HOLY SEE MAINTAINS FOCUS ON PALESTINE AND JERUSALEM

Events in the United States are moving at a breathtaking pace in a path clearly in line with the prophecies of Rev. 13:12-17 relating to final world events. Until just a few years ago events involving Palestine and Jerusalem were developing in line with another end-time prophecy signalling that the close of probation for all humanity is at hand. That prophecy is Dan. 11:45. Events recognizably fulfilling this prophecy have been stalled for four years. The Israeli government wants no part of Rome's plan for Jerusalem, and takes actions to frustrate it. The papacy is determined to establish a presence in the City all deem to be holy, and watches Israel's actions like a hawk:-

From [D]@gmail.com:

Holy See reiterates Israel-Palestine two-state solution, Jerusalem status quo

Archbishop Bernardito Auza, the Holy See’s Permanent Observer to the United Nations in New York on October 18 addressed a UN Security Council debate on the Middle East and the Palestinian question.

The Holy See has reiterated its unwavering support for a fair, durable and early solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, through the resumption of negotiations aimed at reaching a Two-State solution, with Israel and a Palestinian State living side by side in peace and security within internationally-recognized borders.

Archbishop Bernardito Auza, the Holy See’s Permanent Observer to the United Nations in New York made the call in an address on Thursday to a UN Security Council debate on the situation in the Middle East and the Palestinian question. . .

Noting that states in and outside the Middle East have exacerbated the Israeli-Palestinian discord and the intra-Palestinian divisions for their own interests, Arch. Auza urged these states to rather facilitate and sustain the peace process. . .

The status of Jerusalem has been a painful issue between Israel and the Palestinians. Palestinians want East Jerusalem as the capital of their future independent state, whereas Israel has declared the whole city to be its “united and eternal” capital.

At the UN, Arch. Auza reiterated the Holy See’s support for the historic “status quo” of Jerusalem, in line with UN resolutions, rejecting any unilateral measure aimed at changing it.

He asserted the Holy See’s stand that the Holy City be a place of convergence and peace and that the followers of the three monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam be guaranteed free and unhindered access to the Holy Places. (Underlined emphasis added.)

The foregoing report was dated October 19, 2018. The vigilance of Rome is manifested in the following two reports, the first dated August 1, 2018, and the second November 5, 2018:-

Apostolic Administrator of Jerusalem stands against new Israeli Law

Archibishop Pizzaballa, Patriarch of Jerusalem, has decried the new “Nation State” law passed in Israel in July.

Archbishop Pierbattista Pizzaballa, O.F.M – Apostolic Administrator of Jerusalem, Palestine, released a statement on Monday regarding the recently enacted Basic Law: “Israel as the Nation state of Jewish People”, a new and controversial law which defines Israel as a Jewish state. . .

The Law gives Jews a right to national self-determination and has downgraded Arabic from an official language to a “language with a special status”, making Hebrew the official language. . .

The provisions of this new law reiterate the status of Jerusalem under Israeli law. They define the Palestinian capital of a future state as the “complete and united… capital of Israel”. . .

The Law establishes that there are not equal rights for Arabs and Jews, refusing to acknowledge their existence. Pizzaballa believes that any state in which there is such a vast majority should hold a duty to guarantee the preservation of the minorities’ collective identity, this includes their religious, ethnic and social traditions. . .

He ended his statement mentioning the Christian citizens of Israel, another minority, concerned as all other non-Jewish minorities in the area. Archibishop Pizzaballa states that the Christian community calls upon all citizens of Israel who “still believe in the basic concept of equality among citizens of the same nation, to voice their objection to this law and the dangers emanating thereof to the future of this Country.”

Catholic Bishops in the Holy Land on Israel’s Nation State Law

The Assembly of Catholic Ordinaries of the Holy Land released a statement on 2 November responding to the Nation State Law of 19 July 2018 passed by the Israeli Knesset.

It is out of a “spirit of dialogue” that the Catholic Bishops of the Holy Land speak out in a statement responding to the “issue of the Nation State Law passed by the Israeli Knesset on 19 July 2018. . .

The legislation at issue limits the promotion and protection offered by the State of Israel to “Jewish citizens of the State of Israel”. In direct response to this, the Bishops write:

“We must draw the attention of the authorities to a simple fact: our faithful, the Christians, our fellow citizens, Muslim, Druze and Baha’i, all of us who are Arabs, are no less citizens of this country than our Jewish brothers and sisters.”

The Bishops also draw attention to the ongoing tension arising from the definition of Israel’s democracy being both “Jewish” and “democratic”. It is the Jewish majority who determines what this means, while the Arab minority experiences the discrimination caused by the imbalance of the “Jewish” element over the “democratic”. An ongoing struggle to “protect the rights of all citizens, to guarantee as much as possible the values of equality, justice and democracy” received a milestone victory with the 1992 passage of the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, the statement says. . .

Recent passage of the new Nation State legislation “is a blow to these values”, the statement continues. Now there is a “constitutional and legal basis for discrimination” because “Jewish citizens are to be privileged over and above other citizens”. In addition to “seriously downgrading the standing of the Arab language”, the law ignores “Palestinian Arabs, other major religious communities, Christians and Muslims as well as Druze and Baha’i”. . .

The statement continues with a declaration that the above-mentioned groups “demand to be treated as equal citizens.” In addition, equality must incorporate civic, ethnic, and religious identities. This demand is based on the fact that “Jerusalem and the whole of this Holy Land is a heritage we share with Jews and Muslims, Druze and Baha’i, a heritage we are called upon to protect from division and internecine strife”. . .

In conclusion, the Bishops “call on the authorities to rescind” the law since it is contradictory to both the humanistic and democratic basis of Israeli legislation and international law. Thus all can be assured that the “State of Israel seeks to promote and protect the welfare and the safety of all its citizens”. (Original italics.)

It appears that criticism of the Nation State legislation in particular stung the Israeli government - not surprising since the Jews have been subjected to discrimination and persecution throughout the history of their diaspora. Israel could not ignore the expressions of displeasure emanating from Rome. The following is a report of a meeting at the Vatican between the President of Israel and Pope Francis on November 15, 2018. The photograph exudes affability, which must surely mask an underlying tension between Israel and the Vatican City State:

From [D]@gmail.com:

Israel’s president meets the pope and boasts of freedom of worship in his country

Israeli President Reuven Rivlin at a private audience Thursday with Pope Francis emphasized that his country has “full freedom of worship for all religions in all holy places.”

At their Vatican meeting, the pope and Rivlin also discussed the need to build “greater mutual trust” between Israelis and Palestinians as a basis to resume negotiations and reach a just accord. A Vatican statement said they spoke about “the importance of building greater mutual trust in view of the resumption of negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians so as to reach an accord respecting the legitimate aspirations of both peoples.”

They also discussed “the Jerusalem question, in its religious and human dimension for Jews, Christians and Muslims, as well as the importance of safeguarding its identity and vocation as City of Peace.”

Rivlin said during the meeting, according to a statement from his office, that “Jerusalem has been a holy city for the three monotheistic religions for centuries. For the Jewish people, Jerusalem has been the spiritual center since the days of the First Temple over 3,000 years ago, but it is also a microcosm of our ability to live together.” . . .

Rivlin and Francis also reflected on positive developments in relations between Israel and the Holy See in the 25 years since the establishment of formal ties in December 1993. . .

The issues are joined, the central one being the status of Jerusalem. Israel is stubborn; but Rome is determined, and the prophecy predicts that her goal will be achieved, whether by human politics or supernatural intervention.

CLIMATE CHANGE DISASTER LOOMING

Climate change due to global warming has been receiving close attention from Pope Francis; and he has used the threat to promote Roman Catholic dogma. However, there is no doubt that global warming predicts disaster for this world, and it appears to be obvious that the end must come before the disaster is fully realized. The the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has recently issued a special report on the impact of global warming of 1.5C, and it should inspire preventive action on the part of the major world powers, of which the United States is the foremost. Exactly the opposite is happening in the governance of America, which is also consistent with a general lawlessness which signals that we are witnessing the very last movements of earthly history:-

Final call to save the world from 'climate catastrophe'

It's the final call, say scientists, the most extensive warning yet on the risks of rising global temperatures.

Their dramatic report on keeping that rise under 1.5 degrees C says the world is now completely off track, heading instead towards 3C.

Keeping to the preferred target of 1.5C above pre-industrial levels will mean "rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society". . .

What could be wiped out by temperature rise . . .

The critical 33-page Summary for Policymakers certainly bears the hallmarks of difficult negotiations between climate researchers determined to stick to what their studies have shown and political representatives more concerned with economies and living standards

The two reports which follow should be regarded as having great significance in view of the fulfillment of Luke 21:24 in 1980 and the defining prediction of Jesus in the same chapter of Luke:

Luke 21:31-32 New King James Version (NKJV)

³¹ So you also, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is near. ³² Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all things take place (Underscored emphasis added.)*

Because there is disagreement about the time frame of a generation, it is well to note the significance of the period of 40 years in the Bible. The following articles mention periods of time that do not extend much beyond 40 years:-

The world has just over a decade to get climate change under control, U.N. scientists say

“There is no documented historic precedent" for the scale of changes required, the body found.

The world stands on the brink of failure when it comes to holding global warming to moderate levels, and nations will need to take “unprecedented” actions to cut their carbon emissions over the next decade, according to a landmark report by the top scientific body studying climate change.

With global emissions showing few signs of slowing and the United States — the world’s second-largest emitter of carbon dioxide — rolling back a suite of Obama-era climate measures, the prospects for meeting the most ambitious goals of the 2015 Paris agreement look increasingly slim. To avoid racing past warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) over preindustrial levels would require a “rapid and far-reaching” transformation of human civilization at a magnitude that has never happened before, the group found.

“There is no documented historic precedent” for the sweeping change to energy, transportation and other systems required to reach 1.5 degrees Celsius, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) wrote in a report requested as part of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. . .

“Frankly, we’ve delivered a message to the governments,” said Jim Skea, a co-chair of the IPCC panel and professor at Imperial College London, at a press event following the document’s release. “It’s now their responsibility … to decide whether they can act on it.” He added, “What we’ve done is said what the world needs to do.”

The transformation described in the document is breathtaking, and the speed of change required raises inevitable questions about its feasibility.

Planet has only until 2030 to stem catastrophic climate change, experts warn

Governments around the world must take "rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society" to avoid disastrous levels of global warming, says a stark new report from the global scientific authority on climate change.

The report issued Monday by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), says the planet will reach the crucial threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by as early as 2030, precipitating the risk of extreme drought, wildfires, floods and food shortages for hundreds of millions of people.

The date, which falls well within the lifetime of many people alive today, is based on current levels of greenhouse gas emissions.

The planet is already two-thirds of the way there, with global temperatures having warmed about 1 degree C. Avoiding going even higher will require significant action in the next few years.

"This is concerning because we know there are so many more problems if we exceed 1.5 degrees C global warming, including more heatwaves and hot summers, greater sea level rise, and, for many parts of the world, worse droughts and rainfall extremes," Andrew King, a lecturer in climate science at the University of Melbourne, said in a statement.

Global net emissions of carbon dioxide would need to fall by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 and reach "net zero" around 2050 in order to keep the warming around 1.5 degrees C. Lowering emissions to this degree, while technically possible, would require widespread changes in energy, industry, buildings, transportation and cities, the report says.

"The window on keeping global warming below 1.5 degrees C is closing rapidly and the current emissions pledges made by signatories to the Paris Agreement do not add up to us achieving that goal," added King.

Matthew 24 recounts how the disciples put the question to Jesus: "Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?" In His response Jesus said (inter alia): "For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. All these are the beginning of sorrows" (verses 7-8.) Concerning Matthew 24 the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, 1956 Edition, states, "Beginning with v. 21 the signs foretold point forward exclusively to the end of the world (see DA 630, 631.)" In verse 21 Jesus predicted the Great Tribulation, and in verse 22 He stated "And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened." This clearly referred to a time of overwhelming deceptions and a dreadful persecution of God's people (cf. Dan. 12:1.) However, not only do verses 7-8 of Matthew 24 apply before the close of probation and the Great Tribulation, but immediately after Jesus' great prophecy of the end of time in Luke 21:24 He described these conditions immediately following: ( . . . and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; Men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken (vs. 25(b)-26.) It is clear that Our Lord's predictions of terrible physical conditions on the earth prior to His Coming embrace the forecasts of disastrous upheavals in the earth's atmosphere and surface as the result of global warming.

How God regards the physical degradation of the earth is summed up in Rev. 11:18 - a prophecy of the end:

And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth. (Italics emphasis added.)

REFLECTIONS ON LEAD ARTICLES IN WWN IOWA_8(18)_9(18) - "THE GROWING POPULARITY OF VENERATING “CHRISTIAN” RELICS;" and "THE PRIMARY DANGER OF SAINT/RELIC VENERATION"

The Preface to the above-titled articles states:

In early June of this year, WWN’s Associate Editor, Dennis Tevis, was notified of an exposition of Christian relics that was hosted and being held at a Roman Catholic Church in Cresco, Iowa. The event was presented by "Treasures of the Church," a traveling "ministry of evangelization of the Catholic Church." Its purpose, so stated: “Is to give people an experience of the living God through an encounter with the relics of his saints in the form of an exposition.”

The fact that a traveling "ministry of evangelization of the Catholic Church" now involves expositions of "Christian relics" is rooted in a massive transformation of America into a Catholic Nation. When America was predominantly a Protestant nation, such brazen displays of Roman Catholicism were not possible. How has the transformation been accomplished? It has been a long process; over such an extended period of time that the American nation was oblivious of the fact that Protestantism was progressively being strangled out of existence:

Anti-Catholicism in the United States

Anti-Catholicism in the United States is historically deeply rooted in the anti-Catholic attitudes brought by British Protestant to the American colonies. Two types of anti-Catholic rhetoric existed in colonial society and continued into the following centuries. The first, derived from the theological heritage of the Protestant Reformation and the religious wars of the sixteenth century, consisted of the Biblical Anti-Christ and the Whore of Babylon variety and dominated anti-Catholic thought until the late seventeenth century. The second type was a secular variety which derived in part from xenophobic and ethnocentric nativist sentiments and distrust towards increasing waves of Catholic immigrants, particularly from Ireland, Italy, Poland, and Mexico. It often focused on the alleged intrigues of Catholic states or Catholic peoples against the majority Protestant United States. . .

After 1980, the historic tensions between evangelical Protestants and Catholics faded dramatically. In politics the two often joined together in conservative social and cultural issues, such as opposition to gay marriage. In 2000, the Republican coalition included almost half of Catholics and a large majority of white evangelicals. . .

After 1980 the historic tensions between evangelical Protestants and Catholics faded dramatically. In politics the two often joined together in fighting for conservative social and cultural issues, such as the Pro-Life and traditional marriage movements. Both groups held tightly to traditional moral values and opposed secularization. Ronald Reagan was especially popular among both evangelicals and ethnic Catholics known as Reagan Democrats. By 2000 the Republican coalition included about half the Catholics and a large majority of white evangelicals.

In 1980 the New York Times warned the Catholic Bishops that if they followed the church's instructions and denied communion to politicians who advocated a pro-choice position regarding abortion they would be "imposing a test of religious loyalty" that might jeopardize "the truce of tolerance by which Americans maintain civility and enlarge religious liberty".

Starting in 1993, members of Historic Adventist splinter groups paid to have anti-Catholic billboards that called the Pope the Antichrist placed in various cities on the West Coast, including along Interstate 5 from Portland to Medford, Oregon, and in Albuquerque, New Mexico. One such group took out an anti-Catholic ad on Easter Sunday in The Oregonian, in 2000, as well as in newspapers in Coos Bay, Oregon and in Longview and Vancouver, Washington. Mainstream Seventh-day Adventists denounced the advertisements.

It is reasonable to conclude from the march of events that the Romanization of America had become irreversible by 1980. It reached a pinnacle in 2015 with the State visit of Pope Francis. It is noteworthy that Seventh-day Adventist dissidents have been in the forefront of opposing the Catholicization of America, and remarkable that mainstream Adventists have denounced them. This denunciation goes beyond disapproval of the dissidents' methods. Mainstream Seventh-day Adventism has repudiated the historic role of the denomination in warning about the prophetic role of the papacy in suppressing freedom of conscience and forcing her teachings on the world.

The long process of making America Catholic had its beginning in the papacy of Leo XIII, who reigned from 1878 to 1903. He has been described as the first modern pope, marking a shift from the Counter-Reformation to the New Evangelization (Pope Leo XIII was the First Modern Pope.) Of him it has been written, "He always showed the greatest interest in science and in literature, and he would have taken a position as a statesman of the first rank had he held office in any secular government. He may be reckoned the most illustrious pope since Benedict XIV, and under him the papacy acquired a prestige unknown since the middle ages." (LEO XIII)

This is the Pope of whom Seventh-day Adventist preacher and scholar A. T. Jones stated in his sermon THE PAPACY, (THIRD ANGEL’S MESSAGE #3, 1895 General Conference):

The papacy is very impatient of any restraining bonds; in fact, it wants none at all. And the one grand discovery Leo XIII has made, which no pope before him ever made, is that turn which is taken now all the time by Leo and from him by those who are managing affairs in this country--the turn that is taken upon the clause of the Constitution of the United States: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Leo has made the discovery that the papacy can be pushed upon this country in every possible way and by every possible means and that congress is prohibited from ever legislating in any way to stop it. That is a discovery that he made that none before him made and that is how it is that he of late can so fully endorse the United States Constitution. . .

Thus the papacy in plain violation of the Constitution will crowd herself upon the government and then hold up that clause as a barrier against anything that any would do to stop it. And every one that speaks against this working of the papacy, behold! He "is violating the Constitution of the United States" in spirit, because the constitution says that nothing shall ever be done in respect to any religion or the establishment of it. When a citizen of the United States would rise up and protest against the papacy and all this that is against the letter and the spirit of the constitution, behold! He does not appreciate "the liberty of the constitution. We are lovers of liberty; we are defenders of the constitution; we are glad that America has such a symbol of liberty" as that. Indeed they are. That is why Pope Leo XIII turns all his soul, full of ideality, to what is improperly called his American policy. It should be rightly called his Catholic universal policy. . . (N.B. The pope recognizes the fact that democracy is the coming state.)

This same pope was no friend of Separation of Church and State and democracy.

Thus, since the turn of the 19th-20th century the process of eroding American democracy has been in progress, and the ultimate goal was to be accomplished by "Making America Catholic." this was the title of a chapter of the heavily documented book Facts of Faith. by Seventh-day Adventist minister and author Christian Edwardson. That the goal of" making America Catholic" has now been accomplished is verified by secular publications:-

Stephen Douglas Mumford is an American expert on fertility and population growth. The astute observer will detect in the expertise of Dr. Mumford the inevitability of conflict with the Roman Catholic ideology on abortion and contraception. A well-documented chapter of his book American Democracy and the Vatican: Population Growth and National Security (1984) is titled "The Origins of Vatican Power in America: A Guide for Population and National Security Specialists." Dr. Mumford writes:

To understand the population problem and the inertia currently seen in dealing with this problem, one must understand the origins of Vatican power. The Catholic hierarchy, unchallenged, has used American freedom as a cloak to undermine the population movement and, thus, U.S. security. Their methods deserve close scrutiny.

The pope and his hierarchy claim that papal or Vatican power originates from God. However, there are more earthly explanations for the origins of their power. Very few Americans have ever been exposed to the more earthly explanations. If the intentions of the founding fathers in their drafting of the United States Constitution had prevailed until today, those freedoms of thought, expression, speech, and the press, which we cherish, would not be jeopardized by the Vatican, a sovereign foreign power, influencing the American democratic process and domestic and foreign policy.

American Protestants are taught as children that you simply never criticize another person’s religion, that you should not think about the negative aspects of another person’s religion, that freedom of religion means that other people have the freedom to do whatever they want to do in their religion, that criticism of religion is always inappropriate, that we should be tolerant.

Roman Catholicism was a relative latecomer to the United States. At the time of the American Revolution, Catholics accounted for less than one percent of the population. Catholics had virtually no influence on the creation or form of the American government. It was not until the great migrations of the late 1800s and early 1900s that the proportion of Catholics became significant. Until then, the United States was a nation of Protestants. A complete taboo on criticizing another person’s religion had become a strong national ethic before the arrival of a significant Catholic presence.

Surrendering the freedom to think that another person’s religion might have certain negative implications in a Protestant America seemed to have produced no ill effects. (Only the Mormon Church was organized for the specific purpose of attaining political power, but this came later!)

However, with the arrival of a significant presence of the Catholic Church, this national ethic was soon to be exploited by a church with a long history of lust for political power. It had already become dominant in a province in Canada, as well as in Mexico, Central and South America, most of Europe, much of Africa, and the Philippines, and had tamed many Asian countries including India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Indonesia, and, until recently, Vietnam.

In order to enhance our cherished freedom, the freedom of religion, we denied the possibility that another person’s religion might do a wrong. The problem is, when one no longer talks about something, one ceases to think about that thing. By the time of my birth in 1942, the freedom to think about another person’s religion was extinguished.

This was fatal to two other cherished freedoms. When some people in this country became aware, at last, of the negative influence of the Catholic Church hierarchy on American democracy, the freedoms of speech and the press were diminishing. The Vatican had succeeded in exploiting an innocent America. How? What characteristics of the Catholic Church led to this exploitation?

The Church as a Totalitarian Institution

This characteristic of the Church is essential to our discussion. It is a fact that the best interests of the Vatican and the best interests of the United States are not always the same. This is the source of the conflict. If the American Catholic Church were a democratic institution, like most other mainstream American religions, I believe that I can say with some certainty that it would have been unnecessary to write this book. . .

The totalitarian character of the Roman Catholic Church has been noted for some time. In 1948, Karl Barth, a leading European Protestant theologian wrote of the kinship between Catholic and communist political policy in a comment he made to a Jesuit journalist:

To be honest, I see some connection between them [Roman Catholicism and communism]. Both are totalitarian; both claim man as a whole. Communism uses about the same methods of organization (learned from the Jesuits). Both lay great stress on all that is visible. But Roman Catholicism is the more dangerous of the two for Protestants. Communism will pass; Roman Catholicism is lasting.

Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical, Chief Duties of Christian Citizens, stated that Catholics owe “complete submission and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman Pontiff, as to God Himself.” The pope sits on the throne of St. Peter and, as television has shown Americans, is worshipped as a king. The infallible spokesman of God, he is also worshipped “as God Himself.” This is by intention. . .

Noted British Catholic Christopher Dawson, who was named as one of the “forty contemporary immortals” among the Gallery of Living Catholic Authors, said:

 . . . There seems to be no doubt that the Catholic social ideas set forth in the encyclicals of Leo XIII and Pius XI have far more affinity with those of fascism than with those of either liberalism or socialism. In the same way, it is clear that Catholicism is by no means hostile to the authoritarian ideal of the state. Against the liberal doctrines of the divine rights of majorities and the unrestricted freedom of opinion, the Church has always main­tained the principles of authority and hierarchy and high conception of the prerogatives of the state. The ruler is not simply the representative of the people, he has an independent authority and a direct responsibility to God. His primary duty is not to fulfill the wishes of the people but to govern justly and well, and so long as he fulfills this duty any resistance on the part of the people is a grave sin.

Thus, to resist a government that is fulfilling its duty to govern “justly and well,” as judged by the Vatican, is a “grave sin.” This control of the people is often offered by the Church to right-wing dictatorships in return for special privileges.

This concept of grave sin is but one of many controls exercised by the Vatican. . . (Underscored and italicized emphasis added.)

Note in the underscored passage above, its concurrence with documentation cited by Christian Edwardson.

Of special significance is the statement of Christopher Dawson quoted above by Stephen Mumford which asserts an affinity between the encyclicals of Leo XIII and Pius XI and fascism. From the insight of Christopher Dawson it can be deduced that the election of a man with fascistic tendencies, if not ambitions, such as Donald Trump can be laid squarely on the Catholicization of America. The threat of fascism looms over the American nation at this very time:

Trump: None Dare Call It Fascism

The tired dogma of the past that Donald Trump resurrects is Fascism. Do not compare Trump to the Nazis and Hitler. Compare Donald Trump to Mussolini, the founder of the Fascist ideology developed in Italy and adopted unsuccessfully in WWII Italy and Germany and quite successfully in Franco’s Spain, a regime that survived right into the 1970s. Fascism as defined by Merriam-Webster:

“…is a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.” . . .

Russia’s leader, Vladimir Putin, clearly follows fascist principals [sic] and invokes fascist language. Russia’s historic mission, dying for the nation, restoring greatness are not the Soviet Union’s language; it is the language of Mussolini, Hitler and sundry other fascists. Socialism and communism are repudiated for the rule of elites usually from business, military and religion.

Trump’s actions follow the path well worn by fascist leaders from Putin all the way back to early last century. His goal is clearly to destroy faith in national institutions and establish himself as the only person who can ‘fix it’. Trump’s cabinet appointments provide graphic evidence of intent to undermine the very government institutions protecting the government and the people. (Underscored emphasis added.)

With the looming specter of totalitarian government, the following article is illuminating on the role of the Supreme Court of the United States:

The Decline of American Democracy

The United States is no longer a fully functioning democracy. This according to the Intelligence Unit of The Economist magazine. The Democracy Index 2016, released in January 2017, now lists the United States as a flawed democracy. The basis for the decline was not the most recent presidential election. Instead, the report argues that Donald Trump benefited from a lack of popular trust in American government, a lack that also led to the demotion.

Indeed, the ranking of the United States had been dropping for a number of years; the country was just barely included at the bottom of the list of fully functioning democracies in 2015. The magazine uses five measures, with the U.S. doing well in “electoral process and pluralism,” “political culture,” and “civil liberties.” The weak points are “functioning of government” and “political participation,” and it would seem reasonable to place the blame for these shortcomings on the Supreme Court of the United States.

There are two lines of cases that can be cited. The first, the refusal to find any constitutional violation in political gerrymandering, has contributed to a breakdown in deliberative democracy. With so many members of the United States House of Representatives and the state legislatures coming from districts that have been drawn so as to make their seats safely Republican or safely Democratic, there is no longer any incentive to compromise. A member who compromises, thereby moving to the center of the electorate, moves away from the center of those who vote in his or her party’s primary. In a safe district, it is the primary that matters, and winning the primary requires ideological purity. Compromise calls that purity into question. That affects the functioning of government. It can also impact political participation, when voters find themselves in safe districts in which their votes don’t really matter.

The other line is the Court’s repeated striking down of any attempts to limit the influence of money in politics. While the Court has accepted contribution limits to avoid actual, or the appearance of, quid pro quo corruption, it has been completely unwilling to limit expenditures by anyone, including corporations and unions, supporting the election or defeat of candidates. Somehow, the Court does not see the corruption this may cause. It may also impact the functioning of government, in the sense that government is not responsive to the people but instead to those who have the capacity to spend in favor of, or against, reelection of members of the legislature. It is also likely to affect political participation; people may choose to take no part in the process, if they believe that government is bought and paid for.

It is ironic that a line of decisions the Supreme Court saw as protecting democracy through an expansive understanding of expression instead contributed to a decline in democracy. This refusal to allow any reining in of the influence of money is also in stark contrast to the law in most to all of the countries that remain fully functioning democracies. Those countries limit spending, including spending by non-candidates in support of those seeking election, or they lessen the need for money. The lessening comes through bans on purchasing television advertising, often accompanied by the provision of free time in the media for candidates to reach the voters.

The first line of cases described above focuses attention on the gerrymandering which is but one of the major actions taken by Republican legislatures to achieve one-party government of the United States -  Other decisions of the right-wing Catholic majority on the Supreme Court have targeted voting rights for classes of voters who are predominantly supporters of the Democratic Party:-

Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act

The Supreme Court on Tuesday effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, freeing nine states, mostly in the South, to change their election laws without advance federal approval.

The court divided along ideological lines, and the two sides drew sharply different lessons from the history of the civil rights movement and the nation’s progress in rooting out racial discrimination in voting. At the core of the disagreement was whether racial minorities continued to face barriers to voting in states with a history of discrimination.

“Our country has changed,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”

The decision will have immediate practical consequences. Texas announced shortly after the decision that a voter identification law that had been blocked would go into effect immediately, and that redistricting maps there would no longer need federal approval. Changes in voting procedures in the places that had been covered by the law, including ones concerning restrictions on early voting, will now be subject only to after-the-fact litigation. . .

How the Supreme Court is changing the rules on voting

The Supreme Court continues to deliver an implicit message to civil rights advocates challenging state election practices as discriminatory: States can do what they want.

The conservative bloc under Chief Justice John Roberts has made plain that it believes states should be freer to determine their own voting maps and election practices, and that concerns about race discrimination simply do not carry the weight of earlier eras.

By a 5-4 vote on Monday, the court upheld Texas congressional and legislative districts that a lower court declared discriminated against Latinos. Earlier this month, the same 5-4 lineup of Republican-appointed justices against Democratic-appointed justices affirmed an Ohio law for purging citizens from voter rolls that challengers said would disproportionately hurt minorities.

The Texas and Ohio cases, combined with the court's recent actions declining to rule on claims of partisan gerrymandering, and a landmark ruling on the Voting Rights Act five years ago, suggest a freer rein for states.

These decisions are likely to reverberate in upcoming elections and the post-2020 Census redistricting. As was seen in the Texas and Ohio cases, voting rights challenges typically comes from liberal, Democratic-leaning groups against Republican-controlled state legislatures. The Supreme Court trend might only strengthen the GOP hold on states and Congress.

The second line of cases cited above is summarized in Campaign Finance and the Supreme Court. The alarm voiced by prominent, well-informed thinkers on the decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission points to this case as posing a serious threat to democracy. The decision was handed down by an ideologically right-wing Roman Catholic majority on the Supreme which had been shaped by three Republican presidencies beginning with that of Ronald Reagan in 1980. That it was designed to accelerate the Catholicization of America is evidenced by the ecstatic reaction of Catholic Online, a Roman Catholic publication, as the name reveals:-

Supreme Court Decision in 'Citizens United v. FEC' Empowers New Citizen Action

The decision handed down in 'Citizens United' opens the door for our work. It is a 'game changer'.

The fact that the Court overruled its prior decisions is very significant to anyone who has set their sites on overturning Roe v Wade and engaging in the kind of massive political action such a result will require. We must persuade the Court to reverse Roe and Doe. This will take massive organizational development as well as effective and sustained political and legal activism. It will also take a lot of money. . .

The decision handed down in Citizens United v. FEC is what they call in political and policy activism circles a "game changer." . . .

We must change this Nation’s laws in order to ensure that the Fundamental and inalienable Rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are protected for all of our neighbors - including our young, our infirm and our elderly. This opinion helps us along the path to victory. We should be emboldened by this Supreme Court decision. We should also use it as a blueprint for our future political and legal activism. It is time to follow our President’s example in at least one way, by becoming “community organizers.” Wielding the language set forth in this opinion we need to build – and massively fund - the organizations, associations, and movements desperately needed in this urgent hour. It is time for boldness! A truly free nation must recognize the first freedom, the freedom to be born, or it will lose freedom itself. In the Wake of the March for Life, the Supreme Court Decision in “Citizens United’ Empowers a New Citizen Action.")

This is a naked declaration of the Catholicization of the American body politic, and it has been wildly successful! The evidence is overwhelming that this was the intention of the Supreme Court in Citizens United and other cases since Republican ascendancy in the governance of America began to accelerate markedly from 1980. This has shaped and empowered a Roman Catholic ideological right-wing majority on the highest Court in the land:-

Religion, The Supreme Court And Why It Matters

Lots of controversial cases at the intersection of religion and the law wind up before the Supreme Court.

And, for most of U.S. history, the court, like the country, was dominated by Protestant Christians. But today, it is predominantly Catholic and Jewish.

It has become more conservative and is about to get even more so with President Trump's expected pick to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is stepping down from the court at the end of July.

Everyone on Trump's shortlist, but one, is Catholic. So what, if anything, do the current justices' and potential nominees' faiths tell us — and how has the religious makeup of the Supreme Court changed?

"It's extraordinary and unprecedented in American history," said Louis Michael Seidman, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University, which is affiliated with the Catholic Church. "There was a time when, for example, there was tremendous anti-Catholic bias ... and, of course, there was a time when there was a lot of anti-Semitism, and a lot of that has gone away."

Politics

Supreme Court's Religious Makeup Evolves As Members Change

A majority Catholic court

Today, six of the nine justices are Catholic — if you count Neil Gorsuch, who was raised Catholic and has attended an Episcopal Church. The other three are Jewish.

Trump's potential nominees — Judges Brett Kavanaugh [the ultimate choice,] Amy Coney Barrett, Thomas Hardiman and Amul Thapar — are all Catholic. NPR's Nina Totenberg reports, according the Federalist Society, Judge Raymond Kethledge is evangelical. . .

Except Justice Sonia Sotomayor, all of the Catholic justices on the Supreme Court are conservatives, appointed by Republican presidents. And there's reason for that.

While there is a liberal, social-justice strain in Catholicism, there is a sharp divide between them and more conservative Catholics. And their dominance on the court has to do with ideology, said Marci Hamilton, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania who once clerked for former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

"I think it's because the Catholic vote can be relatively predictable on abortion," Hamilton said. "Now, that doesn't fit with Justice Sotomayor, but with respect to the male Catholics that have been on the court, they have been largely devoted to decreasing the power of Roe v. Wade."

That's a major goal for many conservatives, and one supported by Catholic theology. . . (Underscored emphasis added.) [Cf. ON THE OFFENSIVE IN DEFENCE OF ROMAN CATHOLIC DOGMA]

Why the Catholic Majority on the Supreme Court May Be Unconstitutional

I agree with my fellow participants in this Symposium that the fact that the current Supreme Court has five Catholics—the most it has ever had at one time—is a positive, significant achievement for Catholics in the United States; however, I must otherwise dissent. . . These developments are encouraging and noteworthy, but they hardly tell the whole story of how, or why, we have a Catholic majority on the Roberts Court. We know, as Sheldon Goldman explains, that presidents Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush had specific political objectives in making their respective Supreme Court appointments;' however, the critical question is whether the criteria these presidents used to implement their objectives included the nominees' conformity with particular religious beliefs or traditions.

In this Article, I examine two ways in which our national leaders may have damaged the rule of law in the course of appointing the current Catholic majority on the Roberts Court. First, in their zeal to control the Court through their appointments, our national political leaders may have demonstrated (perhaps unintentionally) a regrettable lack of faith in the rule of law. Their approach to selecting justices possibly evinced an apparent agreement with most political scientists who believe that justices do not follow the law, that law in the form of precedents does not constrain justices from either directly voting their policy preferences or manipulating precedent to maximize their personal or political preferences. Presidents Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush—and many Republican senators in 2005-2006—wanted to do what other previous leaders had failed to do: end liberal judicial activism, do away with the Supreme Court precedents they did not like, and transform the federal courts, particularly the Supreme Court, into consistent, if not enduring, conservative bastions. To achieve those objectives, they could not depend on the law to constrain justices to interpret the Constitution as they preferred. To the contrary, the people in charge of selecting Supreme Court nominees had to find justices who would rigidly adhere to their ideological preferences, and thus perform consistently with the expectations of the dominant social science models of the Court. Fulfilling the expectations of the nominating presidents came at the expense of our longstanding commitment to—and faith in—the principle that ours is a government of laws and not of people, even if those people had the right kinds of ideological (or religious) commitments. Insisting that the maintenance of a government of laws depends on appointing people with the right kinds of ideological commitments sacrifices another principle on which our faith in our system as a government of laws in turn depends, a principle which I call the golden rule of constitutional law: on the Supreme Court, justices recognize that they must treat others' precedents as they would like their precedents—the ones with which they approve—to be treated. Those who purport to speak truth to power must assess the possible damage done to the rule of law and the golden rule of constitutional law by the repeated insistence that ideology matters more than law.

A second, serious problem with the process through which we acquired a Catholic majority on the Court may have been that some, if not all, of the appointments which made it possible may have been unconstitutional. The selections of at least some of these justices may have been unconstitutional—possibly violating Article VI's express prohibition of religious tests for federal office, the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, or the First Amendment's prohibition against the stablishment of religion—because they might have been deliberately based in part on the nominees' religious convictions. The possible, ensuing violations are all the more unfortunate because it would have been easy to assemble a Catholic majority on the Court without sacrificing some of our constitutional commitments. (Underscored emphasis added.)

It is clear that the U.S. Supreme Court has been Catholicized, and astonishingly this has been accomplished by Presidents who were nominally Protestants. This could not have happened without the Catholicization of America, with particular concentration on Evangelicals who now disregard the history of the Church of Rome:-

How a Catholic-Majority SCOTUS Fulfilled an Evangelical Dream

This is not a majority Catholic court. It's the Supreme Court that the strange alliance of the religious right built. [But the alliance was engineered by Roman Catholics.]

If Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court (and do not doubt that he will be), the country’s highest court will remain, as it has been for over a decade, a majority Catholic institution. It will also mean that, depending on how we count Neil Gorsuch (more on that in a second), there hasn’t been a single Protestant on the Court since the retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens in 2010. Every justice has been and will continue to be either Catholic or Jewish.

Historically, this is a huge shift. Only 5 Catholics had ever served on the Court before Antonin Scalia’s appointment in 1986. Similarly, before Ruth Bader Ginsburg was appointed in 1993 there had been only 5 Jewish justices. One-hundred-and-thirteen people have sat on the Supreme Court; Scalia was the 103rd. And while this might appear to be a story about the arrival of Catholics into the mainstream of American life, it’s really the story of the religious right’s journey to dominance in U.S. politics through a powerful kind of coalition building. In other words, the Court, without a single Protestant on its bench, is the greatest triumph of a theocratically-minded American evangelical Protestantism.

A number of theories have been advanced to explain the Catholic and Jewish ascendency on the Supreme Court. Many of them point to the ways in which both Judaism and Catholicism have traditions of legal inquiry and the importance of higher education in Jewish and Catholic communities in the United States. What these theories miss, however, is how starkly the Catholic justices differ ideologically from the majority of American Catholics. If Kavanaugh is confirmed, five of the Court’s six Catholic justices will be reliable conservative votes, with Sonia Sotomayor as the sole exception. But polls indicate U.S. Catholics on the whole are a fairly progressive group. According to a recent Pew Survey, for example, 53 percent of U.S. Catholics support legal abortion and 67 percent favor marriage equality.

This phenomenon cannot be merely explained by the country’s general shift to the right over the past thirty years; it’s about a key factor in that rightward shift. The rightward movement of American politics up to and including the election of Donald Trump has been driven by a specific demographic, a demographic defined by religious and racial identity: namely, white evangelical Protestants. Few demographics poll more consistently conservative on a variety of issues from abortion to immigration. None is a more loyal or reliable source of Republican support. The latest poll fresh off the press reveals that white evangelicals are the only faith group that believes the country is headed in the right direction.

And yet not a single Protestant, let alone an evangelical one, sits on the nation’s highest court, . .

Through their alliance with white evangelicals, conservative Catholics and other religious conservatives, often minorities within their communities, became the most visible members of those respective communities in politics. And white evangelicals got numbers at the polls and access to the more highly educated Catholic community from which to draw people for key roles like Supreme Court justice. With this in mind, it seems hard to accept as coincidence that the current Court’s demographics began to take shape in the 1980s, a decade that marked the arrival of the religious right to the highest levels of political power. . .

Abraham Lincoln said, "Our government rests in public opinion. Whoever can change public opinion, can change the government, practically just so much."--(December 10, 1856 Speech at Chicago.) It is therefore worthy of note that propaganda is another means by which America has been Catholicized. As referenced in and earlier segment of this analysis, Evangelical leaders were first seduced by Rome on the subject of abortion, then proceeded to seek Scriptural support for the Roman Catholic dogma that they had previously spurned, and followed this by re-educating their followers. Simultaneously, there has been a barrage on all sides to condition popular opinion in general to receive the principles of the Roman Catholic Social Doctrine, which have thus been foisted on the nation.

The Catholicization of the American Right

In the past two decades, the American religious Right has become increasingly Catholic. I mean that both literally and metaphorically. Literally, Catholic writers have emerged as intellectual leaders of the religious right in universities, the punditocracy, the press, and the courts, promoting an agenda that at its most theoretical involves a reclamation of the natural law tradition of Thomas Aquinas and at its most practical involves appeals to the kind of common-sense, “everybody knows,” or “it just is” arguments that have characterized opposition to same-sex marriage. There is nothing new about Catholic conservative intellectuals — think John Neuhaus, William F. Buckley, Jr. What is new is the prominence that these Catholic thinkers and leaders have come to have within the domains of American politics that are dominated by evangelical Protestants. Catholic intellectuals have become to the American Right what Jewish intellectuals once were to the American Left. In the academy, on the Court, Catholic intellectuals provide the theoretical discourse that shapes conservative arguments across a whole range of issues. Often these arguments have identifiable Thomistic or Jesuitical sources, but most of the time they enter the mainstream of political dialogue as simply “conservative.”

Meanwhile, in the realm of actual politics, Catholic politicians have emerged as leading figures in the religious conservative movement. Again, there is nothing new about Catholic political leaders nor Catholic politicians, although from Al Smith through John Kennedy they were more often Democrats than Republicans (Pat Buchanan is an exception). What is new is the ability of self-identified Catholic politicians to attract broad support from the among the evangelical Protestant religious right. . .

To understand what is going on, we need to move from the role of Catholic individuals to a broader, more metaphorical idea of a Catholic style of political reasoning. “Catholic” in this exercise means responding to leadership; focusing on outcomes (think “doctrine of works”); and a Manichean view of the world in which the Church — as opposed to mere churches — stands as a bulwark against equally great opposing forces, so that outside the Church there can be only chaos. In this sense a Catholic Republican voter would be someone looking for a commanding general to lead Christian soldiers on a crusade, would care about a candidate’s policies rather than his soul, and respond to a call to view the Republican Party as the last bastion of civilisation in a howling wilderness. Extending the metaphor, a “Protestant” conservative should reject the idea of leaders in favour of grass roots communalism; local self-direction in the congregationalist model; care about character and personal values more than specific stances or doctrines; and see the world as a mass of sinners who are to be judged individually by the quality of their soul rather than by their enlistment in one party or the other.

In this metaphorical sense, the “Catholic” political style is strongest among evangelical Protestant voters, not actual Catholics. The eagerness of Catholic bishops to jump into a fight over contraception, for example, does not reflect that attitudes of their parishoners, but it gets strong support from evangelicals. . .

In political terms, the evangelical Protestant Right has become Catholicized. They do not see Catholicism as a religion very different from their own because it leads to the same positions on the battlefield, call it Fortress GOP. . . (Underscored emphasis added.) [Cf. EXEGESIS OF REVELATION - The Beast and the False Prophet at bookmark The second beast. N.B. the deadly wound has clearly long been healed.]

The hour is late - very late! This is no time for Seventh-day Adventists to be playing with the degrading spiritualistic paganism of relics worship. The perceptions of individuals can differ for various reasons; sadly, one of them being spiritual blindness. A circumstantial case has been made in this analysis that Rome has achieved her long-term objective of making America Catholic. If the reader has not arrived at the same conclusion, perhaps the case has not been stated cogently enough? However, it is an inescapable fact that democracy in America, including the critically important guarantee of Separation of Church and State is now on the brink of the extinction that is prophesied in Rev. 13. The deadly prospect has prominent political analysts, though unaware of the prophetic Word, expressing fear of the future:-

20 of America's top political scientists gathered to discuss our democracy. They're scared.

“If current trends continue for another 20 or 30 years, democracy will be toast.”

The scholars pointed to breakdowns in social cohesion (meaning citizens are more fragmented than ever), the rise of tribalism, the erosion of democratic norms such as a commitment to rule of law, and a loss of faith in the electoral and economic systems as clear signs of democratic erosion.

No one believed the end is nigh, or that it’s too late to solve America’s many problems. Scholars said that America’s institutions are where democracy has proven most resilient. So far at least, our system of checks and balances is working — the courts are checking the executive branch, the press remains free and vibrant, and Congress is (mostly) fulfilling its role as an equal branch.

But there was a sense that the alarm bells are ringing.

Yascha Mounk, a lecturer in government at Harvard University, summed it up well: “If current trends continue for another 20 or 30 years, democracy will be toast.”

“Democracies don’t fall apart — they’re taken apart”

Nancy Bermeo, a politics professor at Princeton and Harvard, began her talk with a jarring reminder: Democracies don’t merely collapse, as that “implies a process devoid of will.” Democracies die because of deliberate decisions made by human beings.

"No one believed the end is nigh;" but they are scared! However, what they see is consistent with the prophecies of Rev. 13, and the prophetic march of events reveals that the end is indeed nigh!

The acknowledged fear of the political scientists should awaken those Seventh-day Adventists who continue to slumber and sleep into consciousness of the insidious spiritual snares that abound all around us, as fulfillment of Rev. 16:13-14 intensifies (N.B. "The first, second, and third angels' messages are to be repeated." Now is the time for our thoughts to be directed to the eternal world, which is rapidly approaching. Now is the time for our minds to dwell on the cleansing of the Saints in the Final Atonement, and "the revealing of the sons of God" (Romans 8:19 (NKJV.) Perish the thought that any Seventh-day Adventists could be enticed at this late hour by the relics of Rome! Surely it cannot be?! What hope could there be for such to escape the strong delusion of 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12?!

QUIET IN PALESTINE AND JERUSALEM

With signals of a rapidly approaching end in fulfillment of Rev. 13 piling up in the United States, religio-political conditions in Palestine are remarkably quiet. Jerusalem is still in the spotlight; but with little perceptible evidence of advancing fulfillment of Dan. 11:45 beyond the stage that it reached several years ago. Little wonder then that Jesus admonished us repeatedly to "Watch." This requires consistent attention to current events, and resistence against slumber. The prophecy will be fulfilled, and events may quicken suddenly as they did with Donald Trump's appearance on the American and world stage in 2015:-

From [D]@gmail.com:

Daily life stable after Jerusalem embassy fracas, Holy Land prelate says

While the controversial transfer of the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem may have triggered a political and diplomatic hurricane, the top Catholic in the Holy Land says that in terms of daily life in the holy city, it’s been little more than a soft spring rain.

“In terms of the practical details of ordinary life, not much has changed,” said Archbishop Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Apostolic Administrator of Jerusalem.

“Jerusalem is traditionally a meeting point and a bridge for dialogue between Israelis and Palestinians, and now all that is gone, which is probably the most dramatic effect [of the move],” he said.

“But I repeat, that’s in terms of the political situation,” he said. “At the level of daily life, things are basically unchanged.”

Pizzaballa, an Italian cleric and member of the Franciscan Custody of the Holy Land, spoke in Rome on Saturday. He was appointed to his present role by Pope Francis in 2016. . .

It’s certainly not that Pizzaballa is blind to the human toll of the anger and hopelessness the decision has spawned in some quarters.

“Once again, the lives of many young people are being snuffed out and hundreds of families are crying over their dead,” he said, in a statement shortly after the embassy move happened. “One more time, in a sort of vicious circle, we find ourselves denouncing every form of violence, every cynical use of human life and disproportionate violence.”

On Saturday, he was more direct in terms of the political results of the move, saying both it and the response it generated demonstrated that the model of a peace process embodied in the 1993 Oslo Accords between then-Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and both then-Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and then-Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, all of whom would receive the 1994 Nobel Peace Prize, was over. . .

Asked if the idea of a two-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is now “impossible,” Piazzaballa said “it remains the ideal.”

“Obviously, dialogue is essential because the current situation cannot stand,” he said. “But right now, it’s hard to anticipate the what, how and when [of a new peace process], because now the parties are not only not dialoguing, there’s no will to dialogue.”

Pizzaballa also commented on long-running efforts to reach agreement between the Vatican and Israel on the legal and tax status of Church properties in the country, pursuant to a 1993 Fundamental Agreement between the two sides.

Ever since, a bilateral working commission has been attempting to work out a deal.

“At the moment, the churches are living in a sort of limbo,” he said. . .

Into the stalemate over the Jerusalem question, there has been an intriguing action - perhaps an intervention - by Russia:

From [D]@gmail.com:

In first such event, Russia celebrates its national day in Jerusalem

Ambassador Anatoly Viktorov notes Moscow's recognition of western part of the city as Israel's capital but stresses that eastern section belongs to the Palestinians

The Russian Embassy in Israel on Thursday evening for the first time hosted its National Day reception in Jerusalem, a nod to Moscow’s April 2017 recognition of Western Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. . .

It is widely believed to be the first-ever national day event by a foreign embassy to take place in Jerusalem. . .

Virtually all foreign embassies in Israel hold their annual independence day or national day celebrations in the Tel Aviv area. Even the US, which earlier on May 14 relocated its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, will hold this year’s July 4th reception in Airport city, outside Tel Aviv.

In April 2017, Russia surprised many by recognizing Western Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. However, Moscow has made plain that it considers East Jerusalem the capital of a future Palestinian state and vehemently opposed the US administration’s December 6 decision to recognize all Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

In his speech, Russian Ambassador Anatoly Viktorov, too, highlighted the fact that this year’s Russia Day celebration is being hosted in Jerusalem. However, he stressed that the recognition of West Jerusalem as the capital was contingent on the eastern part of the city becoming the seat of a future State of Palestine after a peace deal has been reached.

“We stand ready to facilitate such an agreement,” he said.

The Russian motivation looks pretty transparent:-

(a) To replace the United States as an "honest broker" in the now seemingly moribund "peace process" between Israel and the Palestinians:

Trump Just Sabotaged His Own Peace Process

The president has ended any hope that the United States can broker a diplomatic solution in the Holy Land.

President Donald Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, as a prelude to moving the U.S. Embassy there, has thrown a wrench into an already moribund peace process and could well mean the end of U.S. efforts to forge a peace deal between the Israelis and Palestinians. Despite near-unanimous global opposition from Arab, European, and other world leaders, all of whom have cautioned that such a move could have dire consequences, Trump’s decision overturns 70 years of U.S. policy while undermining the basic international norms that have undergirded the peace process for decades. The Palestinian leadership has condemned the move, which it said effectively disqualifies the United States from serving as peace broker, and warned it would throw an already volatile region into chaos. . .

Jerusalem remains one of the thorniest issues in the century-old conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, as well as a powerful political and religious symbol for billions of people around the world. While Israel claims Jerusalem as its “eternal and undivided” capital, Palestinians consider the eastern portion of the city, occupied by Israel since 1967, as the capital of their future state. However one parses the president’s words, today’s announcement will be interpreted in the Middle East and beyond as an American attempt to predetermine its status — or even hand it, in its entirety, to Israel — which is destined to have lasting repercussions across the region.

(b) To gain favor with the Israelis by recognizing West Jerusalem as Israel's capital:

In curious first, Russia recognizes West Jerusalem as Israel’s capital

Taken aback, Foreign Ministry says it is studying Moscow's statement, which also calls for Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem

In an unexpected, unprecedented and curious move, Moscow on Thursday said it considers West Jerusalem to be Israel’s capital, making Russia the first country in the world to extend such a recognition to any part of the city.

“We reaffirm our commitment to the UN-approved principles for a Palestinian-Israeli settlement, which include the status of East Jerusalem as the capital of the future Palestinian state. At the same time, we must state that in this context we view West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel,” the Foreign Ministry in Moscow said in a statement.

Russia’s surprising announcement came as US President Donald Trump considers moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. It is unclear what prompted Moscow’s decision and whether other countries in its sphere of influence will follow suit. . .

At this point it is unclear whether the Israeli government would welcome the recognition of West Jerusalem as its capital, since Israel claims the entire city as its eternal united capital.

Recognizing only the Western part of it would appear to deny Israel’s claims to the eastern part, including the Old City, which it captured in 1967 and subsequently annexed. The Russian statement specifically said that Moscow views “East Jerusalem as the capital of the future Palestinian state.” . . .

On the other hand, Russia’s step confers legitimacy on part of Israel’s declaration of Jerusalem as its capital. The rest of the international community adamantly refuses to recognize even this, arguing that the status of the entire city has to be determined in peace negotiations.

Under the 1948 partition plan, Jerusalem, with its holy sites, was designated an international city. . .

In private conversations, Israeli officials said they were unfazed by the Russian Foreign Ministry’s declaration to recognize the western part of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, pointing to the fact that the statement placed the recognition in the context of an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal, which is still elusive.

Especially problematic for Israel is the reference to “UN-approved principles for a Palestinian-Israeli settlement.” This is likely the reason for the skepticism in Jerusalem, as all binding UN decisions, most recently Security Council Resolution 2334, adapt parameters that are anathema to the Israeli government, such as the establishment of a Palestinian state in the pre-1967 lines with East Jerusalem as its capital.

“Moscow is deeply concerned about the situation in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Palestine and Israel have not held political negotiations for nearly three years, and the situation on the ground has been deteriorating,” the Russian ministry’s statement read. “The stalling of the Middle East peace process has created conditions for unilateral moves that undermine the potential for an internationally accepted solution to the Palestinian problem, under which two states – Israel and Palestine – could live in peace and security with each other and with their neighbors.”

The statement goes on to affirm Russia’s support for a two-state solution, which is described as an “optimal option” that meets the national interests of both Israelis and Palestinians.

“The concrete parameters of a solution for the entire range of issues regarding the status of Palestinian territories, including Jerusalem, should be coordinated at the direct talks between the parties involved,” the Russian statement said.

Equally as curious as the new Russian policy on Jerusalem is the existence of extraordinarily warm relations between the Evangelical supporters of Donald Trump and Putin's Russia, and the rock-solid support by the same Evangelicals for Israeli hegemony over Jerusalem and the whole of Palestine. Time will tell whether there is significance in this strange convergence of circumstances.

Rome is probably unlikely to have been displeased by Russia's move. Her continued relentless focus on Jerusalem is evidenced by the following report:-

From [D]@gmail.com:

Pope Francis: Jerusalem must be protected from political disputes

Pope Francis stressed Friday the important role the Eastern Catholic Churches play in spreading the Gospel given that many of them are concentrated in the Holy Land, and said Jerusalem in particular should be protected from tensions and political disputes.

“The Oriental Catholic Churches, as living witnesses to their apostolic origins, are called in a special way to protect and pass on a spark of Pentecostal fire,” the pope said according to prepared remarks June 22. “They are called daily to discover anew their own prophetic presence in all those places where they dwell as pilgrims.”

This, he said, begins with Jerusalem, “whose identity and particular vocation needs to be safeguarded beyond different tensions and political disputes.” . . .

Francis then prayed that holy places such as Jerusalem, “where God’s plan was fulfilled in the mystery of the incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ,” would be the birth place of “a renewed spirit of strength to inspire Christians in the Holy Land and the Middle East to embrace their special vocation and to offer an account of their faith and their hope.” . . .

Francis' comments on Jerusalem come after the United States on May 14 opened an embassy in the city, making the U.S. the only country to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel since the state was established in 1948.

Israel has claimed Jerusalem as its capital. However, Palestinians claim that the eastern portion of the city is the capital of the future Palestinian state.

Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem has never been recognized by the international community, and all countries but the US have embassies in Tel Aviv. Trump's decision to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, then, was met with fierce backlash not only from international interlocutors, but also by the Vatican.

After Trump announced the change last December, Pope Francis expressed his “deep concern” and issued an appeal to the international community to ensure that “everyone is committed to respecting the status quo of the city, in accordance with the relevant Resolutions of the United Nations.”

The United Nations' Resolutions calling for the internationalization of Jerusalem are still supported by a majority of the nations of the world. The question is how suddenly and/or rapidly will they be implemented, signalling there is only a very short period of time remaining of this world's history.

A TIME OF BOUNDLESS DELUSIONS

There was a time within living memory when no world or prominent Christian leader would make outlandish statements which could be regarded as ludicrous. There has been a strange and remarkable change, and the Bible provides the answer. The Apostle Paul in 2 Thess. 2 predicted the Great Apostasy of the end times in the revelation of the "man of sin," and "the mystery of iniquity," and it clearly revolves around the exaltation of man and the conflict between Truth and error.

What Jesus Christ revealed to the Apostle John in vision also bears on this issue (Rev. 16:13-14;) and sadly it relates to the Seventh-day Adventist Church as well as to the world, as prophesied by Ellen G. White.

WORLD LEADER INDULGES IN CHRISTIAN RIGHT FANTASY

In the world at large there is an abundance of evidence that the final delusions predicted in Bible prophecy are intensifying. The Prime Minister of Israel is not embarrassed to make statements which associate him with the fantasies of the extreme Religious Right in the United States and Israel:

Bibi and the Christian Right Agree: Trump Is the New Cyrus the Great

It’s hardly surprising that on arriving in Washington, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu would feel grateful toward his host, the president of the United States. After all, Bibi’s in hot water back home thanks to a corruption investigation that may soon bear evil fruit for the longtime leader of the Israeli right. His biggest, er, trump card both domestically and internationally is his close relationship with the leader of the free world. And that relationship was significantly enhanced by the Trump administration’s decision to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, at the cost of wildly negative reactions from most of the rest of the world.

But still, Netanyahu’s shout-out to Trump in Washington today was more than a bit over-the-top.

I want to tell you that the Jewish people have a long memory. So we remember the proclamation of the great King Cyrus the Great — Persian King. Twenty-five hundred years ago, he proclaimed that the Jewish exiles in Babylon can come back and rebuild our temple in Jerusalem. We remember, 100 years ago, Lord Balfour, who issued the Balfour Proclamation that recognized the rights of the Jewish people in our ancestral homeland.

We remember seventy years ago, President Harry S. Truman was the first leader to recognize the Jewish state. And we remember how a few weeks ago, President Donald J. Trump recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Mr. President, this will be remembered by our people throughout the ages. And as you just said, others talked about it. You did it.

Given Donald Trump’s extremely well-known weakness for flattery and, indeed, sycophantic adulation, Netanyahu’s comparison of Trump to the greatest Anglo-American heroes (Balfour and Truman) of Zionist history made sense. But it’s the Cyrus comparison that was really clever.

As Tara Isabella Burton explained before Bibi made this statement, Trump-as-Cyrus is the prevailing U.S. Christian right rationalization about their support for him:

The comparison comes up frequently in the evangelical world. Many evangelical speakers and media outlets compare Trump to Cyrus, a historical Persian king who, in the sixth century BCE, conquered Babylon and ended the Babylonian captivity, a period during which Israelites had been forcibly resettled in exile. This allowed Jews to return to the area now known as Israel and build a temple in Jerusalem.

The Cyrus model for Trump has become more prominent after Trump’s announcement that the U.S. embassy would be moved to Jerusalem.

While Cyrus is not Jewish and does not worship the God of Israel, he is nevertheless portrayed in Isaiah as an instrument of God — an unwitting conduit through which God effects his divine plan for history. Cyrus is, therefore, the archetype of the unlikely “vessel”: someone God has chosen for an important historical purpose, despite not looking like — or having the religious character of — an obvious man of God.

For conservative Evangelicals who are already inclined to view Trump as a virtuous pagan who is fighting against feminists, LGBTQ activists, and other liberals to bring back the 1950s, having the Israeli leader they already identify with their apocalyptic hopes for Israel confirm Trump’s religio-historical importance is huge.

So this was quite the favor Bibi did for his friend in the White House. And it didn’t hurt that Donald Trump lacks the sense of modesty that would make him blush at comparisons to world-historical figures from across the ages.

Netanyahu's inclusion of a religious fantasy in his "shoutout" to Donald Trump is an indication of how enmeshed politics and religion have become in the modern world.

ACCOMMODATION OF RELIGIOUS RIGHT WITH EVIL

As in the world of politics excuses are made for Trump as a matter of expediency, so also the same applies to the Evangelical world where the achievement of political objectives has totally supplanted Bible Truth and morality:

Franklin Graham says he believes Trump is a 'changed person'

Franklin Graham: "I believe he's President of the United States for a reason. I believe God put him there. He offended everybody ... he seemed to do everything wrong as a candidate and he won. I don't understand it other than God put him there"

Evangelical leader Franklin Graham in an interview called President Trump a "changed person" after reports of an alleged affair with an adult film star.

Graham, the president and CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, said during the interview on CNN he's "more interested in who a person is today" than who they were in the past.

"And I believe that he's a changed person and I've never seen anybody get attacked like he gets attacked," Graham said, saying Trump is attacked by the media every day.

His comments came after a report that Trump's personal lawyer arranged a six-figure payment to a former adult film star to keep her from discussing a sexual encounter with Trump. . .

"These alleged affairs, they're alleged with Trump, didn't happen while he was in office," Graham said during the interview.

Graham also said he thinks Trump has done a lot during his first year and called for people to look at the strong economy.

"We're all getting helped by Donald Trump's business expertise coming into Washington," he said.

When pressed on if he thinks that the president should be a moral authority for the U.S., Graham said, "I hope and pray that he will be a better moral authority in these next three years."

Note Graham's belief that Trump has done a lot during his first year, and his primary concern about the economy. What in the world has all of this got to do with the gospel of God? What a repudiation of Jesus' declaration, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's" (Matthew 22:21,) which was the clearest statement possible of the principle of separation of Church and State! The truth is that Franklin Graham and his associates not only stand in opposition to the separation of Church and State - they want to take control of the State as an assertion of Christian supremacy!

Graham gives further demonstration of blind loyalty to the man Donald Trump, no matter how vulgar and irresponsible he may be:

Franklin Graham defends Donald Trump as a 'changed person'

When Lemon pointed out Trump's continued inflaming use of Twitter, and his derogatory statements against nations in Africa, Graham once again defended the president by saying that "he talks a certain way" just to get his point across.

"There are a lot of presidents that have had rough language, and a lot of these things that have been accused of the President, I am not sure are true," Graham added. "He says he didn't do it."

Graham demands that the nation should stretch credulity beyond limit to believe Trump when "He says he didn't do it." To give him the benefit of the doubt about the sincerity of his belief one must conclude that he is deluded!

THE BILLY GRAHAM FACTOR

Franklin Graham is the president and CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, and the son of its founder, Billy Graham. Graham the elder was conducting Christian Crusades in the United Kingdom in the early 1950s when famous Seventh-day Adventist evangelist George E. Vandeman was also conducting a major evangelistic campaign. On one occasion he mentioned from the podium that Graham had read some of Ellen G. White's writings. He thought that the Graham crusades might prepare many for the Adventist faith. This thinking was widely shared by many in the ranks of the laity, including this writer, who also attended a talk by Graham at the London School of Economics and one of the gigantic stadium rallies. It was wishful thinking. In retrospect, rather than preparing the multitudes to join the Seventh-day Adventist faith, events have moved in the opposite direction. It was unlikely that Graham could have prepared the ground for the Seventh-day Adventist message. Graham was not close to understanding and believing the judgment hour message - the Sanctuary Doctrine, unique to the Adventist movement. Moreover, as sincere as Graham may have been, and this was a trait of character that was universally attributed to him, he was a shallow expositor of the Bible by choice, He had no use for "heavy theology":

‘America’s Pastor’: Evangelist Billy Graham dead at 99

Always Billy, never the Rev. Graham, the humble but media-savvy Southern Baptist minister had little use for clerical garb or heavy theology. He even bypassed churches, preferring to deliver his spellbinding sermons in stadiums packed with people hungry to hear how much God loves them and how that very night they were being called to surrender their lives to Jesus Christ.

Over the decades, Graham also became the unofficial White House chaplain, participating in nine presidential inaugurations between 1965 and 2005 and offering spiritual guidance – and occasionally political advice – to Republican and Democratic presidents. (Underlined emphasis added.)

Had Graham been interested in "heavy theology" he might have recognized the danger of being involved with political leaders. In the first place, Jesus Himself warned against "false Christs and false prophets" as signs of His coming and of the end of the world:

Matt. 24: ³And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? . . .

²⁴For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Secondly, God had long warned in the Old Testament about the deadly peril of a lack of knowledge:

Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

The critical question is how can the false Christs and false prophets be recognized without knowledge of the Holy Scriptures? To forswear the sound doctrines of the Bible is to embark on a course of spiritual self-destruction:

2 Timothy 4:

²Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. ³For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; ⁴And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

The tragedy of what began as the Great Advent Movement is that contemporary Seventh-day Adventist pastors echo Billy Graham's aversion to "heavy theology," and this writer has heard a pastor, a nice young man, describe activists for sound doctrine as "disagreeable persons." These continue to "new-model the cause," drifting further and further away from the original dynamic Advent Movement.

GRAHAM'S MAJOR ROLE IN GREAT APOSTASY AND ECUMENISM

In retrospect Billy Graham can be seen as a major agent of the final great apostasy, driven by the workings of the spirits of devils as prophesied in Rev. 16:13-14:

Evangelicalism and the Charismatic Movement

Over the past four decades, the charismatic movement has leavened evangelicalism with its mystical approach to the Christian life and its sensual contemporary worship music.

Prior to the 1970s, most evangelicals looked upon the Pentecostal-Charismatic movement as fanaticism and worse.

Arno Gaebelein said, “We are convinced that this movement is one which is not of God” (Our Hope, July 1907).

Harry Ironside called it “the disgusting tongues movement” and stated that “superstition and fanaticism of the grossest character find a ‘hotbed’ in their midst” (Ironside, Holiness: The False and the True, 1912).

Brethren minister Louis Bauman wrote in 1941 that “probably the most wide-spread of all satanic phenomena today is the demonic imitation of the apostolic gift of tongues.” He further asserted, “The first miracle that Satan ever wrought was to cause the serpent to speak in a tongue. It would appear he is still working his same original miracle.”

R.A. Torrey said Pentecostalism is “emphatically not of God, and founded by a sodomite.”

G. Campbell Morgan called Azusa Street Pentecostalism “the last vomit of Satan.”

Merrill Unger represented the predominant view in the 1960s when he called the Charismatic Movement “widespread confusion.” He said: “When the Word of God is given preeminence and when sound Bible doctrine, especially in the sphere of the theology of the Holy Spirit is stressed and made the test of experience, the claims of charismatic Christianity will be rejected.”

The man who helped break down the resistance against the Pentecostal-Charismatic movements was none other than Billy Graham, the prince of evangelicalism. In 1962, Graham spoke at the Full Gospel Business Men's International (FGBMI) conference and praised the charismatic-ecumenical movement. Graham was featured on the cover of the October 1962 issue of the FGBMI’s Voice magazine.

In 1967, Graham was the keynote speaker at the dedication ceremony of Oral Roberts University. No personality represented a more radical, unscriptural, wild-eyed brand of Pentecostalism than Oral Roberts. He claimed apostolic healing power, but many died during his healing crusades, and after he claimed that a 900-foot-tall Jesus promised His blessing on the City of Faith hospital, it went bankrupt.

By the 1970s, the attitude within evangelicalism had changed dramatically.

In March 1972, Christianity Today observed: “A new era of the Spirit has begun. The charismatic experience moves Christians far beyond glossalalia [tongues speaking]. ... There is light on the horizon. An evangelical renaissance is becoming visible along the Christian highway, from the frontiers of the sects to the high places of the Roman Catholic communion. This appears to be one of the most strategic moments in the church’s history.”

By the 1970s, “the majority of younger evangelicals in the Church of England were charismatic” (Iain Murray, Evangelicalism Divided, p. 135). By 1987, the Evangelical Times in England observed “that a large--some would say the greater--part of the evangelical world is in some measure influenced by the various branches of the charismatic scene.” By 1999, the Evangelical Alliance in England included Pentecostals at every level of leadership, and “no group on the council is opposed to the Pentecostal position” (Renewal, March 1999).

The same was true in the United States. By 1992, 80% of the membership of the National Association of Evangelicals was Pentecostal, up from 62% in 1987, and the president of the NAE, Don Argue, belonged to the Assemblies of God.

Roughly half of the attendees at Billy Graham’s 1983 Conference for Itinerant Evangelists in Amsterdam were Pentecostal or Charismatic.

In 1984 Fuller Theological Seminary made Pentecostal David DuPlessis its “resident consultant on ecumenical affairs” and in 1985 Fuller established the “David J. DuPlessis Center for Christian Spirituality.” By then both the dean of Fuller Theological Seminary and the president of Gordon-Conwell Seminary were Pentecostals.

In 1989 J.I. Packer, a professor at Regent College and a senior editor of Christianity Today, said the Charismatic movement “must be adjudged a work of God” (Calvary Contender, July 15, 1989). He said, “Sharing charismatic experience ... is often declared ... to unify Protestants and Roman Catholics at a deeper level than that at which their doctrine divides them. This, if so, gives charismaticism great ecumenical significance.”

Many of the evangelicals that have adopted a positive view of the Charismatic movement do not call themselves Charismatic. The term “third wave” was coined in the 1980s by Fuller Seminary professor Peter Wagner.

He said the first wave was Pentecostalism in the early 1900s; the second wave was the Charismatic movement of the 1960s; and the third wave has been occurring since the 1980s among evangelicals. [Cf. What is the Fulfilled Prophecy of Jesus Saying?]

“The Third Wave is a new moving of the Holy Spirit among evangelicals who, for one reason or another, have chosen not to identify with either the Pentecostals or the charismatics. Its roots go back a little further, but I see it as mainly a movement beginning in the 1980s and gathering momentum through the closing years of the twentieth century. ... I see the Third Wave as distinct from, but at the same time very similar to the first and second waves. ... The major variation comes in the understanding of the meaning of baptism in the Holy Spirit and the role of tongues in authenticating this. I myself, for example, would rather not have people call me a charismatic. I do not consider myself a charismatic. I am simply an evangelical Congregationalist who is open to the Holy Spirit working through me and my church in any way he chooses” (Wagner, The Third Wave of the Holy Spirit, 1988, pp. 18-19).

The Third Wave is characterized by the following:

* An acceptance of “tongues speaking” as legitimate even though it is mere gibberish

* An openness to divine healing as something promised by God

* A yearning for experiential worship that involves yielding to sensual contemporary music

* A focus on charismatic style spiritual warfare, including the concept of territorial spirits that must be identified and bound by prayer before evangelism can be successful

* An openness to the continued gift of prophecy

* An ecumenical mindset

It is evident that the Billy Graham crusades fitted hand in glove with the developing charismatic, ecumenical movement, which was clearly controlled by the spirits of Rev. 16:13-14, and this is underscored by the history of the Full Gospel Business Men's Fellowship International, mentioned in the last quotation above, which ensnared professionals and politicians as well as businessmen into a false and fraudulent form of Christianity:

Demos Sakarian and the His Ecumenical Businessmen

In many countries of the world one can go to a fashionable hotel and find a Saturday breakfast meeting of the Full Gospel Business Men’s Fellowship International (FGBMFI). There they will see businessmen raising their hands in adoration and praise to the Lord. A speaker, most likely not an ordained minister, would give a talk or Bible teaching, and others would be invited to witness to what the Lord has done in their lives. At times the “MC” - facilitator of these breakfast meetings would ask those present to raise their hands in recognition as he called out the major denominations, Baptist, Methodists, Presbyterians, Catholics, etc. This ritual makes it clear to all that these breakfast meetings were ecumenical fellowships.[2]

The FGBMFI has brought the Gospel to millions of men all over the world, and then immediately baptized many of them in the Holy Spirit –something few other churches or para-churches are likely to do. This has been done mostly by the thousands (and ultimately hundreds of thousands) of members taking the trouble to invite unbelieving friends, nominal Christians, and outright skeptics to the meetings with the lure of a free breakfast. In these meeting there have always been a steady stream of healings and deliverance prayer that occurs either across the breakfast table, in a healing line, or in spontaneous prayer groups that form as the official meeting adjourn. This is evangelization as in the Hebrews 2: 1-4 model at its best.

Most Church historians date the beginning of the Charismatic Renewal at 1960, with the incident at St. Marks in California, when the Rev. Dennis Bennett declared before his congregation that he spoke in tongues. But if by the Charismatic Renewal is meant the coming of Pentecostalism to mainline Christians, a good case can be made that the Renewal really began a decade earlier with the founding of the FGBMFI. It was in these meetings that thousands of men from the mainline denominations met in worshipful, ecumenical fellowship and received the Gifts of the Spirit. In the United States, where the FGBMFI began, thousands of persons received the Gifts of the Spirit in FGBMFI meetings during the 1950s, and hundreds of thousands in the 1960s and 1970s. In fact, the FGBMFI was the major institution driving the remarkable expansion of Renewalist (Pentecostal, Charismatic and “Third Wave”) churches during those decades. But back in the 1950s it served as a “Holy Ghost holding tank” for thousands of persons in the mainline denominations who were baptized by the Spirit, but could not practice the Gifts in their churches, but they could and did at the Saturday breakfast meetings. . .

By 1993, when Demos died, the FBBMFI in the United States was undergoing a decline – the natural course of a revival institution that succeeded. Its initial message: that God acted in everyday life of ordinary people with the power of the Spirit, and the Gifts of the Spirit, was now common, if not universally accepted. The theology of Faith Idealism, and Christian NewThought prosperity, which it did so much to spread, was well established if still controversial.

From the 1980s the FGBMFI underwent a tremendous expansion overseas, especially in the 3rd World. In many of these countries the combination of the concepts of “businessman” with “honesty” and “holiness” and the power of the Spirit had never been made. The FGBMFI presence and modeling have been truly revolutionary. It suddenly injects, in a sense, the “Protestant Ethic” and Puritan respect for commercial life in places where those things were unknown. Especially in Africa, the FGBMFI has been a conduit for the spread of the Charismatic renewal and the Gifts of the Spirit.[8] In that continent, where many persons are still under the bondage of witchcraft and almost everyone believes in the spiritual dimensions of dreams and visions, the strong Pentecostal/charismatic message of FGBMFI speakers is readily accepted. [9] Similarly, the FGBMFI has experienced dramatic successes in Latin America in recent decades.

But in perspective, it may be that its revolutionary and continued “worship ecumenism” practiced at all FGBMFI meetings is its greatest legacy. . .

[2]I first encountered the FGBMFI as a new and very “Catholic” Charismatic about 1975. I was struck by this ritual of denominational ecumenism. Having been well educated in Church history it impressed me immediately that such a multidenominational meeting would not have been held two hundred years ago, and three hundred years ago they might have been at each other’s throats with the cutlery on the table. Catholics would have had all Protestants declared as heretics and worthy of the stake. Calvinists would have attempted the same for the Baptists. This “worshiping ecumenicism,” where doctrines were NOT discussed, prompted me to reconsider the meaning of heresy, and its over use in conservative theological circles. . .

Far from leading men and women to the true Christ, Billy Graham's work has had the opposite effect:

5 ways America changed God

5. The Billy Graham effect

As the country sought healing after World War II, Americans began searching for hope in the God-smorgasbord that Christianity had laid out, from Bible-believing fundamentalism to Holy Ghost-inspired Pentecostalism, from education-minded Roman Catholicism to progressive-leaning high church spiritualism.

One man seemed capable of connecting across church and denominational lines: Billy Graham.

Unrestrained by the limitations of a home church, Graham’s God evolved into a deity that a variety of Americans wanted to know. Graham’s God wooed conservative and charismatic believers alike, and didn’t offend most Catholic and Episcopalian believers.

Amid the large and varied buffet, Graham’s God was like a peanut butter-and-jelly sandwich, a divine brand delivered using books, television, radio, magazine publishing and live events.

In many ways, Graham was the first to unleash the power of GOD®. And that changed everything.

Today, most Christians can’t distinguish between God and GOD®, which has made America’s deity into a superpower, an almighty deity that can be mixed with just about anything, from enterprise to politics, from hate campaigns to promises of prosperity.

Here in America, God is constantly changing. It’s a divine story that we edit and manipulate—sometimes innocently and sometimes intentionally—into our own narratives.

We create a most powerful God who serves our own agendas, whether they be cities built on hills or presidential elections.

THE ASCENDANCY OF THE CHIEF AMONG FALSE GODS

The worship of GOD® is the product of the work of the Pentecostal charismatics and the catalyst of Billy Graham's evangelistic crusades. GOD® is unquestionably a false god, and many false gods have plagued the people of God from the time that Satan gained the victory over Adam in the Garden of Eden.

No genuine Christian would be unaware of how he deceived Eve and through her overcame and wrested sovereignty over this world from Adam. The genuine Christian is also aware that in exercise of his temporary sovereignty Satan boldly and presumptuously dared to tempt the One whom he knew to be the Divine Son of God in the wilderness. Satan is a defeated foe since the Divine sacrifice Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary; but judgment is yet to be executed upon him. In this sense he is still permitted to carry on with his pretense of being the God of this world until his iniquity is fully matured. The professed Christian who is ignorant of this fact is without excuse for succumbing to the deceptions of the devil as they joyfully proclaim their love for "the Lord" and commit themselves to follow him. Of necessity the false Lord of this world is warring against the Holy Spirit, the only one whom the Lord Jesus Christ promised would guide His followers into all Truth. Any spirit which leads into error is not the true Spirit of God; hence the necessity of knowing the doctrines and prophecies of the Bible which expose the impostor. This is emphasized in numerous passages of Scripture; above all in the words of Jesus Christ Himself (Matt. 24:23-25,) and particularly in the Apostle Paul's great prophecy of the end time in 2Thess. 2:3-12. Applying the words of Jesus Christ in a different context, "This day [in these times] is this scripture fulfilled" in our sight.

BAAL - CHIEF OF ALL FALSE GODS

Although Satan has used many false gods to entrap humanity, the chief has always been the one conceived in ancient Babylon: Lord Baal, whose worship spread throughout the world wherever human beings settled, and corrupted ancient Israel:

Ba‘al Worship in the Old Testament

While we have no surviving Canaanite religious texts, the accounts of Ba‘al worship in the Old Testament correspond closely to the existing versions of the Ba‘al myth and what we know of religious practices in surrounding areas. The influence of this religious system on Israel can hardly be overestimated. Contrary to how some statements in the biblical traditions are often understood, the problem that faced Israel through most of its history was not that the people totally abandoned Yahweh for the worship of Ba‘al. Rather the problem was syncretism, the blending of Yahweh worship with Ba’al worship.

Yahweh has been experienced as a God of power, the God who fought Pharaoh, who parted the Reed Sea, who led the Israelites through the desert, who parted the Jordan, who brought them into the land by toppling the walls of Jericho and routing the Canaanite and Philistine armies. This led to the idea that Yahweh, the God of the patriarchs, was a powerful warrior God, the God of the desert who could be counted on to march in with his heavenly armies in times of crisis. However, as the Israelites settled into the land, they encountered the fertility cult of Ba‘al. They were easily convinced that while Yahweh may be God of the desert and God of battles and God of power, it was Ba‘al who was in charge of the more mundane aspects of everyday life, such as rain and crops and livestock.

The Israelites never abandoned the worship of Yahweh. They simply added the worship of Ba‘al to their worship of Yahweh (called syncretism). They had one God for crises and another god for everyday life. The actual worship of Ba‘al was carried out in terms of imitative magic whereby sexual acts by both male and female temple prostitutes were understood to arouse Ba‘al who then brought rain to make Mother Earth fertile (in some forms of the myth, represented by a female consort, Asherah or Astarte).

When crops were abundant, Ba‘al was praised and thanked for his abundant rain. It is in this context that drought had such impact throughout the biblical traditions. Not only was lack of rain a threat to survival, it was also a sign that the gods of the Ba‘al myth were unhappy. It is this context that the "contest" between Elijah and the prophets of Ba’al carries such significance. The issue is really who controls the rain, Ba‘al or Yahweh.

Hosea suggests and Jeremiah graphically depicts the debauchery and excesses that developed in the worship of Ba‘al. Because of the sexual overtones of Ba‘al worship, it was easy to use the metaphor of adultery or prostitution to describe the problem that such syncretism raised for Israel. The prophets are consistent in condemning Ba‘al worship as a sign of being unfaithful to their covenant relationship with Yahweh. It is also in this context that the idea of Yahweh being a "jealous" God comes into play (see God as a "jealous" God). The idea here is not an emotional or arrogant dimension, but rather simply an assertion that if God alone is God, as the shema in Deuteronomy 6:4 asserts, then they cannot worship both Yahweh and Ba‘al. . .

Up to this point the author is stating solid historical facts. Then he spoils it by this sentence suggesting a lack of belief in the Divine inspiration of the Bible: "It is likely in response to the Ba‘al myth that Israelites eventually developed their profound doctrine of creation." This flows from Higher Criticism. Ironically this is a denigration of the true God's revelation of Himself and His Truth in the Bible. It is attributable to the influence of the premier religious body promoting Baal Worship over the centuries and into the present, and fulfilling the Apostle Paul's great prophecy of 2 Thess. 2. The Church of Rome is the veritable temple of Baal cloaked in the garb of "Christianity." (Cf. Baal is the Catholic God.)

"Baal is the Catholic God" lists fifty-three Roman Catholic doctrines and symbols that mirror those of Baal. Central to these doctrines and symbols is the worship of the Triune God, who is identical to Lord Baal. Note that “The ancient Babylonians recognised the doctrine of a trinity, or three persons in one god. This is precisely the Roman Catholic definition of the Trinity, with emphasis on the one being. (Cf. "In reply to your first question," and read down to "It is all of one source.") The myth of the Triune God has been received by the vast majority of Protestant Churches, including the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The conclusion is irresistible that Baal has become the dominant God of the corporate body of Adventists, as was the case in Ancient Israel for such astonishingly long periods of time. However, in the Independent Ministries there is an equally deadly deviance from the Truth revealed about the Godhead, in an unwitting demonstration of Semi-Arianism. This is a denial of the eternal equality and co-existence of the pre-existent Christ with God the Father as a dual Godhead. They argue that He was the Son of God by generation before His Incarnation, and therefore a lesser God. The Semi-Arians also deny the Personhood of the Holy Spirit. Whether or not this is a form of Baal worship may be debatable; but they are certainly not advocating the worship of the true Godhead. Theirs is a problem similar to that of Judaism, which will not recognize Jesus Christ as one of the New Testament Trio of true Gods:

The Judaism that emerged after the exile in the reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah was passionately monotheistic, and has remained so ever since. In fact, it was partly that passion for monotheism that arose from the purge of Ba‘al worship from their corporate consciousness that caused Judaism to have problems accepting Jesus as the Son of God. For many faithful Jews, that sounded too much like a return to a polytheistic syncretism. (Ba‘al Worship in the Old Testament.)

Both the Jews and the Semi-Arians are in dire straits spiritually, since no-one has access to the Father but by Jesus Christ who revealed Himself to be the fully Divine "I AM" in the flesh. The following statement of Ellen G. White can be applied to the Semi-Arians:

At the time of the loud cry of the third angel those who have been in any measure blinded by the enemy, who have not fully recovered themselves from the snare of Satan, will be in peril, because it will be difficult for them to discern the light from heaven, and they will be inclined to accept falsehood. Their erroneous experience will color their thoughts, their decisions, their propositions, their counsels. The evidences that God has given will be no evidence to those who have blinded their eyes by choosing darkness rather than light. After rejecting light, they will originate theories which they will call "light," but which the Lord calls, "Sparks of their own kindling," by which they will direct their steps. . . (Let the Trumpet Give a Certain Sound, Review and Herald, December 13, 1892)

There is hardly a better descriptive word for "Sparks of their own kindling" than "delusions," and it applies to the hierarchy of the Seventh-day Adventist Church as well as to misguided Independents who have a zeal that is not according to knowledge

"No heavy theology," the guiding principle of Billy Graham, "America's Pastor," has prevailed against the advanced Bible doctrines of the Advent Movement. Seventh-day Adventist pastors and teachers also now subscribe to "no heavy theology," and have convinced the many in the Church that salvation depends only on a confession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. The critical problem is the false "Lord Baal" claiming to be Jesus Christ. How can we identify him apart from the Word of God? Jesus Christ gave the clearest possible warning in Matthew 24 that the deceptions of false christs and false prophets would be so overwhelming that "if it were possible " "they shall deceive the very elect." Ellen G. White warned, "So closely will the counterfeit resemble the true that it will be impossible to distinguish between them except by the Holy Scriptures." (Great Controversy, p. 593.)

THE FOUNDER OF POST-FLOOD WORSHIP OF THE CHIEF FALSE GOD

The "Lord Baal" is the ultimate deceiver of these times. It is well to consider his origin and all of the implications of falling under his spell:

Nimrod the Founder of the Occult and Babylon

The Bible develops a very prominent and notorious character named Nimrod. He was the sixth son born of Cush. His name in Hebrew means to rebel. He was the founder of Babylon and Assyria. He is mentioned in I Chronicles 1: 10, Micah 5: 6 and in Genesis 10: 8b-9. The Hebrew text states that he was a mighty hunter before the Lord. This is indicative of his antagonism and opposition to God. He was wicked and made the whole world rebel through the building of the Tower of Babel. He was the first to establish kingdoms. . .

Josephus says:

“Now it was Nimrod who excited them to such an affront and contempt of God. He was the grandson of Ham the son of Noah. He was a bold man, and of great strength of hand. He persuaded them not to ascribe it to God, as if it was through his means they were happy, but to believe that it was their own courage, which procured that happiness. He also gradually changed the government into tyranny, seeing no other way of turning men from the fear of God, but to bring them into a constant dependence on his power…(Antiquities of the Jews Chapter 4:2)”. . .

Even though Semiramis claimed to be a virgin she had another son, named Tammuz, who she said was the reincarnation of Nimrod. She became known as the “Virgin Mother”, “Holy Mother” and the “Queen of Heaven” and was symbolized by the Moon. So began the worship of Semiramis and the child-god, and the whole paraphernalia of the Babylonian religious system.

From various ancient sources, it seems that Nimrod’s wife/mother; Semiramis was high priestess of the Babel religion and the founder of all mystery religions as well as goddess. . .

According to the cult of Ishtar, Tammuz was conceived by a sunbeam, a counterfeit version of Jesus’ virgin birth. Tammuz corresponded to Baal in Phoenicia, Osiris in Egypt, Eros in Greece, and Cupid in Rome. In every case, the worship of those gods and goddesses was associated with sexual immorality. . .

In its organized form false religion began with the tower of Babel and Nimrod, from which Babylon derives its name. . . Under the leadership of the proud and apostate Nimrod they planned to storm heaven and unify their power and prestige in a great worldwide system of worship. That was man’s first counterfeit religion, from which every other false religion in one way or another has sprung. . .

The false Lord of the counterfeit religion established by Semiramis was a Triad/Trinity comprised of Nimrod, Tammuz, and Semiramis herself, now universally worshipped under the delusion that they are the same as the true Godhead.

This is the central evidence of Baal worship in his own temple, the Church of Rome, and in the Protestant world including the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The following is quoted from a study on this website titled "GODHEAD CONFUSION IN SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST COMMUNITY":

Elder Grotheer refers to the pagan triad in WWN10(86) under the title “THAT I MAY KNOW HIM”:

The method of how we should approach this doctrine was discussed. Do we seek to move from the pagan triad concept to the truth about God, or do we recognize paganism for what it is, and seek to find the true picture of God in the Old Testament as revealed in the earthly sanctuary - God seated between the cherubim - and one of those cherubim a created being? . . .

A little thought over the origin of sin in Heaven and its transfer to this planet due to the surrender of our first parents to the sophistry of Lucifer gives insight as to the why of the pagan trinity concepts with their multiple triads. It also gives meaning to "the serpent's" suggestion - "Ye shall be as gods." (Gen. 3:5) . . .

A web page of the United Church of God titled “How Ancient Trinitarian Gods Influenced Adoption of the Trinity” drives home the point about the pagan origins of the Trinity dogma. It opens with this statement: “Many who believe in the Trinity are surprised, perhaps shocked, to learn that the idea of divine beings existing as trinities or triads long predated Christianity. Yet, as we will see, the evidence is abundantly documented.”

The article goes on to document the triad/trinity concepts of the Sumerians and Babylonians:

Sumeria

“The universe was divided into three regions each of which became the domain of a god. Anu’s share was the sky. The earth was given to Enlil. Ea became the ruler of the waters. Together they constituted the triad of the Great Gods” ( The Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology, 1994, pp. 54-55)

Babylonia

“The ancient Babylonians recognised the doctrine of a trinity, or three persons in one god — as appears from a composite god with three heads forming part of their mythology, and the use of the equilateral triangle, also, as an emblem of such trinity in unity” (Thomas Dennis Rock, The Mystical Woman and the Cities of the Nations, 1867, pp. 22-23). (Original italics)

Similar belief in a divine trinity is documented for India, Greece, Egypt, Rome, and also the Phoenicians, the Germanic nations, and the Celts.

The last two paragraphs of the United Church of God paper state as follows:

James Bonwick summarized the story well on page 396 of his 1878 work Egyptian Belief and Modern Thought: “It is an undoubted fact that more or less all over the world the deities are in triads. This rule applies to eastern and western hemispheres, to north and south.

“Further, it is observed that, in some mystical way, the triad of three persons is one. The first is as the second or third, the second as first or third, the third as first or second; in fact, they are each other, one and the same individual being. The definition of Athanasius, who lived in Egypt, applies to the trinities of all heathen religions.” (Original italics; underscored emphasis added.))

It bears repeating as referenced earlier in this writing, that the critically important point generally not recognized is the peculiar nature of the Trinity God of the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant churches that have followed it, including the contemporary Seventh-day Adventist Church. This God is not three beings, or three Gods, but one being in a strange composite of three "persons."

The epitome of Baal worship is exhibited in the history and contemporary characteristics of the Roman Catholic Church. It is not difficult for the Bible Christian to discern the qualities of the "proud and apostate Nimrod," in the religion of the papacy, which displays "antagonism and opposition to God" in the proud boasts of the papal office and the "affront and contempt of God" inherent in arrogant papal claims of the power to enter even into the Holy of Holies of the heavens. Immorality is rampant in the ranks of the Institution's false priesthood, and immorality on the part of the laity is condoned by the offer of pardons in the confessional.

As to the Evangelicals, under the delusion that they worship the true God they perceive that there is Baal worship in America, but attribute it to "Secular humanism":

Matt Barber on today’s Baal worshipers

Selected parts:

Modern-day liberals – or “progressives” as they more discreetly prefer – labor under an awkward misconception; namely, that there is anything remotely “progressive” about the fundamental canons of their blind, secular-humanist faith. In fact, today’s liberalism is largely a sanitized retread of an antiquated mythology – one that significantly predates the only truly progressive movement: biblical Christianity.

The principal pillars of Baalism were child sacrifice, sexual immorality (both heterosexual and homosexual) and pantheism (reverence of creation over the Creator). . .

The problem with this point of view is that "Secular humanism posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or a god," (Secular humanism.) Worshippers of Baal in Christianity believe that there is a God; and they are deceived into worshipping the false Lord Baal in place of the Heavenly Trio of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Cf. Matt. 28:19.) It is an incontrovertible fact that the Trinity almost universally worshiped in Christendom is identical to the Babylonian Triad/Trinity, which also plagued ancient Israel where Baal worship was pervasive:

Who was the god Baal?

Baal was the name of the main god of the Canaanites in Old Testament times. Baal worship served as a problem to Israel throughout the period of the judges (Judges 3:7) and was prevalent in the reign of King Ahab of the northern kingdom of Israel (1 Kings 16:31-33).

Judah, the southern kingdom, also struggled with Baal worship. In 2 Chronicles 28:1-4 we read, "Ahaz was twenty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem. And he did not do what was right in the eyes of the LORD, as his father David had done, but he walked in the ways of the kings of Israel. He even made metal images for the Baals, and he made offerings in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom and burned his sons as an offering, according to the abominations of the nations whom the LORD drove out before the people of Israel. And he sacrificed and made offerings on the high places and on the hills and under every green tree." The Lord judged Judah by allowing the king of Syria and the king of Israel to defeat Judah in battle and enslave hundreds of thousands of captives (2 Chronicles 28:5-7).

WILFUL IGNORANCE OF THE TRUE GOD AND SOUND DOCTRINE REVEALED IN THE HOLY BIBLE

It was in the Northern Kingdom that Hosea prophesied. The vital importance of a perfected knowledge of the true God is emphasized by the fact that it was in the Northern Kingdom besieged by Baal worship that God, in Hosea 4:6 quoted above, condemned the rejection of knowledge. Had Israel not rejected this knowledge she could more readily have recognized the false religion of Baal corrupting her worship.

Consider the consequences of arrogantly repudiating "heavy theology." Darkness now "covers the earth, and gross darkness the people," (Isa. 60:2a.) Those Evangelicals who still have a proper regard for biblical knowledge deplore the contemporary ignorance of the Scriptures. The apostates are without excuse. Hosea 4:6 sounds the warning against ignorance. Willingly choosing ignorance exhibits "affront and contempt of God" in Jesus Christ Who promised in John 16:13: "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth . . ."

The nature of guidance "into all truth" is declared unequivocally by the Apostle Paul in Heb. 5. In verses 9 & 10 he continues with the theme of the high priestly ministry of Jesus Christ thus: "And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him, called by God as High Priest “according to the order of Melchizedek” (NKJV.) Then he continues in verses 11-14

Of whom we have much to say, and hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food. For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

The strong meat is clearly the revelation of Jesus Christ's ministry in the heavenly sanctuary. Paul further emphasizes the critical importance of thorough study of the Bible in 2 Timothy 2:15: "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman who needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." What are the "proud and apostate" religious leaders who spurn the Word of God other than the prophets of Baal!

Here it must be re-emphasized that the Bible is the only means by which to discern the "antagonism and opposition to God" that is inherent in Baal worship. This essential enlightenment from the Word of God has been neutralized, to the extent that both the people and their religious leaders are blinded and deluded into believing that they are worshipping the true Godhead when in reality they have surrendered to the worship of Satan. As referenced earlier in this review of final world events, this has been the result of Higher Criticism.

To fully realize the extent to which the political Evangelicals are in rebellion against the true Godhead, it is helpful to quote some relevant verses of Scripture. Jesus said, "My Kingdom is not an earthly kingdom. If it were, my followers would fight to keep me from being handed over to the Jewish leaders. But my Kingdom is not of this world," (John 18:36; NLT.) He also established the principle of separation of Church and State: "And he saith unto them, "Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's" (Matt. 22:20-21.) In the words of the Apostle Paul:

But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel. . .

Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear (Heb. 12: 22-24, 28.)

Can the Scriptures be any clearer in establishing that Jesus Christ's kingdom is totally separate from this world, and centered in heaven? But here is what the Evangelicals teach:

Kingdom-Now Evangelicals

While I believe Rome leads the way with the bold claim that God chose Peter and the succeeding popes to take the title of “Vicar of Christ” and determine what the sheep should or should not believe, other groups believe they have been called to usher in or even prepare and set up the kingdom of God here on Earth without the presence of the King. Often taking the position that Jesus will not actually physically return to rule and reign for a period of one thousand years, these groups see themselves as chosen by God to be human vessels for this purpose.

Common names for this teaching are: Kingdom Now, Dominion Theology, and Reconstructionism. It is the idea that before Christ can return, the world must be brought together in unity and perfection, and this work will be done by the Christian church. Rick Warren’s Purpose Driven P.E.A.C.E. Plan, Jim Wallis’ social gospel agenda, and Tony Campolo or Brian McLaren’s emergent church are a few of the avenues through which this is being propagated. The goal is to basically eradicate all the world’s ills (e.g., disease, poverty, terrorism, and pollution) and thus, we will have created a “Heaven on Earth” Utopia.

While creating such a world sounds very good, it is not what the Bible says is going to happen. Many Scriptures, in both the Old and New Testaments, describe a very different scenario, such as the following:

Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake. And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. (Matthew 24:9-14) . . .

This movement has swept the planet, and those who refuse to join hands are considered “colonial,” “militant fundamentalists,” and “narrow-minded crackpots” who are not willing to catch the “new wave” and get on board with the mighty revival that is moving the world toward unity and peace. Many of the leaders in this movement have no problem whatsoever joining with the pope in Rome and the kingdom-of-Earth plans he has for joining together with other religions, including Islam. . .

A STATISM IN DEFIANCE OF ALMIGHTY GOD

Viewing this movement, can one imagine a greater "affront and contempt of God" and the promises of His Word? This is Baal worship, and follows the path of the "proud and apostate Nimrod," who re-instituted "Statism" after the flood in defiance of God:

NIMROD: THE FIRST POLITICIAN

Nimrod the Statist

While we must remember that Cain was the first Statist, [Gen. 4:17b] (commentators refer to Nimrod as the first statist because of the greater amount of Biblical data on Nimrod), we must see Nimrod's infamy stemming from his move out of the Patriarchal structure ordained by God and into a non-Familial system of government. While one could possibly tolerate a person who wanted to establish Godly non-Familial systems of government in the place of unGodly and oppressive Families, one can in no way tolerate Nimrod's deplorable actions. He sought, following Cain, to completely overthrow God's Family-centered order; the social system in which obedient Families were the source of all order and prosperity. Nimrod sought to establish cities of oppression in the place of godly Families like Noah's or Abraham's. Thomas Whitelaw notes of Nimrod's revolution:

Under him, society passed from the patriarchal condition, in which each separate clan or tribe owns the sway of its natural head, into that (more abject or more civilized according as it is viewed) in which many different clans or tribes recognize the sway of one who is not their natural head, but has acquired his ascendency and dominion by conquest.

Franz Delitzsch (1888) confirms our view of Nimrod as the first political leader (of the post-Flood world):

What the narrative has in view is not the greatness of Nimrod as a hunter, but his importance as the founder of a state. The hunter without equal was also the first monarch.

John P. Lange (1864) suggests that the move from Family-government to the predominance of the "State" was not without conflict:

This establishment of an empire transforming the patriarchal clan-governments into one monarchy is not to be thought of as happening without force. The hunter becomes a subjugator of men, in other words, a conquerer.

Nimrod attempted to move culture away from the Family and towards a non-Familial, and hence oppressive and impersonal, form of "government." The conservative Leupold (1942) describes the centrality of the monarch in this "government."

So this inciter to revolt (Nimrod) came to be the first tyrant upon the earth, oppressing others and using them for the furtherance of his own interests.

He notes how this was a break with the Lord's ordination:

Here is the real story of the founding of empires, for that matter, of the first empires. Having the type of character that we find described in vv. 8-9 in the person of Nimrod, we must needs regard both Babylon and Assyria as exponents of the spirit of this world. This attitude over against Babylon is the attitude of the Scriptures in prophetic utterances (cf. Isa. 13, also Isa. 47) as well as in the book of Revelation (18:21). These early kingdoms or empires are, therefore to be regarded as the achievements of a lawless fellow who taught men to revolt against duly constituted authority.

The phrase "duly constituted authority" is an interesting one. Most assuredly the Family was "duly constituted." Can we say the same thing about the "State"? Was there a "State" at the time Nimrod left the Household of Faith? Does the "State" have any other origin than in Nimrod's Babylon? Clearly, the departure from Patriarchal society came about through Nimrod's apostasy. John Gill (1763) comments on Genesis 10:8:

He began to be a mighty one on the earth; that is, he was the first that formed a plan of government, and brought men into subjection to it; for this refers not to his gigantic stature, as if he was a giant, as the Septuagint renders; or a strong robust man, as Onkelos; nor to his moral character, as the Targum of Jonathan, which is "he began to be mighty in sin, and to rebel before the Lord in the earth;" but to his civil character, as a ruler and governor: he was the first that reduced bodies of people and various cities into one form of government, and became the head of them; either by force and usurpation, or it may be with the consent of the people, through his persuasion of them. . . .

One could easily get the impression that there was no government before Nimrod. Nimrod did not bring us government, he brought us "the government." We should not say "there was no government before Nimrod." There was no "State" before Nimrod (or Cain), but there was social order, and the source of this well-governed society was the Family.

The progenitors of Statism were Cain and Nimrod! What a satanic principle to follow! The political Evangelicals are worshippers of Baal, as are the hierarchy and followers of Rome, the temple of Baal! The role of the family for preservation of knowledge of God and His Truth continues today as in the time of the patriarchs. The Roman Catholics and their Evangelical allies already intrude into the most private aspects of family life under the guise of promoting "family values." In reality they intend to impose the theocratic governance of Nimrod on the nation (and the world) in defiance of direct guidance of the Godhead on the family unit by the Holy Spirit.

CONSEQUENCES OF BIBLE ILLITERACY AND FALSE DOCTRINE

This is not the end of the indictment of Baalism. As the result of the Bible illiteracy engendered by Higher Criticism, the rejection of "heavy theology," and the teaching that all that is required for salvation is a simple affirmation of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, millions of hapless victims believe themselves to be "born again" without any understanding of the saving and cleansing power of Jesus. The Bible teaches that "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness," (1 John 1:9;) "But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin," (1 John 1:7.) The plight of millions who are deluded into believing that they are "born again" when there is no evidence of a corresponding conversion and sanctification by the cleansing power of the Holy Spirit is tragic. The tragedy is compounded by the Calvinist doctrine of "once saved always saved," which is excoriated in the following essay by a Wesleyan Methodist:

The real problem with ‘Once Saved Always Saved’

I just finished reading the New York Times article about Robert L. Dear Jr, the shooter in the recent Planned Parenthood attack in Colorado Springs. In the article, Dear is described as a serial philanderer, gambler, an abusive husband/boyfriend and a Christian.

A Christian?

Well, yes, of course. Why not?

I mean, once saved always saved, right? That’s what Dear believed, anyway: “He says that as long as he believes he will be saved, he can do whatever he pleases.”

And herein lies my biggest problem with not only Robert Dear, but all persons who espouse some doctrine of unchecked Once Saved Always Saved. How are you going to tell me that a person can claim to be a follower of the crucified Messiah, claim to be indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and yet live a life that is in complete and utter contradiction with everything that God stands for?

How can you have, as the article contends, “a man of religious conviction who sinned openly, a man who craved solitude and near-constant female company, a man who successfully wooed women but, some of them say, also abused them. [A man who] frequented marijuana websites, then argued with other posters, often through heated religious screeds” who is also a Christian?

This kind of thing, where a man can live in complete contradiction to the character of the gospel and yet still believe himself to be a Christian, is only possible because of a doctrine that is downright false. There is absolutely no point in all of Scripture where mere confession of belief warrants a free ticket to heaven no matter what one does in this life. You can ask Jesus into your heart 8 million times, but if you live the kind of life described above, you need to know that you are not a Christian.

This is what I find so problematic about the doctrine of Once Saved Always Saved. It throws the entire gospel under the bus of the human need for security, however false that security may be. It offers certitude where none should be offered. It allows us to live how we want to live without demanding any conformity to the image of Christ, any growth in holiness, any perseverance. . .

The following lengthy essay was written by a Seventh-day Adventist pastor; one who appears not to have climbed onto the "no heavy theology" bandwagon. It is well supported by texts from the Bible:

Once Saved, Always Saved?

A battle has raged in theological circles in the last few decades about the eternal security of the believer, sometimes called "once saved, always saved." Let's examine this issue, as usual, only on the basis of what Scripture says and nothing else. To find and know the truth, we must cast aside whatever preconceptions we have, whatever teachings we have heard from men, and be prepared to accept God's word for what it says.

Why should we bother to consider this subject? Isn't it sufficient to simply have a close relationship with Christ, as a servant of the Lord Jesus, and seek to obey him in all things? For those who have that, of course that is sufficient. But there are teachings, such as the "once saved, always saved" doctrine that cause people to claim to be Christians, pointing with conviction to the day on which they confessed their faith, but thereafter living as the world, indistinguishable from the world. In many communities there is a high level of hypocrisy with "Christians" attending church but throughout the week living lives which rival in wickedness the worst of unbelievers.

Two teachings come immediately to mind which stress the spiritual danger of such beliefs and actions. Jesus limited entrance into the kingdom when he said, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven but only he who does the will of my Father in heaven" (Matthew 7:21). Paul narrowed the passage into the kingdom even further when he said, "For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers" (Romans 8:29). This is not a scripture which states that certain people are predestined to be saved. It is a scripture which states that God predestined the qualification for those who will be saved. There is no salvation for those who do not do the will of God they will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Salvation is limited to those who are conformed to the likeness of Jesus Christ, God's Son. The likeness to which all believers can be conformed is the commitment to do the will of God.

It does not matter if someone made a sincere confession of faith at some earlier time if he later does not do the will of God and is not conformed to the likeness of his Son. God predestined this qualification for all who would be saved. Only those who satisfy this qualification will be the brothers (and sisters) of the Lord Jesus. Jesus said, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother" (Matthew 12:48 50). . .

Not only do the Evangelicals open the door to hypocrisy and self-deception by the doctrine of "once saved, always saved," but they also bandy about talk of forgiveness and redemption, arrogating to themselves the power to forgive and declare the "redemption" of flagrant sinners who refuse to repent. This is the case with their willful and unwavering support of Donald Trump. He is notorious for his compulsive lying, history of sexual depravity, and fraudulent practices.

Jesus said, "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment (John 16:7-8.) It is clear that Trump is not convicted of sin, or of righteousness, or of judgment. He scorns confession of sin, repentance, and the forgiveness of God:

Trump: I hope I don't have to ask 'for much forgiveness' from God

Though he remarked last year that he has never asked God for forgiveness, Donald Trump suggested in an interview published Wednesday that he plans on doing just that.

In an interview with columnist Cal Thomas, Trump was asked, "You have said you never felt the need to ask for God’s forgiveness, and yet repentance for one’s sins is a precondition to salvation. I ask you the question Jesus asked of Peter: Who do you say He is?"

"I will be asking for forgiveness, but hopefully I won’t have to be asking for much forgiveness. As you know, I am Presbyterian and Protestant. I’ve had great relationships and developed even greater relationships with ministers. We have tremendous support from the clergy. I think I will be doing very well during the election with evangelicals and with Christians," Trump said, according to the transcript."

In the above context it appears that Trump does not think in terms of seeking forgiveness from God, but only from the religious leaders; and they presume to forgive him for his sins which are against God and man. With knowledge of his transgressions, they declare him righteous. This is a flagrant affront to God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit:

Trump squanders moral authority — for evangelical leaders

Dispense with fig leaf of Christian forgiveness and admit the means to a political end: Our view.

Let's see whether we understand this. A lawyer for Donald Trump sets up a private Delaware company weeks before the 2016 election to arrange a $130,000 secret payoff to a porn star named Stormy Daniels, buying her silence about an alleged Trump tryst in 2006.

The Wall Street Journal breaks this perfidy recently, and leading evangelical leaders promptly ... denounce his immoral behavior? No, silly us. They give Trump a spiritual pass:

"You get a mulligan," said Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council.

"The president is a much different person today (than in 2006)," said the Rev. Franklin Graham, the son of Billy Graham.

"He's changed," said Jerry Falwell Jr.

Message: That 7th Commandment is overrated. It's hard to imagine these religious leaders being so forgiving if the sinner in question was a Democrat. In fact, this sort of rank hypocrisy only serves to diminish their moral authority.

TONY PERKINS: President is keeping his promises

[B]This isn't to say that their flock[B] — the nation's estimated 60 million evangelical Christians — is acting irrationally by supporting Trump. About 80% of white evangelicals voted for Trump, who identifies as Presbyterian. And while that support has slipped a bit, they remain a strong constituency for the president.

Born-again Christians "have a long record of being highly pragmatic, rather than purist, in (using) the tools of the federal government to protect their own authority and advance a moral agenda," . . .

Why Evangelicals Support President Trump, Despite His Immorality

While the majority of Americans consistently report that they disapprove of President Trump, and millions rally to protest the Muslim Ban, attacks on the Affordable Care Act and anti-immigrant policies, one group has not wavered in its support of Trump: his faith advisors. Jerry Falwell, Jr. has celebrated Trump as a “dream president” and Franklin Graham said “God’s hand intervened” to elect him. At the 2018 National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C., several speakers said no President in American history has done as much as this one to promote “religious freedom.”

To many within and beyond the faith community, these preachers’ claims raise eyebrows. How do Christian ministers reconcile the Jesus who said “Love your enemy” with a President whose policy is to strike back at all critics? Why would people who claim to stand for family values so uncritically support a thrice-married man who according to Ronan Farrow’s reporting for the New Yorker set up complex legal arrangements to cover up multiple affairs throughout his current marriage?

Eighty percent of white evangelicals voted for and, by and large, continue to support President Trump. To almost everyone else in America, this seems like a fundamental contradiction. But to Trump’s faithful, it is Providence at work in human history. They believe God is making America great again through an imperfect human agent. And like any true believers, they will not be moved.

As a preacher who grew up in the South during the Moral Majority movement, I know where my sisters and brothers are coming from. They feel that the “liberal media” and “secular humanists” seek to embarrass their heroes for standing by this President and therefore only confirm their conviction that they are an embattled minority, up against great odds with none but God on their side. . .

FROM AMERICAN AUTHORITANIANISM TO BAALISM'S THEOCRATIC TYRANNY

The Evangelical leaders' and their followers are alike delusional in their support for Donald Trump. They are unshakeable in their unity, and this is a strange phenomenon in a nation which has historically fostered independence and individuality. There has surely been a process of re-education and propagandizing, controlled by the spirits of Rev. 16:13-14.

The reason for the display of herd mentality which has enabled "an embattled minority" to wield political power far beyond their proportion of the population is expressed in the following articles:

The rise of American authoritarianism [A March 1, 2016 article]

A niche group of political scientists may have uncovered what's driving Donald Trump's ascent. What they found has implications that go well beyond 2016.

The American media, over the past year, has been trying to work out something of a mystery: Why is the Republican electorate supporting a far-right, orange-toned populist with no real political experience, who espouses extreme and often bizarre views? How has Donald Trump, seemingly out of nowhere, suddenly become so popular?

What's made Trump's rise even more puzzling is that his support seems to cross demographic lines — education, income, age, even religiosity — that usually demarcate candidates. And whereas most Republican candidates might draw strong support from just one segment of the party base, such as Southern evangelicals or coastal moderates, Trump currently does surprisingly well from the Gulf Coast of Florida to the towns of upstate New York, and he won a resounding victory in the Nevada caucuses.

Perhaps strangest of all, it wasn't just Trump but his supporters who seemed to have come out of nowhere, suddenly expressing, in large numbers, ideas far more extreme than anything that has risen to such popularity in recent memory. In South Carolina, a CBS News exit poll found that 75 percent of Republican voters supported banning Muslims from the United States. A PPP poll found that a third of Trump voters support banning gays and lesbians from the country. Twenty percent said Lincoln shouldn't have freed the slaves.

Last September, a PhD student at the University of Massachusetts Amherst named Matthew MacWilliams realized that his dissertation research might hold the answer to not just one but all three of these mysteries.

MacWilliams studies authoritarianism — not actual dictators, but rather a psychological profile of individual voters that is characterized by a desire for order and a fear of outsiders. People who score high in authoritarianism, when they feel threatened, look for strong leaders who promise to take whatever action necessary to protect them from outsiders and prevent the changes they fear.

So MacWilliams naturally wondered if authoritarianism might correlate with support for Trump.

He polled a large sample of likely voters, looking for correlations between support for Trump and views that align with authoritarianism. What he found was astonishing: Not only did authoritarianism correlate, but it seemed to predict support for Trump more reliably than virtually any other indicator. He later repeated the same poll in South Carolina, shortly before the primary there, and found the same results, which he published in Vox: . . .

As it turns out, MacWilliams wasn't the only one to have this realization. Miles away, in an office at Vanderbilt University, a professor named Marc Hetherington was having his own aha moment. He realized that he and a fellow political scientist, the University of North Carolina's Jonathan Weiler, had essentially predicted Trump's rise back in 2009, when they discovered something that would turn out to be far more significant than they then realized.

That year, Hetherington and Weiler published a book about the effects of authoritarianism on American politics. Through a series of experiments and careful data analysis, they had come to a surprising conclusion: Much of the polarization dividing American politics was fueled not just by gerrymandering or money in politics or the other oft-cited variables, but by an unnoticed but surprisingly large electoral group — authoritarians.

Their book concluded that the GOP, by positioning itself as the party of traditional values and law and order, had unknowingly attracted what would turn out to be a vast and previously bipartisan population of Americans with authoritarian tendencies.

An earlier report on this website in 2017 examined the strange admiration of the Religious Right for Vladimir Putin and Putin's Russia. The following article analyzes the similarities between the support of religious leaders for Donald Trump and Putin respectively; the selected quotations focus on Trump's relationship with the Evangelicals:

Trump & Putin: Our New Biblical Kings [A February 19, 2017 article]

Few world leaders have reaped so much politically as Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin from embracing their faith. But what does God’s flock see in such blatantly flawed men?

“Mr. President, in the Bible rain is a sign of God’s blessing. And it started to rain...when you came to the platform,” said Reverend Franklin Graham in his inaugural benediction before President Donald J. Trump. [Graham could not have been conscious of his statement's link to Baal worship.]

Graham, President of Samaritan’s Purse and Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, was one of six, predominantly Christian spiritual leaders praying on January 20. It’s his firm conviction that the election was the work of divine providence.

“I believe,” Graham told Fox News, that “in this election, no question, God’s hand was in it.”

That more ministers participated in Trump’s inauguration than ever before, or that a man not known for religious fervor found Jesus when he needed evangelical support most, should never be a surprise. Faith and power frequently consort and Christianity, in general, has always held an awkward relationship with power. From Trump’s America to Vladimir Putin’s Russia, conservative Christianity once again has a seat at the table. But why people of faith have flocked to these obviously flawed men may be surprising. Both Trump and Putin have portrayed themselves as protectors of the devout, casting themselves in the mold of ancient Biblical figures so familiar to churchgoers.

But what does this President and faith leaders—especially evangelicals—get from this mutual back-scratching? Does it fill a particular gap?

“One of the strangest trends in the American presidency is the persistent need for the president to be connected to religion in some way,” says Rachel Blum, Assistant Professor of Political Science at the Miami University of Ohio. “It is almost an unwritten requirement that the president profess Christianity.”

Heads of state in the West frequently embrace a religious tradition, but as many know, in recent decades in America, this political influence largely comes from the uncentralized evangelical right. . .

In 1980, President Reagan won the trust of evangelicals, paving the way for the rising religious-right and “Moral Majority.”

“Although Christians in America exerted extreme influence on the Republican Party in the 1980s and 1990s,” says Blum, “the effect of that period went both ways. The Republican Party became the party of God, but evangelical Christians also became Republican.”

Among Republican presidents, Donald Trump’s supposed religious affections differ significantly from previous office holders. By any measure, he was the least likely candidate to have ministers like Graham singing his praises.

“Trump’s considerable appeal to Christian evangelicals and fundamentalists seemed weird during the early days of the campaign,” says Dan P. McAdams, the Henry Wade Rogers Professor of Psychology and Director of the Foley Center for the Study of Lives at Northwestern University. “After all, the guy knows almost nothing about Christianity, and his life is hardly a model of Christian virtue.”

Blum agrees. “Trump has been historically cagey about [religion]...which is fascinating given the way that religious voters, leaders, and groups rally behind him.”

But they don’t. . .

With the support of the Russian President, the Orthodox Church’s opposition to gay rights and to freedom of expression are codified. Evangelization outside of the Church is now legally banned in Russia without a permit and severely restricted, giving the Russian Orthodox Church a place of primacy.

That sort of bully pulpit speaks not only to Russia’s devout public, but to American evangelicals who support Russia’s anti-LGBTQ policies. It was Trump’s inaugural spiritual leader Franklin Graham who—while explicitly noting that he was not endorsing Putin—once praised his harsh policies as having a moral standard “higher than our own.” A request for comment from Graham by The Daily Beast was not returned.

There is little reason to see Trump’s embrace of religion—and in this case, evangelical Christianity—as serving any other purpose than the Orthodox Church does for Putin. And while the religion of Reagan should be wary of the Russian President, and a potential American Putin, there are strong reasons for their embrace of Trump.

His strong authoritarianism makes up for his lack of sanctified spirit. Yes, as a candidate, Trump’s initial courting of evangelicals began with his awkward foreplay at Liberty University, and his forced sanctimony belies a man who is always trying too hard to annex the evangelical world, but his strategy continues to work and he fills that power-shaped hole left in the heart of American evangelicalism after President George W. Bush.

“Over time,” says McAdams, “it became apparent that he shares with many conservative white Christians a conviction that the world is inherently evil and chaotic and that only a strong leader can save good people from the perils all around.”

“Evangelicals may seem to be rallying around Trump,” says Blum, noting that keeping this “Republican coalition” together means spinning things as a “threat...to the Christian way of life.” In this case, she says, “Trump is a sort of savior.”

“Savior” may sound strong, but it may not be far off.

Some evangelicals have compared him to Cyrus the Great, the Persian king who, the Bible says, God used to return the Jews back to their homeland after a long exile. He’s also been called a new king David, the famous Israelite ruler with many flaws, but said to be “a man after God’s own heart” (Acts 13:22).

In other words, as these flawed sinners were tools of God, so also he will impart his blessing and authority to President Trump.

Noting Trump’s flaws and where he runs contrary to facts is not likely—as many have discovered—to change minds bolstered by a formidable unconscious bias. For now, they may remain “theologically incorrect,” says cognitive scientist Jason Slone, author of Theological Incorrectness: Why Religious People Believe What They Shouldn’t and professor of literature and philosophy at Georgia Southern University. . .

As it turns out, this right-wing authoritarianism finds a stronghold when people are threatened, and according to McAdams, it is most-frequently associated with white religious fundamentalism. He notes that while many later supported Trump reluctantly (e.g. party reasons) during the general election, early support was driven by right-wing authoritarianism.

“Right-wing authoritarianism,” says McAdams, “is a pattern of attitudes and values revolving around strict adherence to society's traditional norms, submission to authorities who personify or reinforce those norms, and deep antipathy (to the point of hatred and aggression) for those individuals who are perceived as violating the traditional norms of society.”

He notes that in studies evangelical Protestants score “significantly higher” on right-wing authoritarianism “than Catholics, mainline Protestants, and Jews. . .

What America will look like in four years remains very uncertain. But what is clear, is that for now Trump feels he’s got a divine stamp of approval. This does nothing to curtail his ego or to stop his momentum. In his eyes, he is a man after God’s own heart.

In fact, in his own version of the inaugural rain story—one unsupported by the facts—Trump paints himself like a relatively minor biblical Moses crossing the waters of the Red Sea.

“It was almost raining,” he told the CIA dramatically, “…but God looked down and said, ‘we’re not going to let it rain on your speech….’” He adds “it stopped immediately, it was amazing, and then it became really sunny, then I walked off, and it poured right after I left.”

With that professed belief—that God and America is on his side—he, his Republican comrades, and evangelical reformers may believe there is no reason to stop their march toward theocracy. Then we’ll see just how strong that wall of separation really is.

The evidence is overwhelming that this is State Baalism, pure and simple. It will be noted that Donald Trump has moved State Baalism far beyond where it advanced under Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. There is very little left of the wall of separation between Church and State. Under the delusions of Satan, right-wing Evangelicals in America are close to establishing their tyrannical theocracy of Baal worship in fulfillment of Rev. 13:12-17.

For thousands of years Satan has been experimenting upon the properties of the human mind, and he has learned to know it well. By his subtle workings in these last days, he is linking the human mind with his own, imbuing it with his thoughts; and he is doing this work in so deceptive a manner that those who accept his guidance know not that they are being led by him at his will. The great deceiver hopes so to confuse the minds of men and women, that none but his voice will be heard." (2SM 352.3; underscored emphasis added)

GODHEAD CONFUSION IN SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST COMMUNITY

(Adapted from e-mail to an SDA brother being enticed by a Semi-Arian Independent Ministry)

A booklet was received following a telephone call during which it appeared that the brother accepted the duality of the Godhead in the Old Testament, but was questioning whether the Holy Spirit sent by Jesus Christ after His ascension and glorification is a Being separate from, though one with, the Father and the Son. A perusal of the booklet raised a question about what exactly this member of the Seventh-day Adventist community believed about the Godhead.

Within a couple of days of the telephone conversation simple research was made into whether the Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost of the New Testament is referred to by the pronoun “He” or the neuter “It.” This is a simple inquiry; but not without significance. The focus was on Jesus’ statements about the Comforter. Of course, all references are to “He,” “Him,” or “Himself.” John 14:18 reveals the Holy Spirit’s identification with Jesus, but in each of the chapters 14-16 of his gospel can be seen indications of a separate identity and personhood:

John 14:16: And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever John 14:26: But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” John 15:26: “But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me.” In John 16 are strong statements of separate identity and independent action: “⁷Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. ⁸And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: ⁹Of sin, because they believe not on me; ¹⁰Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; ¹¹Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. ¹²I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. ¹³Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come. ¹⁴He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you. ¹⁵All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall show it unto you.”

We need to be very careful how we seek to understand the Godhead. As stated in Job 11, “⁷Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection? ⁸It is as high as heaven; what canst thou do? deeper than hell; what canst thou know? ⁹The measure thereof is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea. . .” There are deep imponderables in trying to understand the Godhead, and the Holy Spirit in particular. Elder Wm. H. Grotheer points out that the people did not recognize Jesus because of His self-effacing appearance. He came to glorify the Father. Similarly, the Holy Spirit’s mission is to glorify Jesus rather than to attract attention to Himself. Moreover, there are mystifying questions that defy explanation. The Apostle John reveals that the Holy Spirit, the second person of the Godhead prior to the Incarnation, became flesh. John also stated that while Jesus was with them the Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit “was not yet given”:

John 7, “³⁷In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. ³⁸He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. ³⁹(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified” (Underscored emphasis added.) Yet there are repeated accounts of the Holy Spirit’s activities after the Incarnation and before Jesus’ coronation. It would be presumptuous for us to speculate on whether the whole of the Holy Spirit’s being became a part of Jesus Christ’s identity as a human being. This is best left alone. Here is the counsel of Ellen G. White:

“‘Those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children forever;’ but ‘the secret things belong unto the Lord our God.’ Deuteronomy 29:29. The revelation of Himself that God has given in His word is for our study. This we may seek to understand. But beyond this we are not to penetrate. The highest intellect may tax itself until it is wearied out in conjectures regarding the nature of God; but the effort will be fruitless. This problem has not been given us to solve. No human mind can comprehend God. Let not finite man attempt to interpret Him. Let none indulge in speculation regarding His nature. Here silence is eloquence. The Omniscient One is above discussion.’ (8T 279)

So it is legitimate to seek out only “the revelation of Himself that God has given in His Word.” In the Bible can be found enough evidence for a rational, unbiased mind to conclude that the Holy Spirit given to God’s people is a distinct Being. He must also be counted as the Third Person of the Godhead, at least since Jesus Christ was glorified. It is not presumptuous to study the logical conclusions to be drawn from numerous passages of Scripture.

We cannot ignore Jesus’ commission to His disciples in Matt. 28, “¹⁹Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Also there is the benediction of 2 Corinthians 13:14, "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen” (NKJV.) Romans 8:26-27 is revealing: “²⁶Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. ²⁷ Now He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God” (Underscored emphasis added.) The NKJV is correct in changing the KJV version from “itself” to “himself.” This is supported by other modern translations; and, significantly, also Young’s Literal Translation (YLT.) The Holy Spirit, to bring His personhood down to our understanding, is masculine, and He has a mind. The following statement reinforces this fact:

At times, people have viewed the Holy Spirit as an “it,” in part, because the neuter gender for Spirit, both in the original Greek—pneuma— and in English, have contributed to this concept. An example is Romans 8:16, where the KJV translates the text: “The Spirit itself . . .” (original italicized emphasis). Since pronouns are to agree with their antecedents in person, number, and gender, you would expect the neuter pronoun to be used to represent the Holy Spirit. However, when John the Beloved recorded the words of Jesus, he used the masculine pronoun ekeinos—he—when referring to the Holy Spirit. “When the Helper comes . . . that is the Spirit of truth . . . He will bear witness of Me” (John 15:26). “When He, the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13). “And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever” (John 14:16). Either John made a consistent grammatical error or he purposely called the Holy Spirit a “he.” Since no similar error is made in the rest of John’s gospel, we conclude he did it to make a point: Jesus referred to a Person and not a thing. Not much should be made of John’s use of the masculine personal pronoun; his point was not a specific gender but personality.” (The Personhood of the Holy Spirit and Why It Matters Ron E. M. Clouzet, Southern Adventist University; Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 17/1 (Spring 2006): 11–32; Underscored emphasis added.)

The following is a copy of the section of the essay titled “Is the Holy Spirit a Person,” which was attached to the outgoing e-mail:

The essay is a typical example of contemporary Seventh-day Adventist scholarship on the Holy Spirit. The dissertations of the scholars usually provide solid proof from the Bible that the Holy Spirit is a Person and the Third Person of the Godhead; but they then leap to the conclusion that this is proof of the Roman Catholic dogma of a Trinity/Triune God. It is a great tragedy of contemporary Seventh-day Adventism that the embrace of the Trinity dogma by the Church organization has prejudiced the minds of earnest believers against the evidences from the Bible that indeed there have been three Persons of the Godhead since the Incarnation. Those SDAs who fail to study the Bible thoroughly will not be able to accept this fact.

On the sdanet.org website, there is Chapter XV of a publication titled The Arian or Anti-Trinitarian Views Presented in Seventh-day Adventist Literature and the Ellen G. White Answer. The chapter is titled “ELLEN G. WHITE ON THE PERSONALITY AND DEITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT." This is a single-page document, and is copied in full as follows:

CHAPTER XV

ELLEN G. WHITE ON THE PERSONALITY AND DEITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

Ellen G. White repeatedly affirms that the Holy Spirit is a Person:

The Holy Spirit is a person, for He beareth witness with our spirits that we are the children of God. . . .

The Holy Spirit has a personality, else He could not bear witness to our spirits and with our spirits that we are the children of God. He must also be a divine person, else He could not search out the secrets which lie hidden in the mind of God.^l

The Holy Spirit is presented in the writings of Ellen G. White as God, not an inferior emanation from the Deity, but in every sense God, as are Christ and the Father:

The prince of the power of evil can only be held in check by the tower of God in the third person of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit.²

Sin could be resisted and overcome only through the mighty agency of the Third Person of the Godhead, who would come with no modified energy, but in the fullness of divine power. It is the Spirit that makes effectual what has been wrought out by the world’s Redeemer.³

The Holy Spirit is not spoken of as a subordinate representative, a tool used by the Father and the Son. As is Christ so is the Holy Spirit the "fullness of the Godhead:"

The Comforter that Christ promised to send after He ascended to heaven is the Spirit in all the fullness of the Godhead, making manifest the power of divine grace to all who receive and believe in Christ as a personal Saviour. There are three living persons in the heavenly trio; in the name of these three great powers—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—those who receive Christ by living faith are baptized, and those powers will co-operate with the obedient subjects of heaven in their effort to live the new life of Christ.⁴

The contention of the Adventist Arian and Semi-Arian to the effect that the Holy Spirit is a mere influence, not a Person and certainly not a member of the Deity, is therefore soundly contradicted in the writings of Ellen G. White.

ENDNOTES

¹E. G. White, Evangelism (Washington, D. C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, l946), pp. 616, 617. Citing Manuscript 20, 1906.

²lbid., p. 617. Citing Special Testimonies, Series A, No. 10, p. 37. (l897)

³E. G. White, The Desire of Ages (Mountain View, Cal.: Pacific Press Publishing Association, l898), p. 671.

⁴White, op. cit., pp. 614 6l5. Citing Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 7, pp. 62, 63. (l905).

Ellen G. White’s statements quoted above are clear, and they do not support the Trinity/Triune God dogma. Of course, you must be aware that Adventist Laymen’s Foundation theology is “Anti-Trinitarian.” Our distinctive position is that exegetically the Old Testament reveals two Gods as one Lord, precisely as stated in the Shema of Israel, Deut. 6:4; and the New Testament reveals three. The monotheistic tradition of Christianity is based on an error in translating Deut. 6:4 (Cf. Between the first publication of QOD in 1957 . . .; As to looking to the "Pioneers" for the true doctrine of God . . . ) Adventist scholars have overlooked all of the biblical evidence that the Godhead was a Duo in the Old Testament (and into the New Testament in John 1:1,) and is a Trio of individual Beings in the New Testament, at least since Jesus Christ was glorified. This is not what Trinity/Triune means . . . (Cf. THE DOGMA OF THE TRINITY. . .)

The foregoing documented evidence of the Personhood and Deity of the Holy Spirit should be enough to enable anyone to detect the flaws in booklets like the one subject to examination, with the strange title “don’t catch the Spirit from Another,” comprised of reams of quotations from the Writings and none from the Bible. However, attention may be directed to two factors that disqualify this particular booklet as a valid examination of the Doctrine of God. One is a glaring misconception that by itself explodes the whole thesis of the booklet. The other is conclusive evidence that the author is a Semi-Arian without realizing it.

As to the misconception, on the inside of the front cover the author claims that we (Seventh-day Adventists) “need to get back to our Pioneers and what they believed.” Since the booklet relates to the Godhead, the quotations from the Writings of Ellen G. White are misapplied. She was referring to Basic Adventism, of which the Godhead was not a part (for a full understanding read the entire WWN article.) In fact as quoted in the “Points to Ponder About the Godhead” bookmark hyperlinked above, she emphasized that the body of Truth is not static:

“We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible.” (RH, July 26, 1892)

“The truth is an advancing truth, and we must walk in the increasing light,” (CW 33.2; quoted in “What is It? Basic Adventism;”)

This is wholly consistent with the Bible, and particularly the words of Jesus Himself:

John 16: “¹²I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. ¹³Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.”

The Truth is an advancing Truth! Here is another example from the Writings of the Apostle Paul:

Heb. 5: “¹¹ Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. ¹² For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. ¹³ For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. ¹⁴ But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.”

These words of the Apostle Paul are particularly appropriate in relation to the Godhead. From the pioneers to the contemporary Seventh-day Adventist Church, there has never been an understanding and acknowledgement that the Godhead was a duality in the Old Testament; and all stand aghast at the Tri-theistic reality of the New Testament, in spite of the clear statements of Ellen G. White which are now mistakenly equated with the concept of a Triune God. The “strong meat” is unpalatable to the ministry and laity alike.

As to confirmation that the author is a Semi-Arian, apparently without realizing it, here is a PDF image of P. 65 of the booklet, which was attached to the outgoing e-mail:

Note the confession of faith on the right side of the oval image in color, “LORD Begotten Son of God Christ Jesus is all the fullness of the Godhead (divinity, deity) MANIFESTED.” The meaning is enlarged as follows:

ONE GOD & FATHER of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. One LORD Jesus Christ - One SPIRIT - Omnipresent

1) One True Infinite God - Divinity Bodily - Spirit - Personal Being - Great Source of All

2) Christ Jesus - Divinity Manifested - Son of God (divine) - Son of Man (human)

3) Holy Spirit - The Omnipresent - personal presence and power of God and Christ; life, love, light and glory.

This is a Semi-Arian formulation, as is documented below. The author is a Semi-Arian and evidently not aware of it! The pre-existent Christ is portrayed effectively as a God by procreation; and this is the grievous error of those who have the notion that Christ who preceded the Incarnation was the only begotten Son of God. This false idea is exploded by the theologically qualified Grotheer in Monogenes. In this article Elder Grotheer applies a prophecy of Ellen G. White to the modern-day Semi-Arians in the community of Seventh-day Adventists:

In the New Testament, only in the Gospel and first Epistle of John do we find the word used in reference to Jesus Christ. It is used by Luke (7:12; 8:2; 9:38) to refer to an only child. Paul uses the word once to refer to Isaac (Heb. 11:17), who was not an "only child," but a son of Abraham in a unique sense, inasmuch as the birth of Isaac was by divine empowerment. This leaves John's use of the word distinct from both Paul and Luke. Its meaning in John must be determined by the law of first use. He used it four times in his Gospel and once in his First Epistle. Stump, in his article, does not consider the law of first use, but seeks rather to transfer Luke and Paul's literal human use to John's theological application (op.cit., p. 5). This can be forgiven inasmuch as Stump is not a theologian but rather a High School Driver Education teacher turned preacher. This is not to be considered a "minus," for in the final work there will be "young men taken from behind the plow and from the fields to preach the truth as it is in Jesus" (Medical Ministry, p. 305). However, take careful note that in the context of this promise there is found a warning. It reads:

While the solid truth of the Bible came from lips of men who had no fanciful theories of misleading science to present, there were others who labored with all their power to bring in false theories regarding God and Christ (ibid.)

This we see being fulfilled before our very eyes. This is the real issue at stake - the deception of sincere people who want truth, pure and unadulterated, which is the righteousness of Christ (Testimonies to Ministers, p. 65). But what is taking place? Under the guise of "the return of the Fourth Angel" "false theories regarding God and Christ" are being proclaimed.

Beware the false teachers!

As stated in the “Points to Ponder About the Godhead” bookmark hyperlinked above about those who argue that we must look to the Pioneers of the Seventh-day Adventist movement for the true doctrine of God, “these self-appointed ‘messengers’ gloss over the fact that the early Pioneers held differing, and evolving, views of the Godhead.” Here the author of “don’t catch the Spirit from Another” exhibits a glaring error, and indeed a lack of understanding, in stating on page 1 under the heading “Pioneer Beliefs Misconstrued” that “The above statement by Mr. Johnson is incorrect when he tries to fit the founders of the faith into a box called Arian or Semi-Arian. Trinitarian-ism was definitely not held by early Adventists.” The fact is that neither the Arians nor the Semi-Arians among the Pioneers believed anything remotely resembling the Trinity dogma; but it is also beyond dispute that some prominent Pioneers were Arians and/or Semi-Arians. They did not subscribe to Trinitarianism; and to imply that contemporary Trinitarians make this claim is a misrepresentation. The views of the Godhead held by prominent Pioneers are stated in “The Godhead.” The relevant segment of the dissertation is quoted as follows:

Based on the evidence available, writers such as Joseph Bates, James White, J.M. Stephenson, J.B. Frisbie, D.W. Hull, Uriah Smith, J.N. Loughborough, S.B. Whitney, D.M. Canright, A.J. Dennis, J.H. Waggoner, G.W. Morse, T.R. Williamson and E.J. Waggoner took a position on the Godhead which is definitely anti-Trinitarian. Most of them were well respected denominational pioneers and leaders. Their influence, along with the absence of any evidence to the contrary, indicated that prior to the late 1890’s the prevailing opinion in the Seventh-day Adventist Church on the nature of God was – with the possible exception of Ellen G. White – anti-Trinitarian. The reasons why Trinitarianism was rejected during this time is perhaps best illustrated by Elder J.N. Loughborough. In answer to the question, “What serious objection is there to the doctrine of the Trinity?”, published in the Review and Herald, November 5, 1861, Loughborough replied:

“There are many objections which we might urge, but on account of our limited space we shall reduce them to the three following: 1. It is contrary to common sense. 2. It is contrary to scripture. 3. Its origin is Pagan and fabulous.” (J.N. Loughborough, “Questions for Bro. Loughborough”, Review and Herald, XVIII, November 5, 1861, page 184).

In explanation, Loughborough enlarges on the first objection by opposing the idea that three are one and one, three. He reasons that there would be three Gods if the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were each God.

In considering the second objection he notes that scripture speaks of the Father and the Son as two distinct persons. The oneness between them, according to John chapter 17, is the same as that between Christian believers. Loughborough urged that belief in the Trinity meant acceptance of the concept that “God sent himself into the world, died to reconcile the world to himself, raised himself from the dead, ascended to himself in heaven. . .”

As for the third objection, he argues that Trinitarianism came into the church about the same time as image worship and Sunday observance in 325 A.D. He views it as simply a renovation of the pagan Persian religion and observes that by about 681 A.D. Trinitarianism became an established doctrine in most of the Christian world. . .

In addition, other objections saw Trinitarianism as depreciating the efficacy of the atonement (if Christ was Absolute God in the same sense as the Father, then His divine nature could not die and therefore the sacrifice would have been merely a human one; inadequate to atone for sin); and also divesting God of bodily parts and form (an extreme position advocated by certain Trinitarian denominations).

The same denominational literature which opposes Trinitarianism also shows uniform agreement on certain views concerning the Godhead that Adventists of the time considered fundamental – 1. The Father alone possesses absolute Deity and is Eternal in the fullest sense of the term. 2. Christ is subordinate to the Father. 3. The Holy Spirit is not a person, but rather a mere influence.

The exact understanding of these views – particularly the relationship of Christ to the Father – differed somewhat. In 1854, J.M. Stephenson wrote:

“The idea of Father and Son supposes priority of the existence of the one, and the subsequent existence of the other...Col. 1:15 ‘The first born of every creature.’ Creature signifies creation; hence to be the first born of every creature, (creation) he [Christ] must be a created being; and as such, his life and immortality must depend upon the Father’s will just as much as angels, or redeemed men...” (J.M. Stephenson, “The Atonement”, Review and Herald, VI, November 14, 1854, pages 128, 133).

These statements appear to indicate a true Arian position. The terms “Father” and “Son” are understood as conveying the idea of existence of one prior to the later existence of the other. In other words, the Father had always existed, but there was a time when Christ did not exist; He had a beginning. Furthermore, this “subsequent existence” (beginning) is at creation. Colossians 1:15 is understood as teaching that Christ “must be a created being”. As the first created of all creation, His coming into existence is in the same category as the coming into existence of “angels, or redeemed men”, as well as “every creature (creation).”

Likewise, Uriah Smith appears to take a true Arian position in the first issue of his commentary on Revelation. Speaking of Christ in his exposition of Revelation 3:14-22, Smith wrote:

“Moreover he is ‘the beginning of the creation of God. Not the beginner, but the beginning, of the creation, the first created being, dating his existence far back before any other created being or thing, next to the self-existent and eternal God.” (Uriah Smith, Thoughts Critical and Practical on the Book of Revelation, Battle Creek, Mich.: Steam Press of the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, 1865, page 59).

Again, Christ is said to be “the first created being” in conjunction with “OTHER created being[s] or thing[s]”; He is “Not the beginner, but the beginning of creation.”

Over the years, Uriah Smith would modify this view and move away from a true Arian position in his Christology. In the 1899 edition of Thoughts on the Book of Daniel and the Revelation, the comment on Revelation 3:14-22 stated:

“Others, however, and more properly we think, take the word [arche] to mean the ‘agent’ or ‘efficient cause,’ which is one of the definitions of the word, understanding that Christ is the agent through whom God has created all things, but that he himself came into existence in a different manner, as he is called ‘the only begotten’ of the Father. It would seem utterly inappropriate to apply this expression to any being created in the ordinary sense of the term.” (Uriah Smith, Thoughts on the Book of Daniel and the Revelation, Battle Creek, Mich.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1899, page 371).

With this exposition, Smith completely reverses the position held in 1865. Christ now is the “beginner” of the creation – “the agent through whom God has created all things” – and not the “beginning” of the creation – “the first created being.” And while He still has a “far back” in the past beginning, He did not come into being in a way similar to that which is created. Now Christ “came into existence in a different manner” not like “any being created in the ordinary sense of that term;” He was “begotten of the Father.” An understanding of this terminology appeared a year earlier in Elder Smith’s work, Looking Unto Jesus, He wrote:

“Thus it appears that by some divine impulse or process, not creation, known only to Omniscience, and possibly only to Omnipotence, The Son of God appeared.” (Uriah Smith, Looking Unto Jesus, Battle Creek, Mich.: Review and Herald Publishing Company, 1898, page 10).

Clearly Smith understood the word begotten as “some divine impulse or process, not creation” by which the preincarnate Christ, at some point or period in the extreme far distant past, came into existence. Compared to the 1865 view, this later view of the doctrine of Christ in relation to the Godhead is a move closer to the Trinitarian concept.

Significantly in 1890, while also expounding on the nature of Christ in relation to the Father, Elder E.J. Waggoner wrote:

“There was a time when Christ proceeded forth and came from God, from the bosom of the Father (John 8:42; 1:18), but that time was so far back in the days of eternity that to finite comprehension it is practically without beginning.”

“But the point is that Christ is a begotten Son, and not a created subject...And since He is the only-begotten Son of God, He is of the very substance and nature of God, and possesses by birth all the attributes of God, for the Father was pleased that His Son should be the express image of His Person, the brightness of His glory, and filled with all the fullness of the Godhead. So He has ‘life in Himself;’ He possesses immortality in His own right, and can confer immortality upon others.” (E.J. Waggoner, Christ and His Righteousness, 96 pp., Students Library, No. 72, pages 21 and 22).

Waggoner’s view is ever closer to Trinitarian Christology (at least in definition) than Smith’s view. “Christ proceeded forth...from the bosom of the Father...is a begotten Son...and possesses by birth all the attributes of God.” There is no doubt that Waggoner’s understanding of the term begotten is defined as a proceeding and coming forth from the bosom, a birth; or in other words a type of procreation. This definition of begotten is essentially the same as the Trinitarian definition of it. However, with Waggoner’s view the procreation of the Son by the Father was a process which happened once at some point in the far distant past; whereas with the Trinitarian view the procreation of the Son by the Father is a perpetual process by which the Father eternally communicates essence or self to the Son.

In summary, the evidence indicates that during this period in Seventh-day Adventist history (from shortly after 1844 up to the late 1890’s) there was a non-Trinitarian view of the Godhead that was generally held unofficially, by most within the church (it must be remembered that there wasn’t an official statement on the doctrine produced by the church throughout this time).

The position taken was:

1. There is only one supreme God, the Father. He alone is fully Eternal and absolute Deity.

2. There is only one divine Son of God, Christ. He is next, in power and authority, to the Eternal Father. He is not fully Eternal and absolutely Divine because there was a time in which He did not exist. His existence and His deity were dependent upon the Father. Christ is therefore inferior to the Father because His eternity is limited and His divinity delegated to Him.

3. The Holy Spirit is not a person and not a member of the Deity. Rather, “It” is the force and power of God; a divine influence which emanates from the Father and the Son. It is the agent which represents their presence when they personally are not present.

Thus we see that the Pioneers were strongly anti-Trinitarian. However, as strongly anti-Trinitarian as they were, prominent Pioneers were also Arian and Semi-Arian, as documented in the quotation from “The Godhead” above.

J. N. Loughborough’s three objections to the Trinity dogma are both succinct and very cogent. Objections numbers 1 and 2 are sufficiently sustained by the documentation provided earlier in this message. Objection number 3 can be amplified here. Elder Grotheer refers to the pagan triad in WWN10(86) under the title “THAT I MAY KNOW HIM”:

The method of how we should approach this doctrine was discussed. Do we seek to move from the pagan triad concept to the truth about God, or do we recognize paganism for what it is, and seek to find the true picture of God in the Old Testament as revealed in the earthly sanctuary - God seated between the cherubim - and one of those cherubim a created being? . . .

A little thought over the origin of sin in Heaven and its transfer to this planet due to the surrender of our first parents to the sophistry of Lucifer gives insight as to the why of the pagan trinity concepts with their multiple triads. It also gives meaning to "the serpent's" suggestion - "Ye shall be as gods." (Gen. 3:5)

After the factual presentations on the concepts of the trinity in paganism and papalism, and the history of the Doctrine of God in Adventist literature, we began as a group, the study of the Bible to see what it actually taught - no more and no less. The first verse of the first chapter introduces the Doctrine of God - "In the beginning Gods" (Elohim, plural) Hebrew scholars would have us to understand the plural usage as "the majestic plural"(Sig. in force) The revelation of God in these early chapters of Genesis do not support this conclusion. The Elohim converse among Themselves - "Let us make man in our own image." (Gen. 1:26) When this man fell into sin, again the conversation is recorded - "Behold, the man is become as one of us." (Gen. 3:22)

The actual use of the singular and plural forms in Genesis 3:22-24 is thought provoking: "The Jehovah (singular) Gods (plural) said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil... So He (singular) drove out the man." The Shema of Israel (Deut. 6:4-5) also reveals this interesting use of plural and the singular. It reads: "Hear (shema), 0 Israel: Jehovah (singular) your Gods (plural) is Jehovah one. You shall love Jehovah (singular) your Gods (plural) with all your heart." The word, "one" in verse 4 is translated from the Hebrew word, echad. As used elsewhere, its use here presents a challenge in concept. When the idea to be expressed is "one" in the sense of only one, the word, ye chid, is used. An example of this use is to be found in Genesis 22:2, where Abraham was told to take Isaac "thine only son" to the land of Moriah. The use of echad as "one` is found in Genesis 1:5, where "evening" and "morning" are declared to be "day one." In Genesis 2:24, Adam and Eve - two - are declared to be "one" (echad) flesh. . . (Pp. 2-3.)

A web page of the United Church of God titled “How Ancient Trinitarian Gods Influenced Adoption of the Trinity” drives home the point about the pagan origins of the Trinity dogma. It opens with this statement: “Many who believe in the Trinity are surprised, perhaps shocked, to learn that the idea of divine beings existing as trinities or triads long predated Christianity. Yet, as we will see, the evidence is abundantly documented.”

The article goes on to document the triad/trinity concepts of the Sumerians and Babylonians:

Sumeria

“The universe was divided into three regions each of which became the domain of a god. Anu’s share was the sky. The earth was given to Enlil. Ea became the ruler of the waters. Together they constituted the triad of the Great Gods” ( The Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology, 1994, pp. 54-55)

Babylonia

“The ancient Babylonians recognised the doctrine of a trinity, or three persons in one god — as appears from a composite god with three heads forming part of their mythology, and the use of the equilateral triangle, also, as an emblem of such trinity in unity” (Thomas Dennis Rock, The Mystical Woman and the Cities of the Nations, 1867, pp. 22-23). (Original italics)

Similar belief in a divine trinity is documented for India, Greece, Egypt, Rome, and also the Phoenicians, the Germanic nations, and the Celts.

The last two paragraphs of the United Church of God paper state as follows:

James Bonwick summarized the story well on page 396 of his 1878 work Egyptian Belief and Modern Thought: “It is an undoubted fact that more or less all over the world the deities are in triads. This rule applies to eastern and western hemispheres, to north and south.

“Further, it is observed that, in some mystical way, the triad of three persons is one. The first is as the second or third, the second as first or third, the third as first or second; in fact, they are each other, one and the same individual being. The definition of Athanasius, who lived in Egypt, applies to the trinities of all heathen religions.” (Original italics)

Loughborough was evidently well acquainted with the pagan origins of the triad/trinity concept. Neither the historical facts of the Christian faith nor the biblical Truth about the Godhead will be hidden from those who exercise due diligence in research and study, allowing themselves to be guided by the Holy Spirit into all Truth. Here it must be noted that in spite of the excellent dissertation quoted above, the United Church of God nevertheless does not have the Truth about the Godhead. It is tragic and sad that, at least online, it is this Denomination which exposes the pagan and satanic origins of the Trinity dogma, and not the Seventh-day Adventist Church as betrayer of its sacred trust to publish Present Truth to the world. The United Church of God observes the Seventh-day Sabbath and publishes a sound exegesis from the Bible against the dogma of the Immortality of the Soul. However, the Denomination teaches many false doctrines. One of these doctrines in particular: the return of Jesus to reign on this earth for the 1000-years Millennium, is a deadly delusion!

In summation, and beginning with the dogma of the Trinity last discussed above, the Triune conception of the Godhead is not only contrary to the Bible and therefore false; it also makes no sense as stated by J. N. Loughborough. It derives directly from ancient paganism, and is manifestly satanic. It is clearly demonstrative of the fallen angel Lucifer’s ambition to be a God, and his direct challenge to the Divinity of the Christ Who pre-existed creation and the Incarnation. Note the statement in “THAT I MAY KNOW HIM” above.

Turning next to the revelation of God in the Old Testament, and confirmed in John 1:1, there was more than one God, and the Bible establishes that They were Two - a duality (Between the first publication of QOD in 1957 . . .) The Holy Spirit was the Second Person of the Godhead, and also had other names and descriptions. The name “Michael” extends into the New Testament (Dan. 10:13, 21; 12:1; Jude 1:9; Rev. 12:7.) (Rev. 12:7 can be seen as confirmation that the Word became flesh, so that Jesus Christ the God-man in His Divinity continued to be the Second Person of the Godhead.) Again, another description of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament was “Angel of the Lord” (Numerous references, most notably Exodus 3:2-22.) Another was “Captain of the Lord's host” (Joshua 5:15.) Another significant description was "My Fellow" (Zech. 13:7) applied by Jesus Christ to Himself in (Matt. 26:31, 32.)

Sadly, in the ranks of Seventh-day Adventists who correctly reject the Trinitarian/Triune God heresy are many who will not recognize in Christ a Divinity equal to that of the Father. All of the evidence from the Old Testament is that His subordination to the Father as one of the covering Cherubs was voluntary and by agreement between the two Gods. (It was in His humanity that He was "exalted" by the Father after His resurrection.) The names and descriptions documented above are set in circumstances which identify the Holy Spirit as co-equal with God the Father, though voluntarily subordinate, prior and subsequent to the Incarnation. After the Incarnation that identification was declared by Jesus Christ Himself as the “I AM” (John 8:24, 58; 13:19.)

Finally, there is ample evidence that the Holy Spirit given to Jesus Christ’s followers is Himself God, distinct in person from the Father and the Son, as documented in the preceding paragraphs, including these passages of Scripture.

The irresistible conclusion must be that the Godhead was a duality in the Old Testament. In the New Testament is revealed a Trio of separate Beings, but One Lord as in the Old Testament. In adopting the dogma of the Trinity/Triune/Triad of Gods the Seventh-day Adventist Church has been seduced by Great Babylon, and now stands on the enchanted ground of paganism. It is no wonder that Ellen G. White prophesied:

Here we see that the church—the Lord’s sanctuary—was the first to feel the stroke of the wrath of God. The ancient men, those to whom God had given great light and who had stood as guardians of the spiritual interests of the people, had betrayed their trust. . . (5T, P. 211.)

A response by the caller, too swift to indicate more than a cursory glance at the study material provided above, promised yet another booklet of Ellen G. White quotations. This necessitated a documentation of the folly of attempting to establish doctrine by copious quotations from her Writings, with absolutely no reference to what is revealed in the Bible, and reiteration of the sound doctrine of the Godhead exegeted from the Bible. The following is a summary:

(1) Dismay was expressed that before buckling down to a thorough study of what was sent, the SDA brother had sent yet another page of Ellen G. White quotations taken out of context and without a single text from the Bible, with a promise to send yet another booklet with similar content.

(2) The apparent misunderstanding about the futility of the SDA brother's efforts was addressed as follows:

I need to make my position on the study of Bible doctrine clear. There is no better way to do so than to direct your attention to this section of Elder Grotheer’s Bible Study Guide: Concepts for Further Consideration. Furthermore, in the past I have dealt in depth with the problem of self-appointed teachers who have no training in Hermeneutics, and misuse the Writings of Ellen G. White to sustain their misconceptions about the Truth of the Godhead. If you read UNIQUELY BEGOTTEN GOD carefully, you will see the futility of trying to convince me that a clear understanding of the Godhead can be taught from the Writings alone. We must test the Writings by the Bible and not the other way around. In this way you can know which of the statements in the Writings are consistent with the Protestant Canon of Scripture. . .

The track of truth lies close beside the track of error, and both tracks may seem to be one to minds which are not worked by the Holy Spirit, and which, therefore, are not quick to discern the difference between truth and error (RH, October 22, 1903 par. 2; italics emphasis added.)

VATICAN SILENT AS TRUMP ADMINISTRATION ACCELERATES OPENING OF JERUSALEM EMBASSY

On February 16 the Catholic News Agency reported that Palestine had asked the Holy See to "amplify its voice" defending the status quo in Jerusalem:-

From [D]@google .com:

Palestine asks Vatican to defend Jerusalem’s status quo

The Palestinian Foreign Affairs minister, Ryadh al Maliki, met officials of the Vatican Secretariat of State Feb. 16, asking the Holy See to amplify its voice defending the status quo in Jerusalem. “It is important to understand that the situation of Jerusalem also deals with Christians,” the minister told CNA after the meeting, during a short briefing with journalists in the State of Palestine’s recently opened embassy to the Holy See.

“We would like the Holy See [to] lead a conference of Christians in the Middle East, in order to make their voice stronger.” Minister al Maliki met with Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Vatican Secretary of State, and then with Archbishop Paul Richard Gallagher, the Vatican “minister for foreign affairs. Al Maliki reported that the meetings “shed light on the implication of President Trump’s decision to ‘award’ Jerusalem as capital of Israel, with the decision to transfer the US Embassy to Israel to the city.” Trump’s decision, al Maliki said, “had the effect of connecting the city with only the Jewish world, setting aside the city’s connections with Christian[s] and Muslims.” This “also jeopardizes the negotiations,” concerning peace between Israel and Palestine, “because the issue of the status of Jerusalem was put off the table,” he said. Al Maliki maintained that Palestine “wants to keep the conflict a[t] a political level,” while Trump’s decision brings the issue to “a religious level.” He said the status of the city is relevant to all religions which “recognize themselves in the city of Jerusalem.” According to al Maliki, the Holy See expressed concern during the talks, and both parties agreed that the status quo of Jerusalem should be respected, and that the future of Jerusalem “must be negotiated and not imposed." The Holy See has made several recent statements regarding Jerusalem: Pope Francis made his latest appeal to respect the status quo in Jerusalem at the end of his Dec. 6, 2017 general audience. On Dec. 10, the Holy See Press Office issued a communiqué reiterating that the Holy See maintained its position on the peculiar character of the Holy City, and stressed the importance of maintaining a compromise on the city’s status.

“Only a negotiated solution between Israelis and Palestinians can bring a stable and lasting peace,” and “guarantee the peaceful co-existence of two states within internationally recognized borders,” the statement said. Minister Al Maliki stressed that the State of Palestine “recognized the Holy See’s efforts,” but asked the Holy See to further raise its voice. . .

He said that, after President Trump’s decision, the Israeli government has started to increase pressure on Palestinian Christians, “making their life harder,” by “imposing taxes, freezing the bank accounts and confiscating properties.” According to al Maliki, this pressure aims at “changing the sacred character of the city, and to turn the city into a Jewish one.” In particular, al Maliki is referring to a recent decision of Nir Barkat, Jerusalem’s mayor, to begin assessing municipal taxes on some church properties.

In a joint statement, the Churches of Jerusalem stressed that this decision “goes agaist the historic position throughout the centuries of the Churches and the Holy City of Jerusalem,” and that the measure “undermines the sacred character of Jerusalem, and jeopardises the Church’s ability to conduct its ministry in this land on behalf of its communities and the world-wide church.” According to al Maliki, neither Cardinal Parolin or Archbishop Gallagher objected to the idea of a conference under the Holy See’s lead. However, no decision has yet been made.

Whether by coincidence or not, on February 23 two Trump administration officials revealed that the new US Embassy in Jerusalem will open in May 2018 to coincide with the 70th anniversary of Israel declaring independence:-

From [D]@google .com:

US Embassy in Jerusalem to open in May — in time for Israel’s 70th anniversary

The new US Embassy in Jerusalem will open in May 2018 to coincide with the 70th anniversary of Israel declaring independence, two Trump administration officials said Friday. At first, the embassy will operate out of the US’s current consular premises in Arnona, south Jerusalem. . .

The State Department confirmed the timing of the move, with an official telling The Times of Israel: “We are planning to open the new US Embassy to Israel in Jerusalem in May. The Embassy opening will coincide with Israel’s 70th anniversary.” . . .

Lawyers at the State Department are looking into the legality of accepting private donations to cover some or all of the embassy costs, the administration officials said. The discussions are occurring as the new embassy clears its final bureaucratic hurdles.

In one possible scenario, the administration would solicit contributions not only from Adelson but potentially from other donors in the evangelical and American Jewish communities, too. One official said Adelson, a Las Vegas casino magnate and staunch supporter of Israel, had offered to pay the difference between the total cost — expected to run into the hundreds of millions of dollars — and what the administration is able to raise.

Under any circumstance, letting private citizens cover the costs of an official government building would mark a significant departure from historical US practice. In the Jerusalem case, it would add yet another layer of controversy to Trump’s politically charged decision to move the embassy, given Adelson’s longstanding affiliation with right-wing Israeli politics.

The acceleration of the opening of the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem is like rubbing salt into the wounds inflicted on the Palestinians by the original decision of the Trump administration to move the embassy from Tel Aviv:

Hard-Line Supporter of Israel Offers to Pay for U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem

Sheldon G. Adelson, one of the most hawkish supporters of Israel among American Jews, has offered to help fund the construction of a new American Embassy in Jerusalem, according to the State Department, which on Friday said it was reviewing whether it could legally accept the donation.

The total price tag to build the new embassy to replace the current one in Tel Aviv is estimated at around $500 million, according to one former State Department official. While private donors have previously paid for renovations to American ambassadors’ overseas residences, Mr. Adelson’s contribution would be likely to far surpass those gifts — and could further strain American diplomacy in the Middle East.

Before the embassy is built, the Trump administration plans to open a temporary one in Jerusalem. On Friday, it said that it was accelerating the projected opening in time to mark the 70th anniversary of the creation of the State of Israel on May 14.

Even some of Mr. Adelson’s allies expressed concern that if the administration accepts his offer for the permanent embassy, it could be seen as a well-heeled financial contributor effectively privatizing — and politicizing — American foreign policy. . .

Already furious over Mr. Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, Palestinian leaders have declared that they will no longer accept an American monopoly on brokering a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.

The timing of the embassy move may only amplify Palestinian outrage. For the Palestinians, Israel’s 70th anniversary also marks 70 years of the Nakba, or “catastrophe,” when hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were expelled or fled their homes and became refugees during the hostilities leading up to, and the war surrounding, Israel’s creation in 1948.

“The decision of the U.S. administration to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and to choose the anniversary of the Nakba of the Palestinian people for carrying out this step expresses a flagrant violation of the law,” Saeb Erekat, the secretary general of the Palestine Liberation Organization and a veteran Palestinian negotiator, said in a statement on Friday. . .

The decision to accelerate the opening of the U.S. Embassy is a further setback for the peace process:

US brings forward Jerusalem embassy opening to May

The US expects to open its Israeli embassy in Jerusalem in May, officials have said, bringing forward Donald Trump’s contentious plan forward by at least a year.

US officials said the move was to coincide with the 70th anniversary of the establishment of the state of Israel. The country declared independence on 14 May 1948, and a ribbon-cutting ceremony is planned at the embassy in mid-May. . .

The decision comes despite overwhelming global opposition. It is widely feared that moving the embassy from Tel Aviv will push back already moribund efforts to achieve peace between Israel and the Palestinians, and could result in renewed violence. . .

Administration officials have suggested that a longer timeframe may have helped to keep peace efforts alive while sparing the US the sensitive issue of choosing a site for the embassy.

What will come to light in due course about Rome's active moves behind the scenes to counteract all of the setbacks to her Jerusalem policy?

CONLICTING POSITIONS ON U.S. JERUSALEM EMBASSY MOVE

(Aggressive US and Israeli posture, Passive Arab and Iranian Response, Unhappy Papacy)

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of Turkey and Pope Francis are commiserating with each other:-

From [D]@gmail.com:

Jerusalem to dominate Erdoğan's meeting with Pope Francis

The United States' controversial recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is expected to dominate talks between President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Pope Francis on the president's first trip to the Vatican on Sunday.

According to presidential sources, Erdoğan will thank Pope Francis for his stance against U.S. President Donald Trump's decision and his efforts to protect the status quo in the holy city.

The Turkish president previously expressed his appreciation to Pope Francis who strongly opposed the bitterly-contested move announced by Trump at the end of last year. The two leaders held several phone calls regarding the issue and voiced their determination to follow developments regarding Jerusalem. . . (Underscored emphasis added.)

If President Erdoğan is sincere in his active concern about the Trump administration's recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, he appears to be isolated from major Muslim leaders:

Tapes Reveal Egyptian Leaders’ Tacit Acceptance of Jerusalem Move

As President Trump moved last month to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, an Egyptian intelligence officer quietly placed phone calls to the hosts of several influential talk shows in Egypt.

“Like all our Arab brothers,” Egypt would denounce the decision in public, the officer, Capt. Ashraf al-Kholi, told the hosts.

But strife with Israel was not in Egypt’s national interest, Captain Kholi said. He told the hosts that instead of condemning the decision, they should persuade their viewers to accept it. Palestinians, he suggested, should content themselves with the dreary West Bank town that currently houses the Palestinian Authority, Ramallah.

“How is Jerusalem different from Ramallah, really?” Captain Kholi asked repeatedly in four audio recordings of his telephone calls obtained by The New York Times.

“Exactly that,” agreed one host, Azmi Megahed, who confirmed the authenticity of the recording.

For decades, powerful Arab states like Egypt and Saudi Arabia have publicly criticized Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, while privately acquiescing to Israel’s continued occupation of territory the Palestinians claim as their homeland.

But now a de facto alliance against shared foes such as Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic State militants and the Arab Spring uprisings is drawing the Arab leaders into an ever-closer collaboration with their one-time nemesis, Israel — producing especially stark juxtapositions between their posturing in public and private.

Mr. Trump’s decision broke with a central premise of 50 years of American-sponsored peace talks, defied decades of Arab demands that East Jerusalem be the capital of a Palestinian state, and stoked fears of a violent backlash across the Middle East.

Arab governments, mindful of the popular sympathy for the Palestinian cause, rushed to publicly condemn it.

Egyptian state media reported that President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi had personally protested to Mr. Trump. Egyptian religious leaders close to the government refused to meet with Vice President Mike Pence, and Egypt submitted a United Nations Security Council resolution demanding a reversal of Mr. Trump’s decision. (The United States vetoed the resolution, although the General Assembly adopted a similar one, over American objections, days later.)

King Salman of Saudi Arabia, arguably the most influential Arab state, also publicly denounced Mr. Trump’s decision.

At the same time, though, the kingdom had already quietly signaled its acquiescence or even tacit approval of the Israeli claim to Jerusalem. Days before Mr. Trump’s announcement, the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, privately urged the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, to accept a radically curtailed vision of statehood without a capital in East Jerusalem, according to Palestinian, Arab and European officials who have heard Mr. Abbas’s version of events.

Saudi Arabia publicly disputed those reports.

The hosts Captain Kholi called all heeded his advice, and most other voices in the state-owned and pro-government news media across the Arab world were also strikingly muted, even unemotional, about the status of Jerusalem. Such a response would have been all but unthinkable even a decade ago, much less during the period between 1948 and 1973, when Egypt and its Arab allies fought three wars against Israel.

Shibley Telhami, a scholar of the region at the University of Maryland and the Brookings Institution, called the Arab states’ acceptance of the decision “transformational.”

“I don’t think it would have happened a decade ago, because Arab leaders would have made clear they wouldn’t live with it,” he said. Instead, he said, preoccupied by concerns about their own stability, the Arab leaders signaled that — while they may not like the decision — they “will find a way to work with it,” and “with a White House that is prepared to break with what had been taboos in American foreign policy.” . . . (Underscored emphasis added.)

This revelation by the New York Times of apparent acquiescence by the Arab leaders to Israel's claim, backed by the United States' government, to sovereignty over the whole of Jerusalem is startling! It is strange how quiet Muslim extremists have been since their initial expressions of outrage over the Trump administration action in December, 2017. Hamas initially called for a new Intifada, but has taken no action itself. Turkey and Iran have been major backers of Hamas. As reported above, Turkey is still expressing concern. There are no current reports of statements or action by Iran over the U.S. Jerusalem embassy move. One cannot help but wonder whether the crazy unpredictability of Donald Trump and his Christian Zionist supporters in the U.S. has spooked opponents of the embassy move. This quotation is from the above New York Times article: "We, like all our Arab brothers, are denouncing this matter,” Captain Kholi continued. But, he added, “After that, this thing will become a reality. Palestinians can’t resist and we don’t want to go to war. . ."

It is worthy of note that Israel is a nuclear power, as of course is the USA - a frightening alliance!

The extreme language used by U.S. Vice President Pence when he addressed the Israeli parliament on January 22, 2018 is alarming:

Mike Pence Says U.S. Embassy Will Open in Jerusalem Next Year

In his speech to the Parliament, Mr. Pence spoke in glowing terms of the long alliance between the United States and Israel, framing it as part of an epic battle.

“We stand with Israel because we believe in right over wrong, in good over evil, and in liberty over tyranny,” Mr. Pence said.

Mr. Pence, an evangelical Christian, dotted his address with biblical references and spoke of the Jewish connection to Jerusalem in historical and religious terms. . .

Saeb Erekat, the chief negotiator for the Palestinians, said that Mr. Pence’s “messianic discourse” was “a gift to extremists.”

“His message to the rest of the world is clear: violate international law & resolutions and the US will reward you,” he said, according to his office’s Twitter account. . .

Mr. Pence has spoken of protecting Christian minorities in the Middle East, but he has been widely shunned by those same Christians for his embrace of the Israeli position on Jerusalem.

No Arab Christian leaders have agreed to meet with him during his visit, and he is not scheduled to visit Christian holy sites like the city of Nazareth, the West Bank town of Bethlehem or the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, where tradition holds that Jesus was crucified. (Underscored emphasis added.)

Pence says U.S. Embassy to make Jerusalem move next year on faster timetable

Speaking in Israel’s parliament, or Knesset, Pence looked notably more at ease than during earlier meetings in Egypt and Jordan, where he has been forced to defend the controversial decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. He voiced his wholehearted support for Israel.

“Jerusalem is Israel’s capital — and, as such, President Trump has directed the State Department to immediately begin preparations to move the United States embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem,” Pence said to applause. “In the weeks ahead, our administration will advance its plan to open the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem — and that United States embassy will open before the end of next year.” . . .

Pence, an evangelical Christian, was a driving force behind the administration’s decision on Jerusalem and flanked Trump as he made the announcement. In his own past statements, he has gone further than Trump, describing Jerusalem as Israel’s undivided capital.

“The messianic discourse of Pence is a gift to extremists and has proven that the U.S. administration is part of the problem rather than the solution,” said the Palestinian Authority’s chief negotiator, Saeb Erekat. “His message to the rest of the world is clear: Violate international law and resolutions, and the U.S. will reward you,” he said. . .

During a news conference with Abbas on Monday, the E.U.’s chief diplomat, Federica Mogherini, told reporters that the 28-member bloc is committed to a two-state solution with Jerusalem as a shared capital. Abbas is also pressing for recognition. Slovenia has submitted a draft resolution to its parliament on the recognition of a Palestinian state, according to Rahim al-Farra, the Palestinian Ambassador to the E.U.

Hanan Ashrawi, one of the longtime Palestinian negotiators, said that billing Pence’s visit to the region as support for the peace process was “ridiculous.”

“The American side cannot talk about the peace process after it undermined it by declaring Jerusalem as the capital of Israel,” Ashrawi told the official Voice of Palestine radio station Monday. (Underscored emphasis added.)

The E.U. position is worthy of close watching. This has the potential to be the Vatican's avenue to stand up to the Trump Administration and exert pressure on Israel.

U.S. Embassy in Israel to move to Jerusalem by end of 2019: Pence

Pence, who visited Egypt and Jordan before traveling to Israel, said that with its policy shift on Jerusalem, “the United States has chosen fact over fiction - and fact is the only true foundation for a just and lasting peace”.

It was the highest-ranking visit by a U.S. official to the region since Trump’s Jerusalem declaration and gave Pence and Netanyahu an opportunity to highlight their own warm relationship for a conservative Christian American community that serves as a power base for the U.S. administration.

Pence, an evangelical Christian, drew parallels between Jewish history dating back to biblical times and the European pilgrims who founded the United States. He was greeted with ovations by Israeli legislators throughout his speech.

Noting that Israel will in May mark 70 years since its founding - in a war Palestinians mourn as a catastrophe - Pence switched to Hebrew to recite a Jewish prayer of thanksgiving. (Underscored emphasis added.)

US to open Jerusalem embassy sooner than expected, says Pence

Speaking during a two-day visit, Pence said Donald Trump had “righted a 70-year wrong” by recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. . .

In a speech filled with biblical references, Pence, an evangelical Christian, said America stood with Israel “because your cause is our cause, your values are our values, your fight is our fight”. . .

The chairman of the Joint Arab List alliance, Ayman Odeh, had before [said] of the speech that his group would boycott it, saying Pence was a “dangerous man with a messianic vision that includes the destruction of the entire region”. . .

While Pence spoke in Israel on Monday, Abbas was in Brussels where the European Union’s foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, assured him that the EU supported a solution in which two states share Jerusalem.

Abbas urged EU member nations to recognise Palestine’s statehood immediately.

In his speech, Pence called for the Palestinian leadership “to return to the table” and said the US would support a two-state solution, but only if both sides supported it.

The extreme statements made by Vice-President Pence confirm that he is a right-wing Christian Zionist. They also confirm the mad apocalypticism associated with the right-wing evangelical movement in the USA. Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat was precisely on point in describing Pence’s speech as a “messianic discourse;” which is consistent with reports describing the menacing ideology of the Evangelical Christian Right, frantically applauded by their counterparts in Israel. A troubling question is whether they can be relied on to draw back from provoking the apocalyptic wars that they crave? Time will tell.

It should never be overlooked that Rome's regional power plays are complex, and sometimes seem to be in conflict with each other. Such is the case between her relentless pursuit of a religio-political presence in Jerusalem versus her manipulation of propaganda and politics in the United States. In America she created and advanced the Roman Catholic-White Evangelical alliance which has almost completed the destruction of liberal democracy and ushered in a theocratic dictatorship. However, this catapulted into power the very Christian Zionist Evangelicals who are enabling the Israeli government to block the papal policy on Jerusalem. Without a knowledge and acceptance of the relevant Bible prophecies (Dan. 11:45; Isa. 14:13-14) it would seem to be impossible for Rome to achieve her objective for Jerusalem. Nevertheless, Zionism must give way to the fulfillment of these prophecies which usher in the final "time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation," at which time "thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book" (Dan. 12:1.)

ANTI-ABORTION ACTIVISM ADVANCES AUDACIOUS AND BLASPHEMOUS PAPAL DOGMA

“When political power is achieved, the moral majority will have the opportunity to re-create this great nation.” Paul Weyrich

INTRODUCTION

Trump gets mixed reviews from March for Life antiabortion protesters

Thousands of activists at the annual March for Life enjoyed a rare display of political firepower Friday, with addresses by the president, vice president and House speaker all celebrating gains the antiabortion movement has made under Donald Trump. But the movement’s elevated status comes at the price of much internal debate.

“Under my administration, we will always defend the very first right in the Declaration of Independence, and that is the right to life,” Trump said in the White House Rose Garden, in a speech that was broadcast to the marchers gathered near the Washington Monument.

The march — which typically draws busloads of Catholic school students, a large contingent of evangelical Christians and poster-toting protesters of many persuasions — falls each year around the anniversary of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that recognized a legal right to abortion, and it intends to pressure Congress and the White House to limit legal access to the procedure.

Trump said he was “really proud to be the first president to stand with you here at the White House”; Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush addressed the march by telephone when they were in office. . .

Trump, however, touted his administration’s antiabortion policies, including new orders on Thursday and Friday establishing an office to support medical professionals who do not want to perform abortions and making it easier for states to direct funding away from Planned Parenthood. . .

Though Trump said Friday that “Americans are more and more pro-life; you see that all the time,” views on abortion have remained quite steady for decades. Since the mid-1990s, about half of citizens, give or take a few percentage points, have said abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 40-odd percent have said it should be illegal in all or most cases.

Last year, the March for Life fell just days after Trump’s inauguration, and the tone was ebullient. Marchers believed they were heralding an administration that would prioritize limiting abortion. Mancini said then that she had four goals for policy in the president’s first year in office: appointing an apparently antiabortion Supreme Court justice, defunding Planned Parenthood, codifying the annual Hyde Amendment that restricts federal money from funding abortions and passing a law banning abortion in many cases after 20 weeks.

A year later, only the first of those four goals has been accomplished.

CATHOLICS AND WHITE EVANGELICALS TOGETHER FOR TRUMP

The great expectations of progress for the anti-abortion movement under a Donald Trump presidency indicates why Roman Catholics and white Evangelicals supported his presidential candidacy, and continue to support him in spite of his gross deficiencies of character and glaring unfitness for the office. Opposition to abortion is the cement that binds Catholics and white Evangelicals together in the political arena:

Trump and the Demise of the Catholic Single-Issue Voter (Petra Turner)

Donald Trump’s emergence as the Republicans’ presumptive nominee has profound consequences for those Catholics who have aligned their vote with socially conservative concerns, especially the issues of gay marriage and abortion. These Catholics have also traditionally had a certain devotion to the pope. With Trump, however, they are faced with a candidate who, while ostensibly adhering to socially conservative positions, has no specific agenda to effect the change conservative Catholics desire. Add this to the recent spat between Trump and Pope Francis over immigration, and conservative Catholics have a difficult choice before them come November.

A Brief History

In order to understand this conundrum, it is important to understand that since Roe v. Wade in 1973, the pro-life position has served as the primary issue that has motivated many socially conservative Christians to vote. In 1968 the United States Catholic Conference (USCC) Family Life Bureau organized the National Right to Life Committee. Formally incorporated as an independent organization in 1973, the NRLC sought to appeal beyond its Catholic membership, and to work at the local and national levels on behalf of the unborn right to life. In the 1970s, the Christian Right, made up primarily of white evangelical Protestants, began mobilizing, and by the end of the decade had turned its focus to the abortion issue, as well. The two movements, Catholic and evangelical, did not really begin to work together until the 1980s.

The emergence of the pro-life cause did make abortion a key issue in the 1980 presidential election, however. Catholics, who had in the 1950s and 60s largely voted for Democrats, began a move toward the Republicans in the 1970s, and at the same time southern evangelical Protestants began to drift away from the Democrats, as well. The adoption of a pro-life position in the 1980 Republican platform cemented the political allegiances of a large number of socially conservative Catholics and evangelical Protestants. (Underscored emphasis added.)

A RIGHTEOUS ALLIANCE OR AN UNHOLY MOTIVATION?

This "pro-life position" enabled the publication Christian Today to confidently predict the [white] Evangelical vote in the 2016 election. Hillary Clinton never had a chance with this bloc of voters:

Abortion: How it became the issue that will sink Clinton for evangelicals

Evangelicals – and white evangelicals in particular – are planning to vote for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton in droves. Both candidates suffer from low approval and 'likeability' ratings and many evangelicals are planning to abstain or vote for a third candidate as a protest. But in Clinton's case, the issue that makes her absolutely unelectable is that she is pro-choice – in favour of a woman's more or less unrestricted right to choose to abort her baby.

For most US evangelicals and Roman Catholics, life begins at conception. This is not a view evangelicals have always held – the Southern Baptist Convention in 1971 called for legislation to allow abortion under conditions such as rape, incest, severe foetal deformity, or damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother. It later expressed regret for its stance. After the crucial Roe v Wade ruling in 1973 that legalised abortion, even such a doughty conservative as Walter Criswell welcomed it, saying: "I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person," he said, "and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed."

Neither is it the case that abortion has always been a political dealbreaker for evangelicals, or decided along party lines. Republican president Ronald Reagan was personally pro-life but when he was governor of California he signed into law the Therapeutic Abortion Act to reduce the number of back-street abortions.

But abortion became a key political battleground with the rise of the religious right and its ideological identification with the Republican party. And according to Randall Balmer, a Columbia University professor and author of Thy Kingdom Come, this was a deliberate policy rather than a spontaneous revulsion at the consequences of Roe v Wade.

In his book, subtitled An Evangelical's Lament, Balmer says most evangelical leaders did not respond to Roe v Wade. He recalls a meeting at which one of the founders of the Moral Majority movement, Paul Weyrich, spoke animatedly about the formation of the Religious Right in the late 1970s. It came about, he said, as a result of efforts by Jimmy Carter to deny segregationist colleges tax-exempt status. Weyrich, corroborated by others, told Balmer conservatives held a conference call to discuss their strategy and find a unifying issue. "Several callers made suggestions, and then, according to Weyrich, a voice on the end of one of the lines said, 'How about abortion?' And that is how abortion was cobbled into the political agenda of the Religious Right," says Balmer.

There are two issues here. One is whether abortion was cynically used by the right as a way of getting evangelical Christians onside in a struggle for political influence. On Balmer's evidence, it was.

But the other issue is about the thing itself. Whatever the origins of the abortion lobby, most evangelicals have been convinced by the argument that life begins at conception and that abortion is, to one degree or another, profoundly wrong. This is a line argued passionately by campaigners such as Francis Schaeffer, Harold Brown and C Everett Koop in the 1970s, and particularly in Koop's bombshell book Whatever Happened to the Human Race? (1979). Their campaigns, and Koop's book in particular, helped persuade a generation of evangelicals that abortion is profoundly evil – and they haven't changed their minds. . . (Underscored emphasis added.)

From the above history it is established out of the mouth of the mastermind responsible for the formation of the Religious Right alliance of Catholics and Evangelicals that what brought the leadership together was not abortion, but the threat of governmental action against segregationist colleges. This could not be openly acknowledged, so they had to find some other unifying issue. It can reasonably be opined that this was because a movement requires followers as well as leaders. The genius of choosing abortion as that unifying issue is demonstrated by the end result described in the last paragraph above.

The cynical use of abortion "by the right as a way of getting evangelical Christians onside in a struggle for political influence" is brought into glaring relief by the following report:

The Real Origins of the Religious Right

They’ll tell you it was abortion. Sorry, the historical record’s clear: It was segregation.

One of the most durable myths in recent history is that the religious right, the coalition of conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists, emerged as a political movement in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion. The tale goes something like this: Evangelicals, who had been politically quiescent for decades, were so morally outraged by Roe that they resolved to organize in order to overturn it.

This myth of origins is oft repeated by the movement’s leaders. In his 2005 book, Jerry Falwell, the firebrand fundamentalist preacher, recounts his distress upon reading about the ruling in the Jan. 23, 1973, edition of the Lynchburg News: “I sat there staring at the Roe v. Wade story,” Falwell writes, “growing more and more fearful of the consequences of the Supreme Court’s act and wondering why so few voices had been raised against it.” Evangelicals, he decided, needed to organize.

Some of these anti- Roe crusaders even went so far as to call themselves “new abolitionists,” invoking their antebellum predecessors who had fought to eradicate slavery.

But the abortion myth quickly collapses under historical scrutiny. In fact, it wasn’t until 1979—a full six years after Roe—that evangelical leaders, at the behest of conservative activist Paul Weyrich, seized on abortion not for moral reasons, but as a rallying-cry to deny President Jimmy Carter a second term. Why? Because the anti-abortion crusade was more palatable than the religious right’s real motive: protecting segregated schools. So much for the new abolitionism. . .

So what then were the real origins of the religious right? It turns out that the movement can trace its political roots back to a court ruling, but not Roe v. Wade.

In May 1969, a group of African-American parents in Holmes County, Mississippi, sued the Treasury Department to prevent three new whites-only K-12 private academies from securing full tax-exempt status, arguing that their discriminatory policies prevented them from being considered “charitable” institutions. The schools had been founded in the mid-1960s in response to the desegregation of public schools set in motion by the Brown v. Board of Education decision of 1954. In 1969, the first year of desegregation, the number of white students enrolled in public schools in Holmes County dropped from 771 to 28; the following year, that number fell to zero.

In Green v. Kennedy (David Kennedy was secretary of the treasury at the time), decided in January 1970, the plaintiffs won a preliminary injunction, which denied the “segregation academies” tax-exempt status until further review. In the meantime, the government was solidifying its position on such schools. Later that year, President Richard Nixon ordered the Internal Revenue Service to enact a new policy denying tax exemptions to all segregated schools in the United States. Under the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which forbade racial segregation and discrimination, discriminatory schools were not—by definition—“charitable” educational organizations, and therefore they had no claims to tax-exempt status; similarly, donations to such organizations would no longer qualify as tax-deductible contributions.

On June 30, 1971, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued its ruling in the case, now Green v. Connally (John Connally had replaced David Kennedy as secretary of the Treasury). The decision upheld the new IRS policy: “Under the Internal Revenue Code, properly construed, racially discriminatory private schools are not entitled to the Federal tax exemption provided for charitable, educational institutions, and persons making gifts to such schools are not entitled to the deductions provided in case of gifts to charitable, educational institutions.”

Paul Weyrich, the late religious conservative political activist and co-founder of the Heritage Foundation, saw his opening.

In the decades following World War II, evangelicals, especially white evangelicals in the North, had drifted toward the Republican Party—inclined in that direction by general Cold War anxieties, vestigial suspicions of Catholicism and well-known evangelist Billy Graham’s very public friendship with Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon. Despite these predilections, though, evangelicals had largely stayed out of the political arena, at least in any organized way. If he could change that, Weyrich reasoned, their large numbers would constitute a formidable voting bloc—one that he could easily marshal behind conservative causes.

“The new political philosophy must be defined by us [conservatives] in moral terms, packaged in non-religious language, and propagated throughout the country by our new coalition,” Weyrich wrote in the mid-1970s. “When political power is achieved, the moral majority will have the opportunity to re-create this great nation.” Weyrich believed that the political possibilities of such a coalition were unlimited. “The leadership, moral philosophy, and workable vehicle are at hand just waiting to be blended and activated,” he wrote. “If the moral majority acts, results could well exceed our wildest dreams.”But this hypothetical “moral majority” needed a catalyst—a standard around which to rally. For nearly two decades, Weyrich, by his own account, had been trying out different issues, hoping one might pique evangelical interest: pornography, prayer in schools, the proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution, even abortion. “I was trying to get these people interested in those issues and I utterly failed,” Weyrich recalled at a conference in 1990.

The Green v. Connally ruling provided a necessary first step: It captured the attention of evangelical leaders , especially as the IRS began sending questionnaires to church-related “segregation academies,” including Falwell’s own Lynchburg Christian School, inquiring about their racial policies. Falwell was furious. “In some states,” he famously complained, “It’s easier to open a massage parlor than a Christian school.”

One such school, Bob Jones University—a fundamentalist college in Greenville, South Carolina—was especially obdurate. The IRS had sent its first letter to Bob Jones University in November 1970 to ascertain whether or not it discriminated on the basis of race. The school responded defiantly: It did not admit African Americans. . . (Underscored emphasis added) [The entire article is highly educational, and provides insight into continuing current events bearing on the fulfillment of prophecy.]

It should be self-evident that God does not work through lies and deceptions, or racial prejudice. The foregoing lengthy history recounts how the political union of Catholics and Protestants was achieved by a hypocritical use of the abortion issue. Arguably of greater significance was and is the misapplication of Bible texts to support the anti-abortion crusade. It is a crusade which embraces deadly error packaged to ensnare minds genuinely concerned about widespread moral degeneration. Here it is worthy of note that just as hypocrisy was involved in the political movement, it is particularly deep-seated in the Church of Rome.

A DECEPTIVE TERM MASKING A DEADLY THEOLOGICAL FALSEHOOD

The term "pro-life" is deceptive, conjuring up in the minds of sensitive men and women a living human being in the womb of a woman. Nevertheless, upon close examination it is also revealing. In reality the primary meaning of "life" in this context is not the cluster of living cells changing and developing in the woman's womb. It is the unbiblical dogma of an immortal soul, with the time of "ensoulment" determining when life begins. (Cf. Immortality? (SDA;) The origins of the doctrine of the “immortality of the soul” (Non-denominational. N.B. Citation does not imply support for any theology on the hyperlinked website contrary to the theology of Adventistlaymen.com) From the last citations, it is obvious that belief in the immortality of the soul is not unique to Roman Catholicism. In fact, there is "almost universal adherence to the immortality of the soul within contemporary Christendom" (The immortality of the soul: Could Christianity survive without it? (Part 1 of 2).) It has never been a part of Seventh-day Adventist theology; and happily there still remain some other Protestant denominations which have resisted this false theology.) Also, the concept of "ensoulment" is not unique to Roman Catholicism (Cf. The Breath of Life: Christian Perspectives on Conception and Ensoulment, by two Anglican essayists.) All of this emphasizes the mountain of false theology that confronts those who do not believe in the immortality of the soul. It is in this environment that the abortion controversy puts the immortality of the soul to the front and center of the "pro-life" movement. The activism of the Roman Catholic Church, joined in recent decades by Protestant Evangelicals, threatens to force acceptance of this false doctrine by all who do not have the fortitude to resist the word of man in opposition to the Word of God. The contest between the Word of God and the dictates of man is what the final battle of Armageddon is all about, and the conflict is now building towards its climax as the unclean spirits of Rev. 16:13-14 are busily driving the world towards the final climactic confrontation of Rev. 17:8, 11-14. The choice for each of us is between the Truth of God and the lies and deceptions of spirits of devils, and it determines whether we receive the Seal of God or the Mark of the Beast, which Beast is the Roman Catholic Church. It is therefore of profound significance that while theories of "ensoulment" cross denominational boundaries, it is the Church of Rome that has made it the centerpiece of its anti-abortion crusade. Therefore the importance of examining the theological basis cannot be exaggerated:

THE COMPLEX PROBLEM OF ABORTION

Roman Catholic Teaching on Abortion

It seems to be almost universally assumed in public debate that the Roman Catholic position on abortion has always been clear, straightforward, and historically consistent. It is indeed true that the Roman Church has always condemned the vast majority of abortions, but this condemnation has over the years been made with greatly differing force, on the basis of a variety of reasons, and with a changing list of exceptions and qualifications. Catholic theologians have disputed at great length about the moral implications of Christianity, but many of their arguments, which have been highly influential in determining the development of the Church’s official doctrine, would probably now seem very questionable to many of those who nevertheless ascribe great authority to the current official position. This position is that the fetus is to be treated as a human person from the “first instant” of conception, and that abortion is therefore tantamount to homicide, excusable only in cases where it is an indirect effect of medical intervention whose direct intention is to save the mother’s life, as in the case of the removal of a Fallopian tube in an ectopic pregnancy, or the removal of a cancerous uterus. We shall see that it is far from clear whether modern Roman Catholics should feel themselves committed to endorsing such a doctrine.

Much of the historical Christian debate was centred around the interpretation of Exodus 21:22-25, [Cf. The Bible passage Exodus 21:22-25] the only passage of obvious relevance in the Old Testament. In the Revised Standard Version this is translated as follows:

²² When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. ²³ If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, ²⁴ eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, ²⁵ burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. It is clear from the context that “harm” here means harm to the woman, but in the influential Greek Septuagint version, this passage was mistranslated to state that “you shall give life for life” not only where the mother dies, but also where a “formed” fetus dies (that is, a fetus sufficiently developed to have a recognisably human form). Over the centuries most prominent moral theologians (e.g. Jerome, Augustine, Gratian, Lombard, Aquinas, Sanchez, Liguori) accordingly drew a distinction between the abortion of an early (“unformed”) and of a late fetus, usually taking only the latter, at most, to be equivalent to homicide, on the grounds that only a “formed” fetus could be “ensouled”. The Septuagint mistranslation may have been indirectly influenced by the Aristotelian theory of progressive ensoulment, which was itself to have a significant independent impact on scholastic thought (principally through Aquinas) after Aristotle’s major biological writings had been translated into Latin near the beginning of the thirteenth century. According to Aristotle the fetus is initially infused with a nutritive or vegetative soul, then a sensitive or animal soul, and finally manifests a rational or human soul at the (misleadingly named) stage of “animation”, occurring after about 40 days of gestation in the case of males, and 80 to 90 days in the case of females. Like the Exodus passage from the Septuagint, this theory was understood to imply that early abortion is not homicide, since it does not involve the killing of a being with a human soul.

None of this should be taken to suggest that the Church condoned early abortion, except in a small number of very special cases. For early abortion was indeed condemned, sometimes as strongly as late abortion, but not on the grounds that it was tantamount to homicide. The usual complaint was instead that it was “contrary to nature”, so that early abortion would thus be on the same level as the supposedly fairly serious sin of contraception. Most took the two to be roughly equivalent, though Sanchez, for example, thought contraception to be the more unequivocally evil, because of its association with sexual pleasure, whereas early abortion he took to be sometimes permissible. It was not until after the Second Vatican Council in 1965 that the modern distinction was clearly drawn, with abortion at any stage, but not contraception, being declared a “horrible crime”.

The distinction between early and late abortion seems to have lost favour for two principal reasons. First, medical advances began to suggest that the development of the fetus was gradual from conception onwards, with no sharp discontinuity to mark the supposed event of ensoulment. The Medico-Legal Questions (1621) of Paolo Zacchia was particularly influential in thus undermining the Aristotelian orthodoxy in medical circles (and, much later, amongst theologians), though Zacchia himself retained the idea that late abortion was significantly more serious than early abortion. The second, and theologically more crucial, objection to progressive ensoulment came in the nineteenth century from the increasingly popular cult of the Immaculate Conception of Mary: the doctrine (with no biblical foundation) that Jesus’ mother was herself conceived without sin. The point here was that the feast of the Immaculate Conception had been finally settled in the previous century as 8th December, exactly nine months prior to the feast of her birth on 8th September. This looked quite illogical unless Mary’s sinless rational soul had come into being at the time of her physical conception, and accordingly, when Pius IX in 1854 “infallibly” proclaimed the Immaculate Conception as a dogma of the church, he stated that Mary had been free from sin “in the first instant of her conception”. Consistently, it was this same Pope who, in 1869, finally gave implicit official endorsement to the doctrine of immediate animation, by extending the ultimate punishment of excommunication to all abortions, with no distinction between early and late.

From all this it can be seen that the Roman Catholic position on abortion has developed over a long period subject to many influences, including the interpretation and (mis-) translation of biblical texts, prominent philosophical theories, the development of biological science, many moral judgements about related issues such as contraception and sexual behaviour, and, not least, consistency with theological doctrines. A strict Roman Catholic may be confident that the seal of Papal Infallibility on the Immaculate Conception is sufficient to guarantee the doctrine of immediate animation, and therefore to demonstrate that all abortion is homicide. But for any Christian who has no such confidence, and in particular, for one who denies the traditional belief in the wrongness of contraception and the associated negative attitude to sex, it is far from clear that the Church’s historical debate on abortion provides any convincing evidence for the claim that Christian principles require opposition to abortion in virtually all cases, let alone for the extreme Roman Catholic view that all abortion is homicide. . . (Underscored emphasis added.)

Notice in the above historical record that "ensoulment" is the constant in deciding whether or not an abortion is homicide. Although early abortion was condemned by Rome as "contrary to nature," it was not regarded as homicide, "since it does not involve the killing of a being with a human soul." Of great significance is the central contribution of philosophy to the developing Roman Catholic theological position. Consider the contribution of Aristotle:

"According to Aristotle the fetus is initially infused with a nutritive or vegetative soul, then a sensitive or animal soul, and finally manifests a rational or human soul . . ."

Note two passages from the essay:

(1) "First, medical advances began to suggest that the development of the fetus was gradual from conception onwards, with no sharp discontinuity to mark the supposed event of ensoulment."

(2) "The second, and theologically more crucial, objection to progressive ensoulment came in the nineteenth century from the increasingly popular cult of the Immaculate Conception of Mary: the doctrine (with no biblical foundation) that Jesus’ mother was herself conceived without sin."

ON THE OFFENSIVE IN DEFENCE OF ROMAN CATHOLIC DOGMA

The facts stated in the two passages above reveal the arbitrary setting of spurious feast dates clashing with the theory of progressive ensoulment, and leading to the promulgation of the blasphemous dogma of the Immaculate Conception, absolutely without biblical foundation (Cf. Four Great Marian Dogmas.) How easily are those ensnared who abhor blasphemous Roman Catholic dogmas and yet are either active proponents of the anti-abortion movement or even simply assent to what it advocates!

The role of dogma in Rome's opposition to abortion is brought into sharp relief in the light of Pope Pius IX's biography:

Pope Pius IX (1792-1878)

Pope Pius IX was also highly involved in reforming church doctrine. His long time devotion to Mary led to the establishment of the dogma of Immaculate Conception of Mary on 8 December 1854. On 8 December 1869, Pope Pius IX opened the Vatican Counsel in the Basilica of St. Peter in Rome. Before the Counsel ended 8 July 1870, Pope Pius IX established the dogma of "papal infallibility,” which states that when speaking in terms of Church doctrine, the Pope speaks the truth with certainty.

Pope Pius IX challenged the canonical tradition about the beginning of ensouled life set by Pope Gregory XIV in 1591. He believed that while it may not be known when ensoulment occurs, there was the possibility that it happens at conception. Believing it was morally safer to follow this conclusion, he thought all life should be protected from the start of conception. In 1869 he removed the labels of “animated” fetus and “unanimated” fetus and concluded that abortions at any point of gestation were punishable by excommunication. While excommunication was used to punish those who procured abortions, it was not extended to those who used contraception.

Pope Pius IX, commonly known as Pio Nono, died on 7 February 1878. His was the longest papacy in the history of the Catholic Church, and Pope Pius IX is often considered one of the greatest popes to have ever lived. His dogma of Immaculate Conception, Vatican I, and papal infallibility were some of his most notable accomplishments. His efforts in punishing those that procured abortions at any time of gestation prevailed within the Catholic Church; excommunication for abortion became Canon Law in 1917, and later revised in 1983. (Underscored emphasis added.)

Although the saying of Sir Walter Scott, "O, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive!" doesn't perfectly fit the history of the "infallible" papal dogma of the Immaculate Conception (as well as the three other Marian dogmas,) it is a history of the papacy working itself into an indefensible corner with propositions to which it must rigidly adhere against all reason, and above all against the Bible. Because of the Roman Catholic Church's political power and influence, the general populace of the United States is being forced to submit to the central deadly error of the Immortality of the Soul as well as related irrational and blasphemous teachings. The following article gets to the heart of Rome's obstinacy in its anti-abortion crusade. The author suggests that the Roman Catholic Church is destroying itself; but this could not be further from the reality, based on Bible prophecy and current events:

Catholic Doctrine and Reproductive Health WHY THE CHURCH CAN’T CHANGE

The anti-abortion movement in the United States was created in response to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Roe v. Wade in 1973, which legalized abortion. However, it really owes its origin to a group of men in Rome 103 years earlier. This was 1870, the year of Vatican Council I, a conclave of great importance in recent church history. Why is this so?

Hans Küng, the renowned Swiss Catholic theologian, best summed up the problem accounting for its creation when he said, “It is not possible to solve the problem of contraception until we solve the problem of infallibility.” In his book, How the Pope Became Infallible, Catholic historian Bernhard Hasler describes in great detail what Küng meant: For more than a millennium, the Vatican had possessed temporal power that ensured its survival. With the loss of the Papal States in 1870, it appeared all but certain that a strong papacy would simply disappear. The Vatican urgently needed a new source of power.

A group of conservative and influential leaders, including Pope Pius IX, came up with a brilliant idea for a new source: an infallible pope. What is infallibility? According to Catholic dogma, when the pope formulates a doctrine, he is simply transmitting this dogma on God’s behalf. Therefore, the teaching cannot possibly be in error.

Roman Catholics could be certain that the teachings of the pope and of God were one and the same, and, if strictly followed, one’s entrance into heaven was guaranteed. Communicants found this concept very attractive and were eager to behave in any manner required of them. Such an arrangement placed enormous control over individuals into the hands of the Vatican, extending across national borders and even to the other side of the world. It could no longer control the laity by means of its governance, as it had in the Papal States which would later become Italy. But the Holy See could exercise control directly by adopting a policy of psychological coercion founded on a new doctrine—that of papal infallibility.

Protection at all Costs

Papal infallibility was a brilliant concept—and it worked for a century. But at its introduction in 1870, the Catholic intelligentsia recognized that, at some point in the future, this principle would lead to the self-destruction of the institution. Times were certain to change and in unpredictable ways, but the Church would be locked on an inexorable course—teachings that could not be changed without destroying the principle of infallibility itself. These distinguished scholars foresaw that one day, encumbered by its unchangeable teachings, the Church would find itself down a blind alley from which there would be no escape and faced with inevitable self-destruction as a result of a grave loss of credibility. The blind alley turned out to be the issue of birth control— contraception and abortion.

Since the 1968 adoption of the papal encyclical, Humanae Vitae, there has been a hemorrhage in the Church’s credibility. Humanae Vitae ruled out any change of the Church’s position on birth control for all time. . .

The Threats of Legalized Birth Control and Abortion

In 1964, Pope Paul VI created the Papal Commission on Population and Birth Control. It was a two-part commission and met from 1964 to 1966. One part consisted of 64 lay persons, the other, of 15 clerics, including the future Pope John Paul II, then a Polish cardinal. Pope Paul gave the Commission only one mission—to determine how the Church could change its position on birth control without undermining papal authority. After two years of study, the Commission concluded that it was not possible to make this change without undermining papal authority, but that the Church should make the change anyway because it was the right thing to do! The lay members voted 60 to 4 for change, and the clerics, 9 to 6 for change. Pope Paul did not act immediately. A minority report was prepared, co-authored by the man who is now [was] Pope John Paul II. In this report he stated:

If it should be declared that contraception is not evil in itself, then we should have to concede frankly that the Holy Spirit had been on the side of the Protestant churches in 1930 (when the encyclical Casti Connubii was promulgated), in 1951 (Pius XlI’s address to the midwives), and in 1958 (the address delivered before the Society of Hematologists in the year the pope died). It should likewise have to be admitted that for a half century the Spirit failed to protect Pius XI, Pius XII, and a large part of the Catholic hierarchy from a very serious error.

This would mean that the leaders of the Church, acting with extreme imprudence, had condemned thousands of innocent human acts, forbidding, under pain of eternal damnation, a practice which would now be sanctioned. The fact can neither be denied nor ignored that these same acts would now be declared licit on the grounds of principles cited by the Protestants, which popes and bishops have either condemned or at least not approved. (Underscored emphasis added.)

In this and other texts, the pope took the position that a change on the birth control issue would destroy the principle of papal infallibility, and that infallibility was the fundamental principle of the Church upon which all else rests. A change on birth control would immediately raise questions about other possible errors popes have made in matters of divorce, homosexuality, confession, parochial schooling, etc. that are fundamental to Roman Catholicism. The security and survival of the papacy itself is on the line. The Church insists on being the sole arbiter of what is moral. Civil law legalizes contraception and abortion. Governments are thereby challenging the prerogative of the pope to be the ultimate authority on matters of morality. Most Americans look to democratic process to determine morality. In the simplest analysis, the Church cannot coexist with such an arrangement, which in its view, threatens its very survival as a world political power. For this reason, the Vatican was forced to interfere in the democratic process in the United States by lobbying for the passage of numerous anti­abortion laws designed to protect its interests. There is a plethora of documentation to support these findings, relating mainly to Vatican and U.S. National Conference of Catholic Bishops’ sources, some of which I will discuss later. Only legal abortion and legal family planning threaten the Church. It has shown very little interest in illegal abortion. For example, in Latin America, where abortion is illegal, abortion rates are two or three times as high as those seen in the United States. However, abortion is essentially ignored by the bishops there.

Political Action

. . . Even before the work of the Papal Commission on Population and Birth Control was completed in 1966, it was widely recognized in the Vatican that the Church faced a grave problem regarding birth control, including abortion. Vatican Council II, which ended in 1966, set the stage for the bishops to address this problem. One of the outcomes of this Council was the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World. Part two of the Constitution was titled, “Some Problems of Special Urgency.” In his book, Catholic Bishops in American Politics, published by the Princeton University Press in 1991, T.A. Byrnes observes, “This list of problems to which the Church was to turn its attention reads like a blueprint of the American hierarchy’s political agenda in the 1970s and 1980s.” The first was abortion:

God, the Lord of life, has conferred on men the surpassing ministry of safeguarding life—a ministry which must be fulfilled in a manner which is worthy of man. Therefore, from the moment of conception life must be guarded with the greatest of care, while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes.

The Decree on the Bishops’ Pastoral Office in the Church, another Vatican Council II document, created the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB), which was organized according to universal church law. It was created to serve as a political instrument of the Vatican. During a meeting of the American hierarchy in November 1966, the bishops formally established the NCCB as their official collective body and established the United States Catholic Conference (USCC) as their administrative arm and secretariat.

From the very beginning, there has been a common and correct perception that the Catholic hierarchy was primarily an anti-abortion political lobby. Byrnes summarizes his study of the history of Catholic bishops in American politics by saying:

Before I end, I want to address one final matter, namely the unique position that abortion occupies on the Catholic hierarchy’s public policy agenda. Abortion is not simply one issue among many for the bishops. It is rather the bedrock, non- negotiable starting point from which the rest of their agenda has developed. The bishops’ positions on other issues have led to political action and political controversy but abortion, throughout the period I have examined, has been a consistently central feature of the Catholic hierarchy’s participation in American politics. (Underscored emphasis added.) (Cf. How the Vatican Almost Embraced Birth Control.)

The conclusion of the matter is that the anti-abortion movement is not concerned with morality, or with biblical prohibition, or with the preservation of human life, but with the power and authority of the Roman Catholic Church. Most ominously, it is a satanic ruse to seduce the unsuspecting into acceptance of the doctrine of the Immortality of the Soul.

AMERICAN DEMOCRACY UNDER SIEGE: CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION LOOMS

The great Pope (from the Roman Catholic point of view) Leo XIII was absolutely clear in his opposition to democracy. He also exhibited an intense interest in American democracy and how it could be shaped by the Church of Rome to her purpose. Over a century later the representative democracy of the United States is riddled like Swiss cheese by the inroads of Roman Catholic teachings (Social Doctrine.) A very prominent principle of the Roman Catholic Social Doctrine is Subsidiarity. It is clearly central to a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures of America:-

Inside the Conservative Push for States to Amend the Constitution

Taking advantage of almost a decade of political victories in state legislatures across the country, conservative advocacy groups are quietly marshaling support for an event unprecedented in the nation’s history: a convention of the 50 states, summoned to consider amending the Constitution.

The groups are an amalgam of free-market, low-tax and small-government proponents, often funded by corporations and deeply conservative supporters like the billionaire Koch brothers and Donors Trust, whose contributors are mostly anonymous. They want an amendment to require a balanced federal budget, an idea many conservatives have embraced, many economists disdain and Congress has failed to endorse for decades.

But as the groups near their goal, critics and some skeptical constitutional scholars are warning that holding an amendment-writing meeting with no historical parallel and no written rules could open a Pandora’s box of constitutional mischief.

The process, which is playing out largely beyond public notice, rests on a clause in Article 5 of the Constitution that allows the states to sidestep Congress and draft their own constitutional amendments whenever two-thirds of their legislatures demand it.

That will by no means be easy. Even if the two-thirds threshold were reached, a convention would probably face a court battle over whether the legislatures’ calls for a convention were sufficiently similar. And as with any amendment that Congress proposes, state-written amendments would need approval by three-quarters of the states — either by their legislatures or by state conventions — to take effect.

But as Republicans have surged to control of state legislatures and moved sharply rightward during the Obama years, what was once a pet project of the party’s fringe has become a proposal with a plausible chance of success. Some of the former Republican presidential candidates, including comparative moderates like John Kasich and Jeb Bush, have endorsed a state amendment convention. . . (Underlined emphasis added)

These are extraordinary times as attested by this "event unprecedented in the nation’s history." That the groups pushing for action by the States are marshaling support quietly is consistent with the modus operandi of those who are working insidiously to dismantle the US Constitution. The "amalgam" of groups at work are predominantly, if not exclusively, the Religious Right alliance which is determined to turn the United States into a Theocracy:

Will Corporations, The Christian Right, and the Tea Party Get to Rewrite the Constitution?

Former U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), the Tea Party icon who helped bring Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Mike Lee (R-UT) into the Senate, was ousted after four years as president of the Heritage Foundation in May 2017. [Ref. 1] DeMint had thought he would have more influence on policy from his perch at Heritage than he had in the Senate. But as it turned out, there was not only life after Heritage, but the possibility of greater influence still. “I feel like the Lord knows what He’s doing,” DeMint told broadcaster Glenn Beck, because now “I’m in a place where I can make a much bigger difference.”

The place where DeMint could make a bigger difference than as senator or head of the 800-pound gorilla of right-wing think tanks is Convention of States, a group mobilizing an effort to rewrite the U.S. Constitution through a set of amendments that would drastically limit the taxation, regulatory and oversight powers of the federal government and restructure our constitutional order into one focused on states’ rights. DeMint joined the group as a “senior advisor” and sees the project as a new Tea Party mission that’s “much bigger than the Tea Party.” [Ref. 2]

Convention of States is a political alliance between elements of the anti-regulatory Corporate Right and the Christian Right, organizing toward a constitutional convention that would destroy the underpinnings of Great Society projects like Medicare and food stamps, and New Deal programs like Social Security. They’re also turning their sights on the progressive gains from the turn of the 20th Century, such as the 16th Amendment, which allows the federal government to collect income taxes and which they believe started the disastrous course toward big government.

This effort, like the older, more focused drive for a convention to advance a balanced budget amendment, is promoted in part by the libertarian Koch brothers’ network—often called the “dark money ATM of the Right”—and the right-wing organizations they fund [Ref. 3,] like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) [Ref. 4.] And it draws support from Christian Right figures rooted in Reconstructionist theology that believes God reserves tasks like education or caring for the poor for churches and families, not government [Ref. 5.]

Americans who feared the election of Donald Trump and Republican majorities in Congress would undermine Obama-era victories on healthcare and LGBTQ equality were right, of course. But that’s the tip of the iceberg. These battles represent a tiny piece of the Right’s long-term political vision of dismantling the federal government.

Political Research Associates published significant work in 2013 and 2014 by Frederick Clarkson, Rachel Tabachnick and Frank Cocozzelli on right-wing approaches to limiting or eroding the power of the federal government. These included various proposals for interstate compacts and different convention proposals. Also covered were threats of secession and civil war, and arguments for nullification—the theory, repeatedly rejected by the Supreme Court, that states can ignore or defy federal laws or court rulings they deem unconstitutional. Some segregationists championed nullification as a response to Brown v. Board of Education and some on the Right still call for a nullification strategy to resist developments on immigration, abortion rights, and marriage equality. All this is part of the political and religious context in which the rise of Convention of States is happening. And it has gone profoundly underreported.

Article V outlines two approaches for altering the Constitution. Every constitutional amendment to date has followed the first: Congress proposes an amendment with a two-thirds vote of both houses; it becomes part of the Constitution if it is ratified by three-quarters of the states. The second approach requires Congress to call a “convention for proposing amendments” when two-thirds of states apply for one via their state legislatures. Any proposed amendments would also require approval by three-quarters of the states before ratification.

Organizers of a convention focused on a balanced budget amendment have 27 of the 34 states required and have identified nine targets to take them toward their goal, which they hope to reach by July 4, 2018. The broader anti-federal-government Convention of States proposal has been approved by legislatures in 12 states; in nine more, a call passed one house of the legislature. According to Convention of States, more than 20 states considered legislation in 2017. (Underlined emphasis added.)

The outlook for America's Representative Democracy is bleak. Students of Bible prophecy can see the handwriting on the wall, figuratively speaking; but even in the secular world the alarm is being sounded on every side that the US Constitution as we know it is at risk:

States Likely Could Not Control Constitutional Convention on Balanced Budget Amendment or Other Issues

In the coming months, a number of states are likely to consider resolutions that call for a convention to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution to require a balanced federal budget, and possibly to shrink federal authority in other, often unspecified, ways. Proponents of these resolutions claim that 28 of the 34 states required to call a constitutional convention already have passed such resolutions.

State lawmakers considering such resolutions should be skeptical of claims being made by groups promoting the resolutions (such as the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC) that states could control the actions or outcomes of a constitutional convention. A convention likely would be extremely contentious and highly politicized, and its results impossible to predict.

A number of prominent jurists and legal scholars have warned that a constitutional convention could open up the Constitution to radical and harmful changes. For instance, the late Justice Antonin Scalia said in 2014, “I certainly would not want a constitutional convention. Whoa! Who knows what would come out of it?” Similarly, former Chief Justice of the United States Warren Burger wrote in 1988:

[T]here is no way to effectively limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like its agenda.

Such serious concerns are justified, for several reasons:

A convention could write its own rules. The Constitution provides no guidance whatsoever on the ground rules for a convention. . .

A convention could set its own agenda, possibly influenced by powerful interest groups. The only constitutional convention in U.S. history, in 1787, went far beyond its mandate. . .

A convention could choose a new ratification process. The 1787 convention ignored the ratification process under which it was established and created a new process, lowering the number of states needed to approve the new Constitution and removing Congress from the approval process. . .

No other body, including the courts, has clear authority over a convention. The Constitution provides for no authority above that of a constitutional convention, so it is not clear that the courts — or any other institution — could intervene if a convention did not limit itself to the language of the state resolutions calling for a convention. . .

Nowhere in any of the reports about the objective of the Balanced Budget Amendment is Subsidiarity specifically mentioned; but it is at the heart of the focus on the Federal government:

SUBSIDIARITY AS A PRLNCIPLE OF GOVERNANCE: BEYOND DEVOLUTION

With the ascension of George W. Bush to the presidency comes the public emergence of the subsidiarity principle, a doctrine previously familiar primarily to Catholic social theorists and observers of the European Union. Fundamentally and explicitly intertwined with Bush's "compassionate conservative" vision, subsidiarity calls for social problems to be addressed from the bottom up, rather than from the top down. Literally meaning "to 'seat' ('sid') a service down ('sub') as close to the need for that service as is feasible," subsidiarity holds that where families, neighborhoods, churches, or community groups can effectively address a given problem, they should. Where they cannot, municipal or state Governments should intervene. Only when the lower bodies prove ineffective should the federal government become involved.

Subsidiarity has assumed a decidedly conservative gloss in today's public policy debates. Clung to by those seeking to shrink federal government programs and largely ignored by those who oppose them, subsidiarity appears to have become the exclusive property of one side of the political spectrum. . .

If the following Roman Catholic analysis is correct, the ultimate application of subsidiarity to the body politic is a frightening prospect, and totally inimical to individual freedom. The following extracts are explicit:

Subsidiarity and Libertarian “Small Government”

1) Subsidiarity is a communitarian philosophy. In this doctrine the human person cannot be understood apart from his communal nature and his communal existence. Subsidiarity claims that a communal, social and political existence is imposed on the human person by human nature, by the natural law and, ultimately, by God. . .

2) Because subsidiarity claims that human nature is communal the same doctrine claims that our obligations to the community are imposed by nature, rather than by free agreement. So, for example, the authority of the government comes from God and the natural law rather than the free consent of the governed. The people must obey whether they have consented or not. . .

3) According to subsidiarity the good is to be pursued communally under the direction of and, if necessary, compulsion by the government. . .

4) The doctrine of subsidiarity holds that the common good has priority over individual freedom. . .

5) Subsidiarity understands relations between human persons, between the individual and the community, primarily in terms of moral obligations and secondarily in terms of rights. The role of government is to enforce obligations. The government must not simply restrict sins of commission (such as murder) but also present sins of omission (such as failing to contribute to the material support of the community) by compelling individuals into pertinent obligatory actions. . .

9) For subsidiarity, freedom is primarily freedom to live a Catholic and moral life, to pursue authentic cultural goods and to live in a community of life with one’s family, friends and neighbors. Economic freedom is of relatively low priority. Material wellbeing to pursue these higher goods is necessary and both this material wellbeing and the pursuit of these higher goods can necessitate placing restrictions on economic freedom. . .

11) Finally, subsidiarity sees human relations primarily as cooperative. Part of the communal nature of the human person is to live in charity, benevolence and mutual cooperation with others. This is not to deny that the effects of original sin often lead us to fail to live up to our nature in this regard. . .

Shades of the Image to the Beast!!

If even it were possible to limit a States' Constitutional Convention to the proposed Balanced Budget Amendment, it would still spell disaster for the United States:

Constitutional Balanced Budget Amendment Poses Serious Risks

Would Likely Make Recessions Longer and Deeper, Could Harm Social Security and Military and Civil Service Retirement

A balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution would be a highly ill-advised way to address the nation’s long-term fiscal problems. It would threaten significant economic harm while raising a host of problems for the operation of Social Security and other vital federal programs.

The economic problems are the most serious. By requiring a balanced budget every year, no matter the state of the economy, such an amendment would raise serious risks of tipping weak economies into recession and making recessions longer and deeper, causing very large job losses. That’s because the amendment would force policymakers to cut spending, raise taxes, or both just when the economy is weak or already in recession — the exact opposite of what good economic policy would advise. . .

A constitutional convention would be a Brexit-scale crisis for the U.S.

. . . Even if a balanced-budget amendment were the only item on a convention’s agenda, that would be a disaster. Locking the world’s largest economy into a fiscal straightjacket would preclude any effective response to economic recession, forcing deep cuts in unemployment benefits and other aid at the very moment they are most needed. Suggested provisions that would allow supermajorities in both houses to waive the balance requirement would provide little relief. Consider that this year, neither chamber of Congress could muster a simple majority to pass a budget. If Congress fails to agree upon a balanced budget, who decides on the cuts? The president, acting unilaterally? The courts?

The bigger threat is that a constitutional convention, once unleashed on the nation, would be free to rewrite or scrap any parts of the U.S. Constitution. Do we really want to open up our nation’s core defining values to debate at a time when a serious candidate for the White House brags about his enthusiasm for torture and the surveillance state, wants to "open up" reporters to lawsuits, scoffs at the separation of powers and holds ideas about freedom of religion that are selective at best? . . .

The present presidential administration is already a huge disaster for the nation. Greater disaster looms in the future, and it is all due to alliance with the first Beast of Rev. 13 - more on this subject in the near future.

CARRIED OVER FROM 2017

DONALD TRUMP'S JERUSALEM POLICY: AN EXERCISE IN APOCALYPTICISM

INTRODUCTION

In His prophecies of the end times Jesus repeatedly warned His followers to "Watch." As we watch, it is evident that the unfolding scenes are complex - so complex that eyes may glaze over from trying to understand them; but we cannot afford to fall asleep on watch. As we "wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places" (Eph. 6:12,) it is particularly evident that Rev. 16:13-14 is being fulfilled. By deception Satan would gather all of humanity into the Battle of the Great Day of God Almighty on his side if it were possible. His power to deceive is very great; but the power of the Spirit of Almighty God is greater yet. It is He Who will give us an understanding that is impregnable against Satan's deceptions. We can understand the unfolding of the end-time prophecies with prayer and perseverance in time to be protected against the final overwhelming deception, which is closely connected to the fulfillment of Dan. 11:45. We have seen in the meteoric rise of Donald Trump to the US presidency how swiftly events that are stranger than fiction can overrun the nation and the world. To the majority of inhabitants of the earth what is predicted in prophecy might also seem stranger than fiction; but it will come to pass.

Everywhere that Trump turns his attention, the results are disruption of the norms that have prevailed in the nation and the world, and an intensified danger of conflict where the threat has always existed. While North Korea is one area of danger, there is another in the Middle East, and this is also the area where the final dramatic events of earth's history are to take place. Trump has been stirring up trouble between Saudi Arabia and Iran, with war threatened. It can be stated with
confidence that this would not fit the prophecies of Dan. 11:40-44. However, it does stir up conflict in this volatile area which is involved in these prophecies. What is very clear is that the Trump administration is engaged in dangerous meddling in Palestine, the geographical area which is central to the final great prophecy signaling the imminent close of probation for all humanity (Dan. 12:1.) Here we are confronted by a very complicated situation which is difficult to read:-

RECOGNITION OF JERUSALEM AS THE CAPITAL OF ISRAEL

From [D]@gmail.com:

Trump Recognizes Jerusalem as Israeli Capital in U.S. Shift

U.S. isn’t taking position on ‘final status’ for city, he says

World leaders balk at U.S. plan, which includes moving embassy

President Donald Trump on Wednesday recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and announced he would begin moving the U.S. embassy there, despite warnings from leaders across the globe that the move would undermine peace efforts and spark violence.

“It is time to officially recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel,” the president said in a statement from the Diplomatic Room at the White House. “This is nothing more or less than a recognition of reality. It is also the right thing to do.”

Vice President Mike Pence stood behind Trump as he spoke, and Pence will travel to the region later in the month. . .

Recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is provocative because the eastern sector of the city -- home to some of the holiest ancient sites in Judaism, Christianity and Islam -- is also claimed by Palestinians as the capital of a future state.

Trump recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital, reversing longtime U.S. policy

President Donald Trump on Wednesday reversed decades of U.S. policy and recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, imperiling Middle East peace efforts and upsetting the Arab world and Western allies alike.

Trump announced his administration would begin a process of moving the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a step expected to take years and one that his predecessors opted not to take to avoid inflaming tensions.

The status of Jerusalem - home to sites holy to the Muslim, Jewish and Christian religions - is one of the biggest obstacles to reaching a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hailed Trump’s announcement as a “historic landmark,” but other close Western allies of Washington such as Britain and France were critical.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said the United States abdicated its role as a mediator in peace efforts, and Palestinian secular and Islamist factions called for a general strike and rallies on Thursday to protest.

The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over the entire city, believing its status should be resolved in negotiations. No other country has its embassy in Jerusalem.

Trump’s decision fulfills a campaign promise and will please Republican conservatives and evangelicals who make up a sizeable portion of his domestic support. . .

Trump’s decision risks further inflaming a region already grappling with conflict in Syria, Iraq and Yemen. . .

The United States is asking Israel to temper its response to Trump’s announcement because Washington expects a backlash and is weighing the potential threat to U.S. facilities and people, according to a State Department document seen by Reuters.

Israel considers Jerusalem its eternal and indivisible capital and wants all embassies based there. Palestinians want the capital of an independent state of theirs to be in the city’s eastern sector, which Israel captured in the 1967 Middle East war and annexed in a move never recognized internationally.

Netanyahu said any peace deal with Palestinians must include Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. That would be a non-starter for Palestinians in any negotiations if it meant the entire city would be under Israeli control. . .

UNIVERSAL CONDEMNATION

The arrogance and folly of Donald Trump's decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is evidenced by the universal condemnation it has provoked throughout the world:-

The UN Security Council, which raises issues of legality as well as the incitement to conflict:

14 Security Council member criticize US action on Jerusalem

One by one, 14 members of the U.N. Security Council spoke out against President Donald Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel at an emergency meeting on Friday, some with regret and some with anger at the 15th member, the United States.

It wasn’t the first time that the U.S. stood alone in defending its close ally, Israel, in the U.N.’s most powerful body. Over decades, it has vetoed many council resolutions it viewed as harmful to Israel.

But this was a rare rebuke for an action the United States took that in the eyes of the rest of the council and most of the world clearly violates U.N. resolutions and decisions that Jerusalem is an issue to be resolved by Israel and the Palestinians in peace negotiations on a two-state solution. . .

The European Union [not surprisingly, given its fundamental identification with the Vatican]:

Jerusalem latest: All 28 EU foreign ministers warned Trump administration not to move US embassy

All 28 EU foreign ministers warned Donald Trump’s chief diplomat against moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem in a face-to-face meeting the day before the president made the announcement, the European Commission has said.

Speaking at a press conference on Thursday in Brussels Federica Mogherini, the EU’s high representative for foreign affairs, said Mr. Trump’s announcement had “the potential to send us backwards to even darker times than the ones we are already living in”.

“I discussed this with Secretary Tillerson during his visit to Brussels on Tuesday. I’ve made clear our disagreement with this decision as did all the foreign ministers of the 28 member states of the European Union that met him with me the same day,” she said. . .

Ms Mogherini urged “all relevant actors” in the Israel-Palestine conflict to “avoid to further escalate tensions on the ground”

“The worst thing that could happen now is an escalation of tensions around the holy places because what happens in Jerusalem matters to the whole region and the entire world,” she added.

The issue of the embassy’s location is a fragile one in the Middle East conflict. Israel unilaterally claims Jerusalem as its capital, despite it being partly located in Palestinian territories illegally occupied by Israel.

World leaders across the globe [with emphasis on Middle East regional leaders]:

World leaders respond to US embassy move to Jerusalem [TRTWORLD is a Turkish news channel]

Here is how leaders and senior officials from the region and around the world reacted to the move.

Palestinian Authority's president

"President Abbas spoke after his call with President Trump with the presidents of Russia and France, with the Pope and with King Abdullah of Jordan. He told them such a move was rejected and he urged them to intervene to prevent it from happening," the Palestinian president's spokesman said.

Hamas' chief

"The American administration's recognition of occupied Jerusalem as the occupation's capital and moving its embassy to Jerusalem crosses every red line" said Hamas chief Ismail Haniya in a letter to world leaders. . .

UN's secretary-general

"We have always regarded Jerusalem as a final status issue that must be resolved through direct negotiations between the two parties based on relevant Security Council resolutions," UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric said, adding that UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has “consistently warned against any unilateral action that would have the potential to undermine the two-state solution."

Turkey's president

"Mr. Trump, Jerusalem is the red line of Muslims," Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said. Ankara has threatened to cut diplomatic ties with Israel if Trump recognises Jerusalem.

Iran's supreme leader

"That they claim they want to announce Quds as the capital of occupied Palestine is because of their incompetence and failure," Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei Khamenei said, using the Arabic name for Jerusalem.

Pope Francis

The Catholic pontiff said "recognising the rights of all people" in the Holy Land is a primary condition for dialogue. . .

Jordan's king, foreign minister

The Jordanian monarch King Abdullah, whose dynasty is the custodian of the Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem, told Trump that moving the embassy there would have "dangerous repercussions" for the region and would obstruct US efforts to promote Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. . .

Saudi Arabia's king

King Salman stressed to Trump that any US announcement on the status of Jerusalem "will hurt peace talks and increase tension in the region” and said it would "inflame Muslim feelings all over the world,” the Saudi Press Agency said.

Morocco's king

Morocco's King Mohammed VI warned US President Donald Trump against moving the American embassy to the contested holy city of Jerusalem.

In an open letter to the American president, the Moroccan king expressed his "deep personal concern" and "the great concern felt by Arab and Muslim states and peoples" over moves to recognise the city as Israel's capital and transfer the US embassy there. . .

The king urged Trump to avoid anything that could "exacerbate feelings of frustration and disappointment, which are the basis of extremism and terrorism."

Egypt's president

Egypt's Abdel Fattah el Sisi cautioned Trump against "taking measures that would undermine the chances of peace" and complicate matters in the Middle East, a presidential statement released in Cairo said.

Russia's president

Russia's Vladimir Putin told Palestinian President Abbas in a phone call that Russia supports resumption of talks between Israel and Palestinian authorities, including on the status of Jerusalem, the Kremlin said.

France's president

French President Emmanuel Macron earlier said he reminded Trump in a phone call that the fate of Jerusalem should be determined in negotiations on setting up a Palestinian state alongside Israel.

Germany's foreign minister

"Recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel does not calm a conflict, rather it fuels it even more," Germany's foreign minister Sigmar Gabriel said, adding such a move "would be a very dangerous development."

China's foreign ministry

"We are concerned about the possible escalation of tensions," foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said.

"All relevant parties should bear regional peace and tranquility in mind, be cautious in words and deeds, avoid impacting the foundation for the settlement of the issue of Palestine, and avoid causing new confrontation in the region." (Cf. World reacts to Trump's Jerusalem decision.)

INEVITABLE NEGATIVE REACTION OF THE PAPACY

The reaction of the Pope and the Vatican to the Trump Administration action on Jerusalem is negative, and this was to be expected:

Pope Francis challenged Trump on his Jerusalem decision at the Vatican and on Instagram

Pope Francis called on President Donald Trump to respect the "status quo" and not move the US embassy to Jerusalem.

He also doubled down on his message in an Instagram post, in which he called Jerusalem a sacred city to "Jews, Christians and Muslims."

The Vatican backs a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, with both sides agreeing on the status of Jerusalem as part of the peace process.

The Pope also said Trump's move could inflame the Muslim world.

Pope Francis, speaking hours before U.S. President Donald Trump's announcement on Jerusalem, called on Wednesday for the city's "status quo" to be respected, saying new tension in the Middle East would further inflame world conflicts.

The pope delivered a similar message in an Instagram post following his statements, in which he the sacredness of the city to all three Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam and said "it has a special vocation for peace." . . .

More on the Pope's reaction to the Trump Administration's Jerusalem action:

Update: Pope concerned by U.S. move to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital

Following reports that U.S. President Donald Trump planned to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, Pope Francis expressed his concern that such a move would further destabilize the Middle East.

Pope Francis said he could not "keep silent about my deep concern" for Jerusalem and urged respect for "the status quo of the city in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the United Nations." . . .

According to Vatican Radio, the pope received a telephone call from Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas Dec. 5 regarding Trump's plan to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem.

The conversation was "part of a series of contacts made by the president of the Palestinian National Authority after his conversation with Donald Trump during which -- according to Abbas' spokesman -- the U.S. president announced his intention to move the American embassy," Greg Burke, Vatican spokesman, told Vatican Radio.

The Vatican supports a "two-state solution" for the Holy Land with independence, recognition and secure borders for both Israel and Palestine.

At the same time, the Vatican consistently has called for a special status for Jerusalem, particularly its Old City, in order to protect and guarantee access to the holy sites of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. . .

There is continuing reaction by the Pope which underscores the concern of the papacy about Trump's action on Jerusalem:

From [D]@gmail.com:

Pope to meet Jordan’s King Abdullah amid Jerusalem tensions

Francis and Jordanian monarch set to discuss aftermath of US recognition of Israel's capital

Pope Francis will meet Jordan’s King Abdullah II at the Vatican next week, the Holy See announced Friday, as Palestinians continued to clash with Israeli forces over US President Donald Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

The pope and King Abdullah, who is the custodian of the Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem’s Old City, are likely to discuss the ongoing tensions, though the Vatican never indicates topics of discussion for such meetings in advance. . .

On Sunday, the pope called for “respect of the status quo” in Jerusalem and warned against “a new spiral of violence.”

Abdullah has denounced the Jerusalem announcement as “a violation of international rights.”

Jordan controlled East Jerusalem, which includes the Old City, from 1948 until 1967, when it was captured by Israel in the 1967 Six Day War. Jordan’s status as the custodian of the holy sites was reaffirmed by the country’s 1994 peace treaty with Israel.

Jerusalem, which contains sites considered sacred by Jews, Christians and Muslims, is of huge importance to both Israel and the Palestinians.

Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as the Israeli capital, and his plans to move the US embassy there from Tel Aviv, has sparked anger in the Arab and Muslim world and let to protests in countries throughout the region.

The move has been welcomed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli politicians on both left and right.

It is interesting to note that Trump's action has united Israeli politicians at both ends of the political spectrum; but that is the way of politics. It would probably be folly for the left to adopt a position in opposition to what must be a popular move in Israel.

The Pope's upcoming meeting with King Abdullah is an indication of the Vatican's strong reaction against an obstacle placed in the way of a longstanding objective of the Church of Rome.

Donald Trump may not be aware of it (his Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, declared in an interview on Sunday, December 10, that "Jerusalem is now off the table,") but his decision to recognize the City as the capital of Israel was not only likely to stir up a hornet's nest of unrest in the Middle East, but is also a direct challenge to the longstanding policy of Rome on Jerusalem; a policy which has aligned perfectly with the prophecy of Dan. 11:45:

VATICAN POLICY ALIGNS WITH DANIEL 11:45

Vatican voices concern over Trump's Jerusalem move

Following U.S. President Donald Trump’s Dec. 6 notice that he will be moving the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, the Holy See has expressed its concern for recent violent outbreaks and urged leaders to promote peace and security.

A Vatican communique Dec. 10 pointed to concerns for peace and security in Jerusalem and reiterated its belief that “only a negotiated solution between Israelis and Palestinians can bring a stable and lasting peace,” as well as “guarantee the peaceful co-existence of two states within internationally recognized borders.”

The brief statement was published just days after the news broke that President Trump would recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem – a widely controversial decision that has provoked a mixed reaction from the international community. The Vatican said it is watching the development of the situation closely, especially in Jerusalem, which is a “Sacred city for Christians, Jews and Muslims from all over the world.”

The statement also reiterated the Holy See’s position on the importance of maintaining the status quo in Jerusalem, as per the repeated requests of the international community, and the hierarchies of the Catholic and Christian communities of the Holy Land. . .

The Vatican has long supported a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and on a diplomatic level recognizes and refers to both “the State of Israel” and “the State of Palestine.”

Donald Trump has bumbled into the middle of a long historical process that was inching step by step towards the papacy's goal of establishing a presence in Jerusalem. The lengthy quotations from the following article illustrate the delicate dance of decades into which Trump has barged like a bull in a china shop:

The Vatican Joins the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Prior to the creation of the State of Israel in May 1948, the Holy See refrained from taking sides in the Arab-Jewish conflict, preferring to adhere to its foundational principle of "remaining [a] stranger to all merely temporal conflicts" as provided in the 1929 Lateran treaty. Thus, when the United Nations General Assembly convened on November 29, 1947, to vote on Resolution 181, partitioning Palestine into Jewish and Arab states, the Holy See (as a "permanent observer" at the United Nations) did not participate.

Of course, the Vatican did not remain aloof to developments in the Holy Land and their possible effects on the future of the Christian holy sites there. When, in the summer of 1937, a British royal commission proposed internationalizing the cities of Jerusalem and Bethlehem as a means of "ensuring free and safe access to them for all the world," the Holy See registered its desire to protect Jerusalem's holy sites (while also seeking an additional international enclave near the Sea of Galilee), underscoring its enthusiastic support for territorial internationalization—what eventually became known as the corpus separatum. Likewise, despite abstaining during the vote on Resolution 181, the Vatican endorsed its recommended internationalization of Jerusalem; and while this corpus separatum was never implemented due to the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict and political infighting between interested states, the Holy See remained committed to the idea as the foremost means to safeguarding Christianity's holy sites.

Thus, for example, in October 1948, the Holy See published an encyclical, In Multiplicibus curis, proposing to "Give Jerusalem and its outskirts ... an international character which, in the present circumstances, seems to offer a better guarantee for the protection of the sanctuaries." On Easter 1949, amidst ceasefire negotiations between Israel and its Arab invaders, the pope published another encyclical, Redemptoris Nostri Cruciatus, "the passion of our Redeemer," focusing on the torments of the Holy Land, and stating that "Jerusalem and its vicinity ... should be accorded and legally guaranteed an 'international status,'" thereby further entrenching the Holy See's support for corpus separatum.

In subsequent decades, the Vatican made few official statements regarding Jerusalem's status, seemingly waiting for more opportune moments to raise the issue. In December 1963, Pope Paul VI announced his decision to go on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land and pray for the success of the Second Vatican Council and for peace and Christian unity. Despite the Holy See having no official diplomatic relations with either Israel or Jordan, the latter of which at the time occupied the West Bank including east Jerusalem, this historic visit followed strict protocols reserved for visits of heads of states. In Israel, President Zalman Shazar held a reception at the historical site of Megiddo for the papal delegation and accompanied him to the Mandelbaum crossing in Jerusalem. In the city, the pope also met with Greek Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras. The international media followed the pope's every step, describing the visit as "a great act of sacred theatre."

Israeli scholars sometimes argue that the Catholic Church's policy toward Israel "was fundamentally hostile," but doing so ignores or downplays the deep transformation in the Holy See's attitude that took place toward the Jewish people in the course of the twentieth century. Vatican II fundamentally changed the Holy See's policies toward the Jews and ultimately its policies toward the (Christian and non-Christian) population of the Holy Land. The Nostra Aetate (In Our Times) was one of the Second Vatican Council's (October 28, 1965) final declarations dealing with the relation of the church to non-Christian religions. Regarding the Jews, the document offered new teaching whereby "the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God." Most significantly, it freed the Jews from the charge of deicide because "what happened [to Christ] in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today." The Nostra Aetate served as an important declaration that opened up the possibility for eventual relations with the Jewish state, particularly in recognizing the Jewish people's right to exist and the role of the Vatican in upholding religious freedom.

The Six-Day War of June 1967, in which Israel captured Jerusalem and the West Bank, marked the next significant milestone for the Holy See. During the war, Pope Paul VI pressured Israel to declare Jerusalem an open city under international control, but Israel had already celebrated what it termed the city's reunification. However, Israel immediately provided legal protection for free worship and access to sanctuaries, promised to safeguard the holy sites, and offered to establish official diplomatic relations with the Holy See. The Vatican, however, while effectively discarding its demand for the territorial internationalization of the holy sites and instead focusing on ensuring their internationally guaranteed statute, stuck to its old principle that a formal agreement would not be tenable in the absence of peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors. It was only after the September 1993 signing of the Declaration of Principles (DOP) by Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) that the Holy See moved ahead and entered into agreements first with Israel and Jordan, and then with the Palestinians. . .

The Holy See has an important goal to provide clear protections for important status quo and other key holy sites as well as members of the church. Thus, it felt compelled to engage Israel and the Palestinians, walking a fine line trying to appease both sides while protecting key interests. This is even more troubling since it constantly shifts as both Israelis and Palestinians jockey for international position, legitimacy, and control.

One of the three sections of the 1929 Lateran pacts was the Treaty of Conciliation that established Vatican City as an independent entity (as well as restoring the sovereignty of the pope as a monarch, removed in 1870 following the Franco-Prussian war). Article 24 of the Treaty of Conciliation provides that:

In regard to the sovereignty appertaining to it also in international matters, the Holy See declares that it desires to take, and shall take, no part in any temporal rivalries between other States, nor in any international congresses called to settle such matters, save and except in the event of such parties making a mutual appeal to the pacific mission of the Holy See, the latter reserving in any event the right of exercising its moral and spiritual power.

Thus Article 24 calls for a balance between the Holy See not involving itself in any temporal rivalries but allowing it to exercise moral and spiritual power, especially when working in the framework of a pacific mission. Indeed, this is reflected in the perception of the Holy See as possessing an international legal personality from its spiritual power and position, rather than from the more traditional elements of statehood, such as its small territory.

The Holy See has the ability to serve as a broker for peace, understood as encompassing key values of life: economic rights, freedom of conscience, a need to harmonize ideals with national interests, and the pursuit of justice (and not warfare) through dialogue and mutual respect.

Article 24 is also coupled with the Holy See's desire to secure the church's material position to pursue its spiritual mission. Its international relations are not solely pragmatic but a form of theology combined with fundamental human rights norms, a focus on developmental concerns, a striving for neutrality, with an overlay of monarchial maneuvers.

But different interests are at work when accounting for the Holy See and its relations with Israel and the PA, particularly with respect to Christian holy sites. There seems to be a desire by the Vatican to wrest Christian holy sites from the control of Muslim and Jewish governing authorities with a view toward internationalization and human rights ideals that protect and preserve the Catholic faithful in the area (be they under Israeli or Palestinian control).

The shift in the Holy See's policy bends the framework devised by the Lateran pact in terms of involving the Holy See in local conflicts as evidenced, among other things, by its recognition of Palestine as a state and including language in all three agreements that affects in different ways the status of the post-1967 territories.

DELUSIONAL AND DANGEROUS EVANGELICAL THEOLOGY

One does not have to favor the aims of Rome to recognize that Donald Trump's action on Jerusalem constitutes a grave threat to peace in the world. The surreal fact is that the action was a deliberate act of delusional fantasy with the crazy intention of provoking world war. This delusional madness is probably inspired by the spirits of Rev. 16:13-14. The imponderable question is what are they up to, seemingly directing a movement in opposition to the objective of both the papacy and Satan himself?

The following headline in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz states the motivation of Donald Trump's action in stark terms:

Armageddon? Bring It On: The Evangelical Force Behind Trump's Jerusalem Speech

The U.S. evangelical community is in raptures over Trump's decision to declare Jerusalem the capital of Israel, believing it moves the world closer to Armageddon. . .

The text of the article cannot be accessed without a Haaretz subscription, but the following are concurring reports:

The real reason Trump declared Jerusalem the capital of Israel was because he feared losing his evangelical voter base

There are those evangelicals who believe in the prophecy of the ‘End of Days’ foretelling Jewish control of all Jerusalem, a war of civilisations, and a choice of Jews to either embrace Christianity or die in the wrath of God.

I have got my latest Prayergram post. It is, quite aptly, on the topic of the day: the “Jerusalem Prayer”.

One passage reads “God bless Donald J Trump! He understands the real principles behind success. It is not being good at what you do or understanding theory and practice. It is being on the right side of the blessing of God. Whoever blesses Israel shall be blessed: whoever curses Israel shall be cursed.”

And, lest there be any misunderstanding: “If we bless Israel, regardless of its faults, lack of faith, both personally and organisationally, God bless us. While the world cries out, Donald J Trump who learned about the blessing on his mother’s knee, masters the simple, plodding art of doing the right thing regardless of consequences.”

Prayergram send their posts not just to the believers, but others, like journalists who have written negatively about the Christian right or Donald Trump. This is intended to show us the error of our ways and also, if possible, save our souls.

The “Jerusalem Prayer” was, the evangelists stress, of great importance, something that needed to be widely disseminated after Trump had announced that the US embassy would be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

There are no fewer than 50 million evangelicals in America who, according to research, are convinced of the literal truth of Biblical prophecy. A recent survey found that 82 per cent of white evangelicals believe that God gave Israel to the Jewish people; a conviction shared by just 40 per cent of American Jews. Among these evangelicals there are those who believe in the prophecy of the “End of Days” foretelling Jewish control of all Jerusalem, a war of civilisations, and a choice of Jews to either embrace Christianity or die in the wrath of God.

The decision to move the embassy does not actually have much popular support across the US population as a whole. A Brookings Institution survey found that it has the backing of only 31 per cent. Polls have also repeatedly found that a large majority of American Jews, who tend on average to have a better standard of education than the rest of US population, and are liberal by tradition, oppose the move.

But Trump’s Jerusalem declaration has been widely and enthusiastically welcomed by his religious base. Johnnie Moore, who acts as a spokesperson for the Trump’s evangelical advisers stated: “The issue was second only to concerns about the judiciary among the evangelical supporters. President Trump has yet again demonstrated to his evangelical supporters that he will do what he says he will do.”

For Paula White, a “megachurch” pastor from Florida who is close to Trump: “once again, President Trump has shown the world what I have always known, he is a leader who is willing to do what is right however loud are the voices of the sceptics and the critics. Evangelicals are ecstatic, for Israel is to us a sacred place and the Jewish people are our dearest friends.”. . .

Trump is not the only senior member of the administration to cultivate the Christian right. Vice President Mike Pence, who could be seen on TV standing behind Trump as the embassy announcement was made, with a reverent glow to his face, had pressed for a move to Jerusalem. And backing also came from Nikki Haley, the ambassador to the UN who tries her best to match Trump on hawkish rhetoric about smiting America’s enemies. She avidly courted the evangelical vote while Governor of South Carolina. . .

The evangelists could always site God on their side. For Indiana pastor Paul Begley the embassy move is the beginning of “End of Days”: “The Jewish People – I’ve been there, I’m telling you – they believe when the Temple’s built, the Messiah will be revealed to them. Jesus will be revealed to the Jewish people, and they will embrace him.”

Laurie Cardoza-Moore, “founder/president of Proclaiming Justice to The Nations” wrote in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz: “Christians recognise the Jews’ biblical connection through King David’s establishment of Jerusalem as the capital of ancient Israel and the location for both the first and second Temples. According to the prophets, Ezekiel, Isaiah and the Apostle John, all Israel awaits the rebuilding of the Third Temple. President Donald Trump may implement one of the most biblically historic initiatives of his presidency by allowing the first step of the Jerusalem Embassy Act to go into effect. “

Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem excites apocalyptic fervor

During the election campaign last year many conservative evangelical Christians saw then-candidate Donald Trump as a man of strength who would make the world ready for a final battle between good and evil.

As the historian Matthew Avery Sutton wrote at the time, they expected him to lead America in “a real-world battle against evangelicals’ enemies and a spiritual battle against the Antichrist.”

His prediction is beginning to come true — with Jerusalem playing a critical role in that apocalyptic drama.

On Dec. 6, President Trump formally recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Met with concern by almost all corners of the diplomatic world, it was greeted with excitement by a large segment of conservative Christians, especially white evangelicals who are among his staunchest supporters.

As Trump “spiritual adviser” Paula White said, “Evangelicals are ecstatic, for Israel is to us a sacred place and the Jewish people are our dearest friends.” John Hagee, the founder of Christians United for Israel, responded to Trump’s announcement by noting its precise “biblical timing” set out in Leviticus. Michael Evans said that America is “in the middle of prophecy right now” and compared Trump to King Cyrus, a pagan king who nonetheless was an instrument of God and helped Israel. At a rally for the president in Florida, state Sen. Doug Broxson excited the crowd by declaring: “When I heard about Jerusalem — where the King of Kings (applause) where our soon coming King is coming back to Jerusalem, it is because President Trump declared Jerusalem to be capital of Israel.”

Such statements are important because they shift the frame with which listeners are asked to consider what happened. They position Trump’s statement within sacred, rather than secular time. In other words, they show that they think the Jerusalem decision was part of God’s plan for the world, a step on the way to the reunification of the holy city (still considered occupied under international law) and the restoration of the ancient Israelite Temple. In other words, a step on the way towards the apocalypse.

And apocalyptic beliefs are particularly strong in America among white evangelical Christians. In a 2010 Pew Survey, 58 percent said they believed Jesus would return to earth in the next 40 years.

The immediate roots of end-times thinking in the American context can be traced to Hal Lindsey’s 1970 book “The Late, Great Planet Earth,” which repackaged and reformulated much older Christian ideas. For Lindsey, the formation of the modern state of Israel was critical because it signaled a step towards the rebuilding of the Temple. These ideas were reintroduced to a new generation by the immensely popular “Left Behind” books (and movies), in which Jerusalem is at the center of a conflict between the Antichrist and the believers, and between Satan and Jesus.

Theologian explains how Trump’s Jerusalem move is right-wing evangelicals’ dream come true

President Donald Trump’s decision to announce that the United States would recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s official capital drew effusive praise from many American evangelical Christians — largely because they believe it will bring about the apocalypse.

Christian theologian Diana Butler Bass explains on Twitter that having the state of Israel take full control of Jerusalem is part of many right-wing evangelicals’ mythology for what they believe will bring about the resurrection [?] of Jesus Christ.

“For decades, conservative evangelicals have been longing for this recognition,” Bass writes. “They believe it is necessary in order to regain control of the Temple mount. That is important because rebuilding the Temple is the event that will spark the events of the Book of Revelation and the End Times.”

Bass makes it clear that she does not believe Trump himself is looking to bring about the end of the world, but she thinks that many of the evangelicals who have lobbied him on this issue absolutely are.

“You can’t discount those evangelical advisers… almost all of whom take these End Times prophecies literally,” she writes. “Of all the possible theological dog-whistles to his evangelical base, this is the biggest. Trump is reminding them that he is carrying out God’s will to these Last Days.”

To this end, says Bass, these evangelicals are actually praying that Trump’s move destabilizes the Middle East and causes chaos and suffering.

“They want war in the Middle East,” she writes. “The Battle of Armageddon, at which time Jesus Christ will return to the Earth and vanquish all God’s enemies.”

Diana Butler Bass may be correct in not believing that "Trump himself is looking to bring about the end of the world;" but he is playing a dangerous game which could lead to the Middle East going up in flames. However, the nations of earth are so afraid of a world war, which could lead to the use of thermonuclear weapons, that an Evangelical theology which plays into the hands of the Israeli Zionist government may be of greater significance. Both are intransigent in their opposition to the internationalization of Jerusalem, which is the policy of the papacy. Opposition to this policy delays but cannot prevent the ultimate realization of Satan's objective and the final conflict between him and Jesus Christ. This must not be overlooked in watching the developing events in connection with Jerusalem.

It is plain to see that Donald Trump is stirring up the threat of conflict between the United States and North Korea. While this is not inconsistent with the Evangelicals' lust for world war, their false theology is really centered on Israel and the Middle East. In this context Trump's dangerous actions are not confined to Palestine and Jerusalem:

TRUMP STIRRING UP THE MIDDLE EAST

How Trump Is Inflaming the Middle East’s Proxy Wars

He has emboldened a recklessly aggressive Saudi government, which is now destroying Yemen, imposing a blockade on Qatar—and could even stumble into war with Iran.

On May 23, as President Donald Trump flew from Tel Aviv to Rome, one of his advisers boasted to reporters accompanying Trump on Air Force One of the success of his visit to Saudi Arabia. “Donald Trump united the entire Muslim world in a way that it really hasn’t been in many years,” the adviser said, with no hint of irony at such a grandiose claim. Trump was basking in the glow of the grand reception he got in the kingdom—and he used his visit to firmly side with Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Arab states in their conflict against Iran.

Less than two weeks later, the Trump aide’s bombastic claim had unraveled. In the early hours of June 5, Saudi Arabia and four of its Arab allies suddenly cut off all diplomatic and economic relations with Qatar, a tiny emirate in the Persian Gulf that is rich in natural gas. The Saudis and their allies accused Qatar of financing terrorism; supporting Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas; and undermining Arab efforts to isolate Iran. They also imposed a partial blockade, sealing off Qatar’s only land border (with Saudi Arabia) and restricting air and sea travel to and from the peninsula.

The Saudis, along with allies Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, were clearly emboldened by Trump’s unequivocal support. Instead of uniting the Muslim world, or even the smaller realm of Sunni Arab monarchies, his visit has thrown regional alliances into disarray. The Saudis’ dream of a united front against their rival Iran is in jeopardy, as even some of their allies worry about a Saudi-fomented coup or war to bring Qatar to heel.

In Riyadh Trump didn’t mention Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen, which has killed thousands and left millions near famine.

In a speech before dozens of leaders from across the Muslim world who had gathered in Riyadh, the Saudi capital, on May 21, Trump condemned Iran for stoking “the fires of sectarian conflict and terror,” and he urged fellow Muslim states to isolate Tehran. “Until the Iranian regime is willing to be a partner for peace,” Trump said, “all nations of conscience must work together to isolate Iran, deny it funding for terrorism, and pray for the day when the Iranian people have the just and righteous government they deserve.”

Trump made no mention of Saudi Arabia’s destabilizing actions in the Middle East, especially its war in Yemen, which has killed nearly 10,000 Yemenis and left 6.8 million people—a quarter of Yemen’s population—on the brink of famine. By blatantly taking sides and singling out Iran for supporting terrorism and instigating sectarianism, Trump will only exacerbate the proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia and worsen sectarian conflict in the region. It’s clear that Trump has waded into complex religious and political dynamics he doesn’t grasp. . .

BIBLE PROPHECIES POINTING TO WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST

The targeting of Iran by the Trump Administration, coupled with the apocalypse delusions, invites attention to the prophecies of Dan. 11:40-44, which point to a course of events constituting a departure from Rome's persistent pursuit of a peaceful settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Which comes first? Iran is located in the geographical area of the Seleucid Empire, as is Syria. The Seleucid Empire was the territory of the King of the North, identified as a participant in the conflicts mentioned in Dan. 11:40-44. "The King" involved in these conflicts is the Papacy, which had its own army and waged wars until the latter part of the 19th century. The papacy is perfectly capable of waging war. Thus we see a very long history of the papacy seeking to achieve her objectives in Palestine by peaceful negotiations, while there are Bible prophecies pointing to her involvement in war(s) at the very end of time either before or after "the King" has planted "the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain" (Dan. 11:45,) identified as Jerusalem in Dan. 9:16.

INTERPLAY OF SEEMINGLY CONTRADICTORY ROMAN CATHOLIC ACTIONS

Donald Trump's action on Jerusalem, applauded by Israel and clearly opposed to the ultimate goal of Rome, is a paradox in the complex interplay of actions by the Roman Catholic hierarchy. Rome has deliberately fostered an activist militancy in the United States with the declared objective of establishing a "Christian" nation. This moved into high gear in 1975 with the USCCB's "Pastoral Plan." Donald Trump's election to the presidency of the United States and the powerful influence
exerted on him by the Apocalypse fanatics is the product of the Pastoral Plan, which was formulated by the Right Wing of the Roman Catholic Church. The influence of right-wing Catholics over the Trump Administration is described in DONALD TRUMP'S ROMAN CATHOLIC HANDLER AND HIS COHORTS. However, the Catholic Bishops have soured on his administration:

The Catholic bishops’ honeymoon with Trump is over

Although many evangelical ministers warmly embraced Donald Trump as the Republican Party presidential candidate, the U.S. Catholic bishops never publicly endorsed him. They did express strong support for some of his positions — for example, his opposition to abortion and his support for religious freedom. That, together with their negative response to the views of Hillary Clinton, made many observers believe that although the bishops did not publicly endorse him, they were happy to see him elected.

Their happiness was evident with the reinstatement of the “Mexico City policy,” a U.S. government policy that bans international organizations from receiving federal funds if they sponsor abortions. Likewise, the bishops supported Trump’s efforts to deny taxpayer funding to Planned Parenthood. They also approved his executive order instructing federal agencies to respect the religious freedom of believers and their organizations. Most importantly, they were delighted with his appointment of Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court because of their expectation that he will be a pro-life justice.

But the relationship between Trump and the Catholic bishops appears to be a marriage of convenience rather than the love affair he has with evangelical ministers. Already there have been some public spats. . .

At the beginning of February, the bishops found it “troubling and disappointing” that he did not roll back the Obama executive order prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating on the bases of sexual orientation and gender identity. Here Trump was more liberal than the Catholic bishops. Nor has he yet dealt with their concerns about the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act.

But what really bothers the bishops is the president’s actions on immigration and refugee policy. During the first seven months of the Trump administration, the bishops issued over 20 statements on the treatment of immigrants and refugees, all of them very critical of the Trump administration.

Nor did they mince their words.

The bishops said they were “disheartened,” “deeply troubled,” “deeply concerned” and “disappointed” by the president’s actions on immigration and refugees. They worried about “bigotry,” “fear and intolerance.” The president’s actions were “alarming,” “devastating” and “injurious.” He was putting people “in harm’s way” and making “migrants, especially vulnerable women and children, more susceptible to traffickers and smugglers.” They protested the president’s executive order that “virtually shuts down the refugee admissions program,” which affected resettlement programs run by the church.

The president’s policies, they complained, “needlessly separate families, upend peaceful communities, endanger the lives and safety of the most vulnerable among us, break down the trust that currently exists between many police departments and immigrant communities, and sow great fear in those communities.”

These are not love notes. They are the shrill cries of a spouse who feels her children are being neglected and abused.

Likewise, the Catholic bishops, who had not supported Obamacare because of their concerns about abortion and birth control, failed to come to Trump’s assistance in its repeal. During the first seven months of this year, they strongly argued in 11 statements against repeal of Obamacare unless something better for the poor were enacted. They especially fought any rollback in the expansion of Medicaid or subsidies to low-income people buying insurance, which were at the heart of the Republican plans. . ."

ROME TAKES UP THE CHALLENGE

Disagreements between the papacy and the Evangelicals have flared into the open at the instigation of the Vatican:

Trump's evangelical advisers request papal meeting

President Donald Trump's evangelical Christian advisers are requesting a meeting with Pope Francis after a Vatican-approved magazine published a piece condemning the way some American evangelicals and Roman Catholics mix religion and politics.

That request came in an Aug. 3 letter to the pontiff from Johnnie Moore, an evangelical author, activist and public relations consultant. Moore asked Francis for a meeting of Catholic and evangelical leaders — and quickly.

"It’s in this moment of ongoing persecution, political division and global conflict that we have also witnessed efforts to divide Catholics and Evangelicals," Moore wrote.

"We think it would be of great benefit to sit together and to discuss these things. Then, when we disagree we can do it within the context of friendship. Though, I’m sure we will find once again that we agree far more than we disagree, and we can work together with diligence on those areas of agreement."

Moore told RNS he was writing on behalf of evangelicals informally advising the Trump administration. He was a member of Trump's evangelical advisory board during the 2016 presidential campaign and is one of several dozen prominent conservative evangelicals who have attended meetings organized by White House staff, prayed for the president in the Oval Office and voiced support for some of his policies.

Moore said he reached out to the pope because of his reputation as a "bridge builder" and assumes Francis would be willing to build bridges to those who disagree with the piece published in La Civiltà Cattolica in July. The article was authored by Fr. Antonio Spadaro, an adviser to Francis, and the Rev. Marcelo Figueroa, a Presbyterian pastor.

Evangelicals and Catholics have united on a number of issues, including opposition to abortion and support for religious liberty, Moore wrote. He expressed hope that evangelical leaders could meet with Vatican officials to discuss other "matters of great concern to us all, especially as it relates to refugees, the poor and the persecuted."

La Civiltà Cattolica's article had called out Trump's conservative religious supporters for promoting what Spadaro and Figueroa called a “xenophobic and Islamophobic vision that wants walls and purifying deportations.”

The fact that the magazine piece condemned Catholics as well as Evangelicals is confirmation of a continuing alliance between right-wing Catholics and Evangelicals.

Now, as a result of Donald Trump's action on Jerusalem with the enthusiastic support of the Evangelicals, the divisions between them and Rome are exacerbated. As reported in the previous article cited above, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops is also soured on the Trump Administration. The issues are joined, and Jerusalem probably ranks as the top priority. The Vatican's policy on Jerusalem is not subject to compromise. Dan. 11:45 predicts that Rome will achieve her objective. How will the present impasse be ended?