloured BEAST, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

A “beast” in prophecy is always a KING and a KINGDOM (Daniel 7:17, 23). Therefore, the Bible predicts a soon return to the DARK AGES, where the State has totalitarian power, and religion is controlled and regulated by the State. People will be driven and controlled by the State-Church, headquartered at Rome:

Revelation 17:15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore SITTETH, are PEOPLES, and multitudes, and NATIONS, and tongues.

Before this HARLOT, imitation-church (with her many daughters around the world) can entirely rise to power, many true churches will commit spiritual ADULTERY to prepare the way. They will become increasingly yoked with the State, and thus, finally with Rome herself. They will be fed and nourished by the State, which will first appear as a friend and partner, but will end as a tyrant, attempting to regulate fundamental Bible preaching as a “hate crime.” Rome will then be in the driver’s seat again:

“…Catholicism to-day is one of the enormously growing forces of the world….historically, it was from Rome that the Protestant communions divided; re-union, therefore, is re-union with Rome….Anglo-Saxondom will awake one morning to find itself Roman…”

Do we see any stage-setting signs for this in our day? In many non-Muslim, non-Communist European countries, the media is nevertheless controlled; Christians are forbidden to openly preach that witchcraft or the occult are dangerous, or that sodomy is sinful. In America, Catholics now out-number other denominations and sects in the government. Since we are now well past the year 2000, it is only logical that have heard proposals for cooperation between the State and religion. This grants public funding to churches and other religious groups to provide social services. But government always REGULATES what it finances. The landmarks and roadblocks that our fathers have wisely set are being rapidly removed (Proverbs 22:28).

The “faith-based initiative” even goes a step beyond the traditional snare of, “We will give your church non-profit tax status and your members tax deductions if you promise to stay away from certain issues in the pulpit and vow to uphold public policy.” But how can faithful preachers promise to abstain from preaching against abortion (infanticide), sodomy, gambling, false religions, etc.? The things that appeared benign to some of the fathers, will certainly not be benign when a government arises that knows “not Joseph” (Exodus 1:8). Since we know WHAT IS COMING, we must begin now, before the rapture, to reject all offers to yoke with Rome or the State, and in repentance, begin “cleaning the house”:

“All or present action in respect to a federated church must be carefully regulated by our knowledge of the future.” (D.M. Panton, Ibid.)

We must begin now to return to the older wisdom of reliance only upon Jesus Christ as the Head of the church. Notice these wise words of Charles H. Spurgeon:

“We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the Reformation, we were the reformers before Luther or Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the Apostles themselves….Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect, yet there has never existed a government holding Baptist principles which persecuted others; nor I believe, any body of Baptists ever held it to be right to put the consciences of others under the control of man. We have ever been ready to suffer, as our martyrologies will prove, BUT WE ARE NOT READY TO ACCEPT ANY HELP FROM THE STATE, TO PROSTITUTE THE PURITY OF THE BRIDE OF CHRIST TO ANY ALLIANCE WITH GOVERNMENT, and we will never make the Church, although the Queen, the despot over the consciences of men.”
(Charles Spurgeon, “Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit,” Vol. 7, 1861)

The following facts from Baptist history are also very enlightening:

“Some serious questions have many times been asked concerning the Baptists: Would they, as a denomination, have accepted from any nation or state an offer of ‘establishment’ if such nation or state had freely made them such an offer? And, would they, in case they had accepted such an offer, have become persecutors of others like Catholics or Episcopals, or Lutherans or Presbyterians, or Congregationalists? Probably a little consideration of such questions now would not be amiss. Have the Baptists, as a fact, ever had such an opportunity? Is it not recorded in history, that on one occasion, the King of the Netherlands (the Netherlands at that time embracing Norway and Sweden, Belgium, Holland, and Denmark) had under serious consideration the question of having an established religion? Their kingdom at that period was surrounded on almost all sides by nations or governments with established religions – religions supported by the Civil Government. It is stated that the King of Holland appointed a committee to examine into the claims of all existing churches or denominations to see which had the best claim to be the New Testament Church. The committee reported back that the Baptists were the best representatives of New Testament teachings. Then the King offered to make the Baptist ‘the established’ church or denomination of his kingdom. The Baptists kindly thanked him but declined, stating that it was contrary to their fundamental convictions and principles. But this was not the only opportunity they ever had of having their denomination the established religion of a people. They certainly had that opportunity when Rhode Island Colony was founded. And to have persecuted others – that would have been an impossibility if they were to continue being Baptists. They were the original advocates of ‘Religious Liberty.’ That really is one of the fundamental articles of their religious faith. They believed in the absolute separation of church and state….So strong has been the Baptist conviction on the question of Church and State combination, that they have invariably declined all offers of help from the State. We give here two instances. One in Texas and the other in Mexico. Long years ago in the days of Baylor University’s babyhood, Texas offered to help her. She declined the help though she was in distressing need. The Texas Methodists had a baby school in Texas at the same time. They accepted the State help; that school finally fell into the hands of the State. The case in Mexico occurred in this wise: W. D. Powell was our missionary to Mexico. By his missionary work he had made a great impression for the Baptists upon Governor Madero of the State of Coahuila. Madero offered a great gift to the Baptists from the State, if the Baptists would establish a good school in the State of Coahuila, Mexico. The matter was submitted by Powell to the Foreign Board. The gift was declined because it was to be from the State. Afterwards Madero gave a good large sum personally. That was accepted and Madero Institute was built and established.” (J.M. Carroll, “The Trail of Blood”)

And did not Abraham, in type and principle, suggest this truth when he refused goods from the king of Sodom? God forbid that the Lord’s churches grow rich through yoking with Sodom in our day:

Genesis 14:22 And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the LORD, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth,
23 That I will not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich: