Anchor Secrets Unsealed School of Theology: Revelations Seven Seals

The Papacy, The Jesuits and the Sabbath

Three Angels Broadcasting Network

Program transcript



Series Code: ARSS

Program Code: ARSS190020S

00:01 ♪ ♪ Ominous music and thunder
00:17 Well here we are, next to last presentation today. You realize
00:21 that we have one this evening right? This evening we are going
00:25 to study Lesson Number 17. We've covered the seals. Now we're
00:30 going to talk a little bit more about the seal of God and the
00:32 mark of the beast. But the one that we're going to study now is
00:36 Lesson 18. It's page 355 in your syllabus. Lesson Number 18.
00:45 (Pastor Stephen Bohr) The title is the Papacy, the Jesuits and
00:50 the Sabbath. Let's begin with a word of prayer. Father in heaven
00:56 as we study this very important lesson I especially ask that you
01:01 will bless those who are watching the live stream.
01:03 Perhaps there are people that have never understood this
01:07 before. I ask Lord that you will give them tender hearts, not
01:11 only to understand but to pay attention and to receive the
01:15 message that you have for them. Also to us as well here in the
01:19 studio. Thank you for the promise of your presence and we
01:24 ask it in the precious name of Jesus, Amen.
01:27 In Revelation 14 we have God's final message to planet earth
01:36 before the second coming. It's known as the three angels'
01:40 message and we are now going to read the first angel's message
01:46 and we're going to focus particularly on one part of the
01:49 first angel's message. I'm reading from Revelation 14:6,7.
01:55 Then I saw another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having
01:59 the everlasting gospel to preach to those who dwell on the earth-
02:02 to every nation, tribe, tongue, and people- saying with a loud
02:07 voice, "Fear God and give glory to Him, for the hour of His
02:13 judgment has come."
02:14 Now comes the part that I want to underline or emphasize.
02:20 "and worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and the
02:26 springs of water."
02:28 So the first angel's message commands us to worship the
02:33 Creator. Now in order to understand fully what it means
02:37 to worship the Creator we have to go back to where the Creator
02:40 created. We have to go back to Genesis. Now I want you to
02:46 notice that the days of creation spoken of in Genesis chapter one
02:51 were literal 24-hour days like we know them today. And I'm
02:57 going to begin by giving you several evidences from Genesis
03:01 one that the days of creation were literal 24-hour days just
03:06 like we know them today. And you're going to see the reason
03:10 why I'm underlining this particular point. First of all,
03:14 the Hebrew lexicons, those are the dictionaries that explain
03:18 the meaning of Hebrew words, the best lexicons all state that the
03:26 days of Genesis one the writer is referring to literal 24-hour
03:31 days. That's the definition that is given in the dictionaries or
03:35 in the lexicons. Secondly, 250 times approximately the word day
03:44 appears in the Old Testament, and with a numeral qualifier.
03:49 In every single instance in which the word day appears with
03:53 a numeral qualifier it refers to a 24-hour day and that's the
03:58 case in Genesis. It was the evening and morning first day,
04:01 second day, third day and the word day appears with a number
04:05 qualifier it means a literal day In the third place, each day had
04:09 an evening and morning. It would be ridiculous to say it was the
04:12 evening and morning of the first million years. Evening and
04:16 morning is marked by the rising and setting of the sun. It
04:19 clearly indicates that the writer of Genesis believed that
04:22 the days of creation were literal 24-hour days marked off
04:26 by the evening and the morning. Another evidence is Psalm 33 and
04:32 verse nine. The language of creation is the language of
04:36 immediacy or quickness not long periods. It says there that God
04:42 spoke and it was done. He commanded, and it stood fast.
04:48 That's a language of quickness, rapidity in other words. There's
04:54 an expression in the story of creation also that indicates
04:58 that the process of creation was done expeditiously. In Genesis
05:03 one verses 7-11, 15, and 24 we find this expression that after
05:09 God creates something it says "and it was so." Once again it
05:14 gives the impression that God speaks (snaps finger) and
05:17 it's so when God
05:19 speaks. Probably the greatest evidence that the days of
05:23 creation were literal is the fourth commandment. Because the
05:27 fourth commandment says that we are to work six and rest the
05:31 seventh because God worked six and rested the seventh. We could
05:34 never follow God's example if the days of creation were
05:37 millions of years long. They have to be literal days. Because
05:43 if we're going to work six and rest the seventh like God did
05:45 well then the days at the beginning had to be days just
05:49 like the ones, we know now. So the fourth commandment proves
05:52 that the days of creation were literal days. Then we have the
05:57 testimony of the New Testament writers. Did the New Testament
06:01 writers believe that the story of creation happened literally
06:05 just the way that the book of Genesis says? Absolutely. You
06:09 know you have for example Matthew chapter 19 verses 4-6.
06:13 You know Jesus understood that the story of Adam and Eve and
06:18 the first marriage in history was a literal story. Notice
06:22 chapter 19 of the book of Matthew verse 4 through verse 6:
06:26 And He answered and said to them "Have you not read that He who
06:31 made them at the beginning 'made them male and female, and said
06:35 'For this reason, a man shall leave his father and his mother
06:38 and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?
06:42 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what
06:46 God has joined together, let not man separate.
06:50 Did Jesus believe that Adam and Eve were real people? Did he
06:54 perform the first marriage? Yes. So the story of creation is
06:59 literal. The days must have been literal. Of course, Ellen White
07:04 confirms that the days of creation were literal days. In
07:08 Spirit of Prophecy, Vol. 1, p. 85, she wrote:
07:11 I was then carried back to the creation and was shown that the
07:17 first week in which God performed the work of creation
07:20 in six days and rested on the seventh day was just like every
07:24 other week. The great God in His days of creation and day of rest
07:29 measured off the first cycle as a sample for successive weeks
07:35 till the close of time. And in an even more explicit statement
07:41 in Testimonies to Ministers, p. 135 she wrote: When the Lord
07:47 declares that He made the world in six days and rested on the
07:50 seventh day He means the day of what?...of 24 hours which He has
07:56 marked off by the rising and setting of the sun. But not only
08:02 do we find this testimony in the Bible for the reasons that I
08:06 gave you, not only in the writings of Ellen White but also
08:10 conservative protestant scholars have gone on the record saying
08:14 that the days of creation were literal days. Notice for example
08:18 this statement by Henry Morris who was a staunch creation
08:24 scientist. His headquarters were in San Diego. He died a few
08:29 year ago. In his book, Biblical Creationism, he wrote on p. 62
08:33 The Lord himself had worked six days then rested on the seventh
08:38 setting thereby a permanent pattern for the benefit of
08:44 mankind. So he shows also that there are non-Adventist
08:49 conservative scholars that believe that the days of
08:51 creation were literal days and the first week was a week of
08:56 seven days just like we know the week today. Yet Ellen White
08:59 wrote that some theologians want to accommodate the story of
09:05 creation to the whims of science so-called. So they say, yes God
09:11 was involved but He took millions of years for each day.
09:14 Notice this statement in the book Education, p. 128, 129.
09:19 Inferences erroneously drawn from facts observed in nature
09:25 have however led to a supposed conflict between science and
09:32 revelation. And in the effort to restore harmony bent
09:38 interpretations of scripture have been adopted that undermine
09:41 and destroy the force of the word of God. Geology has been
09:46 thought to contradict the literal interpretation of the
09:49 Mosaic record of the creation. Millions of years, it is claimed
09:54 were required for the evolution of the earth from chaos and in
09:59 order, notice the word, to accommodate the Bible to this
10:03 supposed revelation of science the days of creation are assumed
10:07 to have been vast indefinite periods covering thousands or
10:12 even millions of years. Such a conclusion is wholly uncalled
10:17 for. The Bible record is in harmony with itself and with
10:25 the teaching of nature. So I want you to notice that Ellen
10:29 White, conservative protestant scholars and the testimony of
10:33 Genesis itself indicate that the story of creation is a literal
10:39 story. The first week was composed of seven days, each
10:42 24 hours long. Yet in spite of the fact of the evidence the
10:52 Papacy's concept of creation is different. Neither John Paul II
10:57 who was one of the most influential popes in recent
11:01 years or Francis I the present pope believes that the story of
11:07 creation occurred as it is written. Both believed, well
11:14 Francis believes, and John Paul II believed before he died, that
11:19 the story of creation is a symbolic story that was to teach
11:24 moral lessons but it did not happen literally. Both of them
11:28 believe in the Big Bang, that the world evolved over the
11:33 course of billions of years. In other words, both believe that
11:39 this world came into existence by what we call macroevolution.
11:45 Not slight, small variations within species but drastic
11:51 changes from one species to another. John Paul in a speech
11:56 to the Papal Academy of the Sciences referred to evolution
12:02 as more than an hypothesis and argued that the various branches
12:06 of science have presented a significant argument in favor of
12:11 the theory. I want to read what he said: Today almost half a
12:18 century after the publication of the encyclical...He's talking
12:23 about the Encyclical of Pope Pius XII, Humana Generous, which
12:28 means the origin of man, he started saying well maybe
12:31 there's a little truth to evolution. Before that the
12:34 papacy was not strong on the idea that things came into
12:37 existence by evolution. So the Pope is saying...Today almost
12:39 half a century after the publication of the encyclical
12:42 new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of
12:48 evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed
12:52 remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by
12:56 researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields
13:01 of knowledge. The convergence... that is of all these different
13:05 studies...the convergence neither sought nor fabricated
13:10 of the results of the work that was conducted independently is
13:14 in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory. That's
13:22 what Pope John Paul said to the Papal Academy of the Sciences.
13:27 Now Steven Swanson who is a staff writer for the Chicago
13:32 Tribune was brutally honest when he wrote that Darwin's evolution
13:37 and the Biblical record of creation could not be reconciled
13:40 He wrote on the Pope's writing because he wrote this, and on
13:45 his speech and he wrote the following: In a major statement
13:50 of the Roman Catholic church's position on the theory of
13:53 evolution John Paul II has proclaimed that the theory is
13:58 more than just a hypothesis and that evolution is compatible
14:02 with the Christian faith. In a written message to the
14:05 Pontifical Academy of Sciences the Pope said the theory of
14:09 evolution has been buttressed by scientific studies and
14:13 discoveries since Charles Darwin and then this writer is going to
14:18 say what is obvious. If taken literally the Biblical view of
14:23 the beginning of life and Darwin's scientific view would
14:29 seem what? Irreconcilable. In Genesis the creation of the
14:33 world and Adam, the first human, took six days. Evolutions
14:38 process of genetic mutation and natural selection, the survival
14:42 and proliferation of the fittest new species has taken billions
14:47 of years according to scientists This says the Biblical story and
14:51 what scientists say cannot be reconciled. Pope Francis was
14:57 even more explicit than Pope John Paul. I read now some
15:01 things that Pope Francis had to say. This is at the top of
15:05 p. 359: The Big Bang which today we hold to be the origin of the
15:11 world...What does he mean when he says We hold? The papacy,
15:18 yeah. So the papacy believes in the Big Bang for the origin of
15:22 the universe. The Big Bang which today we hold to be the origin
15:25 of the world does not contradict the intervention of a Divine
15:30 Creator but rather requires it. So God has to intervene at
15:33 certain stages in the process of evolution is what he's saying.
15:36 Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of
15:41 creation because evolution requires the creation of beings
15:43 that evolve. In other words, God placed in the beings the
15:48 mechanism so that they can evolve and God intervenes at
15:51 certain stages to change maybe one species into another until
15:56 this process of evolution comes to an end. Then he stated:
15:59 When we read
16:01 about creation in Genesis we run the risk of imagining God was a
16:05 magician with a magic wand able to do everything, but that is
16:08 not so. He created human beings and let them develop according
16:14 to the internal laws that he gave to each one of them so they
16:18 would reach their fulfillment. So you'll notice that both of
16:23 these popes the most influential popes in the last 50 years
16:30 neither one of them believes that the story of creation
16:32 happened literally the way Genesis says. They believe that
16:36 it is a symbolic story and that this world came into existence
16:40 over the course of billions of years. In fact, according to the
16:45 Big Bang theory the evolutionary process of the universe began
16:50 some 13.8 billion years ago when a single speck of the universe
16:56 exploded and the universe began to expand. And they believe that
17:01 by examining the expansion of the universe and working towards
17:06 the supposed beginning that they can determine how long it took.
17:09 And that's what these popes actually, believe. Now what are
17:15 the devastating implications of believing that the story of
17:19 Genesis is not literal but this world came into existence in the
17:23 course of billions of years? First, heterosexual marriage is
17:31 based on the story of creation. Why do we believe that a man
17:35 should marry a woman? Because in Genesis, it says: Therefore a man
17:41 shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife
17:44 The foundation of heterosexual marriage is Genesis. But if the
17:50 story of Genesis did not take place as the Bible says, what
17:56 happens with heterosexual marriage. It disappears. Another
18:02 problem is the foundation of gender identity is based on
18:07 Genesis. The Bible tells us that male and female He created them.
18:12 He created two genders, male and female. But what happens if the
18:16 story of creation wasn't literal Well, gender identity disappears.
18:22 It becomes even more serious. The Sabbath depends, the
18:27 observance of the Sabbath depends on the literal story of
18:30 creation. Because if that story isn't literal and the world has
18:34 come into existence over millions and billions of years
18:37 then there wasn't the first week of six days of work and one of
18:41 rest. Therefore, we cannot copy or follow God's example. So the
18:47 Sabbath is based on a literal story of creation. I'm not going
18:52 to get into the issue of distinctive functions of men and
18:55 women but that also is found there in Genesis. That's a very
19:00 controversial subject in the Adventist church now. Francis I
19:04 constantly admonishes the strong to help the weak and the rich to
19:11 help the poor. However, his counsel does not fit with the
19:16 mechanism of evolution. Because evolution functions based on the
19:20 survival of the fittest, or natural selection where the
19:24 strong prevail and the weak disappear. If this is true, why
19:30 should the strong help the weak and the rich help the poor? So
19:34 his counsel doesn't square with his concept. Even more seriously
19:39 the papal view of origins destroys the expectation of a
19:45 soon coming of Jesus. How many more millions of years do we
19:49 have to wait for evolution to work out its wrinkles and flaws
19:54 to reach the perfect omega point How many times have you heard
20:01 Pope Francis, I refer to the second coming of Christ as the
20:06 great hope of planet earth? Never! Because the view of the
20:11 papacy is not that Jesus is going to come to establish His
20:15 kingdom here. The idea of the papacy is that the church will
20:19 take over the reins of the state resolve the problems of poverty,
20:23 the problem of climate change, the problems of the family, the
20:27 problems with immigration and establish a perfect society here
20:31 on earth. Because he doesn't believe in the story of creation
20:37 But it becomes even more serious The evolutionary theory mars the
20:45 beautiful character of God. It is an attack against the
20:47 omnipotence of God. Doesn't God have the almighty power to
20:55 create things instantaneously by speaking them into existence,
20:59 that He has to use a method that takes billions of years. Isn't
21:02 God powerful enough to make things right (snaps finger) from
21:06 the start? It's an attack against the omnipotence of God.
21:09 It's an attack also against the omniscience and the wisdom of
21:14 God. Is not God wise enough to create everything perfect from
21:18 the start without having to use a method of trial and error
21:23 where there is much suffering and death? It is also an attack
21:36 on the grace and mercy and love of God. We're going to see. But
21:41 let's go here to the middle of the page. It is a method of the
21:43 survival of the fittest. The strong prevail and the weak
21:48 succumb. It is contrary to the Biblical principle that the rich
21:52 should help the poor and the strong should help the weak.
21:55 It is a method of trial and error where the process of
21:59 evolution irons out the glitches Does this reflect the Biblical
22:03 picture of God? Could not God get it right from the start?
22:08 You know, there's a scientist, a Roman Catholic scientist, that
22:14 wrote this: Evolution presents a bloody, ruthless struggle for
22:19 existence from the very beginning where there is much
22:22 waste of living substance and many false starts and blind
22:27 alleys. Does that sound like a wise God, like an omniscient God
22:32 Absolutely not! By the way Jesus was the Creator. Does that
22:36 sound like Jesus who after feeding the 4000 says, pick up
22:40 all that's left over so that nothing goes to waste. And when
22:45 He fed the 5000 He said the same thing; pick up everything that
22:49 is left over that nothing goes to waste. With evolution there's
22:53 waste all over the place. It is an attack also against the love
22:58 and mercy of God as I was mentioning before. How can a God
23:02 of love use a method where there's so much suffering,
23:06 cruelty, pain, and death. Does it sound like a God who cares for
23:11 the sparrows and dresses the lilies of the field. Would a
23:15 God whose eye is on the sparrow use such a cruel method to
23:21 create. It is also an attack against Jesus as the Savior.
23:27 You see this is very serious. If the Genesis account is
23:33 symbolic than the story of the fall is also what? Symbolic. And
23:39 salvation simply means perfecting through the process
23:43 of evolution. So it's an attack against the Savior. Notice that
23:49 the Bible presents an unbroken chain. First God created Adam
23:54 and Eve perfect with no inclination to sin. Adam and Eve
23:59 ate from a literal tree of the knowledge of good and evil and
24:03 literally fell into sin. Literally the infection of sin
24:08 passed from Adam and Eve to all their descendants. Because of
24:12 that death came in and passed to all human beings because of sin.
24:16 Therefore all humanity needs what? A Redeemer from sin and
24:22 death. But if there was death before sin, we face a serious
24:26 problem. If there was death before sin then the link between
24:32 creation and sin and redemption is broken. That's the reason why
24:37 Roman Catholic theologian Carl Smitts Norman quoted and this is
24:42 quoted in the book Creation, Catastrophe and Redemption p.112
24:45 Remember this is a Roman Catholic theologian: The notion
24:50 of a traditional view of redemption as reconciliation and
24:55 ransom from the consequences of Adam's fall is nonsense for
25:00 anyone who knows about the evolutionary background to human
25:04 existence in the modern world. Further, salvation cannot mean
25:08 returning to an original state but must be conceived as
25:14 perfecting through the process of evolution. A Roman Catholic
25:18 theologian! Notice what Frank L. Marsh, a Seventh-day Adventist
25:25 scientist wrote: If death and the law of tooth and claw
25:29 existed long before man and if man evolved through these
25:34 natural processes then there could not have been a perfect
25:37 Garden of Eden nor a perfect Adam and Eve nor could there
25:42 have been a real fall in which man became subject to sin. If
25:47 that is so what is the theological meaning of Jesus's
25:50 incarnation and atonement? Paul connects the two. For as by one
25:55 man's disobedience many were made sinners so also by one
25:59 man's obedience many will be made righteous...and then he
26:04 continues...If there was no Garden of Eden with its tree of
26:07 life what is the future that Revelation 22 depicts for the
26:13 redeemed? The evolutionary theory destroys the Biblical
26:18 hope of the second coming of Christ to restore the earth to
26:21 It's original perfection. If perfection is through the
26:25 process of evolution how much longer must we wait until the
26:29 process reaches its climax? Millions of years? Billions?
26:34 How many millions of years do we have to wait for the lamb and
26:39 the wild beasts to lie down together in harmony? How many
26:44 more millions of years? See if you believe in evolution it
26:47 destroys the idea of a soon coming of Christ because our
26:50 hope is not in Jesus' coming to create a new heavens and a new
26:54 earth. The hope is that we reach the climax of perfection through
26:58 the process of evolution and how much longer is it going to take?
27:02 Is the big question. If we eliminate a literal beginning
27:06 a literal fall, a literal atonement and a literal second
27:11 coming what is left?! We might as well pack up our Seventh-day
27:16 Adventist bags and join the ecumenical movement. Now in
27:22 spite of the fact that without exception the Bible refers to
27:26 the seventh day Sabbath as God's day of rest. Pope John Paul II
27:30 in his apostolic letter Dies Domini and Pope Francis I in his
27:35 encyclical Laudato Si had declared that the seventh day
27:40 Sabbath is Jewish and that Sunday is the Christian Sabbath.
27:44 Yet as we have seen never does the Bible refer to the Sabbath
27:48 as the Sabbath of the Jews or the Jewish Sabbath. It is always
27:52 the Sabbath of the Lord your God God calls the Sabbath my holy
27:58 day. In every single instance the Sabbath is God's holy rest
28:02 day because He made it holy by His rest. The papacy claims that
28:08 the Sabbath is a relic of the Jewish old covenant and yet it
28:14 continues a plethora of old covenant practices such as
28:18 sacrifices on altars, the use of holy vestments, the sprinkling
28:23 of holy water, the burning of incense, the lighting of candles
28:28 the raising of shrines to the saints. In this the papacy
28:35 swallows the camel and strains the gnat. They reject one of the
28:39 10 commandments, the Sabbath commandment, and yet they say
28:42 that these other practices which were part of the old covenant
28:46 still need to be practiced by the Christian church today. The
28:51 simple fact is that Sunday cannot be holy because God did
28:54 not rest on it. Jesus rested from creation on the Sabbath,
28:58 from redemption on the Sabbath, and will rest from the new
29:03 creation on the Sabbath as well. Even more seriously if Pope
29:08 Francis does not believe in the literal story of creation then
29:12 the Sabbath has no foundation. So far so good? Now we need to
29:20 talk about the Jesuit strategy. The Jesuits have a very
29:28 particular agenda and it's related to the philosophy of a
29:33 well-known philosopher by the last name of Fagel. He theorized
29:38 that history develops in three stages: He called it thesis,
29:43 antithesis and synthesis. And the theory as it applies to the
29:50 papacy would work out like this: The thesis would be the
29:55 dominion of the papacy during the 1260 years. The antithesis
30:00 would be the French revolution when communism and secularism
30:05 arose against the papacy and the synthesis would be the joining
30:11 together of Catholicism and communism, the joining of forces
30:17 Now you say is that possible? Is that what we're seeing today?
30:22 Let's pursue it. John Paul II and Benedict XVI were popes of a
30:30 dying breed. They were staunch defenders of papal authority and
30:35 of the dogmas...those are the doctrines of the church. Then
30:38 the conservative pontificates of John Paul II, by the way, he
30:43 was head of what was known before as the office of the inquisition
30:47 and the period of Benedict XVI the papal talking points focused
30:54 primarily, and you know this because the moral majority did
30:57 the same thing, the Christian Coalition among protestants.
31:01 What was the focus, what were their talking points of John
31:03 Paul II and of Benedict? They were conservative popes. They
31:08 wanted to uphold Roman Catholic doctrines or dogmas. Their focus
31:12 was primarily a marriage between a man and a woman, on euthanasia
31:17 as being wrong, on abortion as something being criminal, which
31:23 we certainly would agree with, against LGBT and in favor of
31:29 doctrinal orthodoxy. Of course the political powers of the
31:33 world and the secular media including the United Nations
31:37 frowned on these causes. So the papacy needed to implement a
31:43 more liberal agenda in order to win over the political powers of
31:47 the world. As is well know, John Paul was a deadly enemy of
31:53 communism and theologically very conservative. John Paul
31:59 fought tooth and nail against communism in the Soviet bloc
32:02 and he and Ronald Reagan joined forces to attack communism in
32:10 Central America. But there has been a papal shift. At the same
32:17 time postmodernism was eroding the idea that there was such a
32:21 thing as doctrinal truth. It also denied that truth can be
32:26 found anywhere outside our subjective experience, the
32:30 experience of each human being. Thus subjective truth,
32:35 autonomous authority took the place of objective truth and an
32:41 absolute authority outside of man. Until recent times the
32:46 Roman Catholic church has taught that dogmas are absolute truth
32:52 and the pope is the absolute arbiter of what is truth and
32:56 what is error? However, at Vatican Council II which was
33:00 celebrated from 1962 to 1965 things began to change. The
33:07 catchword for the council was aggiornamento that in Latin
33:12 means renewal. According to conservative Vatican insiders
33:16 the council was a watershed event that diluted the authority
33:22 of the pope and the doctrinal orthodoxy of the church. The
33:26 confirmation of the truthfulness of the insiders assessment would
33:31 not take very long. In the 1970s communism began causing problems
33:37 in Central America. Those who are a little bit older remember
33:40 the issue of the Contras during Reagan's time, right, in Central
33:44 America and El Salvador. The Jesuit bishops were not merely
33:49 Roman Catholics in Central America, they were also
33:53 communists. This is the synthesis, by the way. In the
33:57 1980s the problems intensified as Catholic priests embraced
34:02 liberation theology and began treating the pope with disdain
34:06 and disrespect. They hated John Paul II because he was
34:12 conservative. The book by the late Malachi Martin, ever heard
34:16 of him before? He wrote a book called The Jesuits. Get a copy
34:20 of it and read it. That book was written in 1987, it was
34:24 published in 1987. What he has in that book is what's happening
34:28 in the church today, the Roman Catholic church today. So, this
34:35 book, which was published in 1987, it was two years before
34:38 the fall of the Berlin Wall. In other words, before the fall of
34:41 what was before the Soviet Union. Martin was a staunchly
34:46 conservative Jesuit and a close friend of John Paul II. He was
34:52 aghast at what the liberal Jesuits, which were the majority
34:56 were doing to change the power structure of the papacy and
34:59 church doctrine. In his book, he documents in minute detail how
35:05 John Paul II was treated with disdain and disrespect by the
35:10 Sandinistas when he visited Nicaragua in March of 1983.
35:15 He also documents how beginning with Vatican II the Jesuit order
35:21 has watered down church doctrine and the authority of the pope
35:24 in order to make it easier to unite with protestants, world
35:29 political leaders and scientists Are you catching this picture?
35:33 It is a documented fact that since the 60s the Jesuits have
35:39 been chipping away at the idea that church dogma is set in
35:44 stone. They also questioned the idea that the pope is the
35:47 absolute arbiter of truth. They realize that in order for the
35:51 papacy to gain the trust of political leaders of the world
35:54 it must embrace the causes that they stand for. Do the political
36:00 leaders of the world stand for heterosexual marriage? Are you
36:05 kidding? Are most of the political leaders and the United
36:08 Nations in favor of euthanasia? Sure. How about LGBT? Sure.
36:14 How about open borders? How about climate change? Hmm.
36:20 Interesting. There is a real reason why Pope Benedict was
36:26 strong-armed to retire from the papal throne. The papacy needed
36:31 a liberal pope who would not focus on the orthodoxy of church
36:35 dogma because today people don't want to believe anything is
36:38 objective truth, or the authority of the pope, but
36:45 rather on causes that please the politicians of the world. Ellen
36:49 White hit the nail on the head when she compared the papacy to
36:53 a chameleon. Do you know what a chameleon is? It's a lizard
36:56 that changes colors depending on where it is. This is what she
37:01 wrote, the best description of the papacy I've ever read.
37:03 It is part of her policy to assume the character which will
37:08 best accomplish her purpose, but beneath the variable appearance
37:14 of the chameleon she conceals the invariable venom of the
37:19 serpent. Benedict resigned or retired but not of his own free
37:25 will. The conversation topics needed to change so that the
37:30 papacy would be more in harmony with the agenda of the United
37:34 Nations and the world governments. Because prophecy
37:37 predicts that the papacy will be able to use the civil powers of
37:41 the world to accomplish her agenda. See sometimes we think
37:46 that the union of Catholics and protestants is the big thing.
37:51 Listen, that's important, yes, Catholics and protestants but
37:54 it's even more important to the papacy to gain the support of
37:57 the political leaders of the world to be able to use the
38:01 state to accomplish its purposes For that, it has to win over the
38:05 political leaders and talk about what they want to talk about.
38:07 Francis I is the first Jesuit pope in the history of the
38:14 Roman Catholic church. His focus is not on church doctrine or on
38:18 the authority of the papal chair He is a Catholic communist in
38:24 the style of the Sandinistas of Central America in the 1980s.
38:28 He has synthesized Catholicism with socialism. He is a
38:34 theological liberal and does not care must about orthodox church
38:38 doctrine. The key item on the papal to-do list to win the
38:44 trust and confidence of the civil powers of the world
38:47 especially the United States and then to advise them to implement
38:52 its agenda. That's what the plan is. In order to accomplish this
38:57 the papacy has recognized that it must change its traditional
39:01 talking points. During the pontificate of Francis I, the
39:05 first Jesuit pope in history as I mentioned the traditional
39:08 social talking points have all but faded from view. The pope
39:13 rarely mentions church doctrine or the authority of the papal
39:17 chair. When approached on his view of gay marriage he said,
39:22 Who am I to judge? His topics of conversation are socialist
39:29 including climate change, poverty, spreading the wealth
39:35 of rich nations to poor ones, doing things for the common good
39:40 open and free immigration. Is that what he's talking about?
39:44 Of course, it is. You see it in the news every day. By the
39:49 way, how much
39:51 has the pope said about what's happening in Venezuela?
39:54 Practically nothing and he says they just need to get together
39:56 to resolve their differences. And Venezuela is a communist
40:01 country. He's been very critical of Donald Trump in the United
40:04 States. Political leaders and the United Nations can identify
40:09 with these causes. The politicians of the world
40:13 revealed their enthusiastic approval of the pope's new
40:17 talking points when the 193 nations represented gave the
40:22 pope a thunderous standing ovation for many minutes when
40:26 he finished his inaugural speech at the 70th anniversary of the
40:31 general assembly of the United Nations in September of 2015.
40:35 Ellen White wrote about the papal strategy of changing its
40:39 appearance while retaining its basic principles. In Great
40:42 Controversy, p. 571 she wrote: The Roman church now presents
40:47 a fair front to the world covering with apologies her
40:52 record of horrible cruelties. She has clothed herself in
40:57 Christ-like garments but she is unchanged. Every principle...
41:04 not necessarily the doctrines... but every principle of
41:06 the papacy that
41:07 existed in past ages exists today. The most powerful man
41:14 in the Vatican is not the pope but what is known as the black
41:19 pope, because he's clothed in black, the father superior of
41:23 the Jesuit order. We can see the shift away from church dogma
41:28 in order to please the contemporary, liberal, post
41:32 modern mind. In an interview that Giuseppe Rusconi, that's a
41:37 newspaper editor had with Father Arturo Sosa Abascal, the
41:43 recently elected superior of the Jesuit order, the black pope.
41:47 And let me, before I read some things about that interview, let
41:50 me just mention I bet you can't guess where the Father Superior
41:54 is from. Venezuela. This is very significant. This is the
42:01 question that Rusconi asks: Cardinal Gerhard L. Mueller, the
42:09 Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, that
42:11 is the head of what was before the inquisition has said with
42:15 regard to marriage that the words of Jesus are very clear...
42:18 that is that Jesus married a man and a woman and no power in
42:24 heaven and on earth, neither an angel nor the pope, neither a
42:29 council nor a law of the bishops has the faculty to modify them.
42:33 So in other words, he's the head of the inquisition. He's
42:37 responsible to uphold church doctrine. Now here's Abascal's
42:44 answer, the black pope. So then there would have to be a lot of
42:48 reflection on what Jesus really said. At that time no one had a
42:53 recorder to take down his words. What is known is that the words
42:58 of Jesus must be contextualized. There are expressed in a
43:02 language in a specific setting they are addressed to someone in
43:07 particular. In other words, they only apply to the times of Jesus
43:11 And so Rusconi asks the following question: But if all
43:17 the words of Jesus must be examined and brought back to
43:22 the historical context do they not have an absolute value?
43:24 Well here's Abascal's answer. Over the last century in the
43:30 church there has been a great blossoming of studies that seek
43:34 to understand exactly what Jesus meant to say. As if you don't
43:39 understand male and female. Hello. That is not relativism
43:45 but attests that the word is relative. The gospel is written
43:50 by human beings. It is accepted by the church which is made up
43:53 of human beings, so it is true that no one can change the word
43:58 of Jesus but one must know what His word was. Are you seeing the
44:04 seriousness of this? He's using the historical-critical method
44:08 which is the liberal method of interpreting scripture. I want
44:14 you to notice also what he continues saying about church
44:19 doctrine. The church has developed over the centuries.
44:22 It is not a piece of reinforced concrete. It was born, it has
44:29 learned, it has changed. This is why the ecumenical councils are
44:33 held to try to bring developments of doctrine into
44:37 focus. Doctrine is a word that I don't like very much. It brings
44:43 with it the image of a hardness of stone. Instead the human
44:48 reality is much more nuanced. It is never black or white. It
44:53 is in continual development. Are you catching the picture? As I
45:01 mentioned Abascal is from Venezuela and Pope Francis hand
45:05 picked him. Why did the pope hand pick someone from an avowed
45:09 communist country where poverty, disease, hunger, crime, civil
45:15 unrest are the rule of the day? Why has not the Pope condemned
45:19 the abuses of the communist government in Venezuela. Why has
45:24 Abascal remained silent even thought he's from there simply
45:27 saying that both sides should resolve their problems by
45:30 dialogue. Simply because the Pope and Abascal are both
45:35 Catholic communists. Are you with me? Now the pope has three
45:41 main talking points and all of them have to do with the
45:45 observance of Sunday as the day of rest. First of all the
45:51 serious need to address the issue of climate change. You
45:58 know this is the horse that the pope is riding now. There are
46:02 multiple articles, I have in my computer multiple articles that
46:06 are coming out recently about groups in different places that
46:11 are pushing for climate change. They're even influencing the
46:14 children from schools to miss school, I think it's on Friday's
46:19 in protest because the leaders are not doing anything about
46:24 climate change. And I don't know if you know this, but there's a
46:27 Norwegian teenager who has been nominated to receive the Nobel
46:33 peace prize because of her demonstrations against climate
46:35 change. Against not doing anything about climate change.
46:39 Now, so he speaks about climate change. The pope says, the
46:47 environment needs a day to rest. What day do you suppose that is?
46:50 Sunday, of course. He says, Listen, the capitalist overlords
46:56 don't give their poor a day off. You know all the stores are open
47:03 on Sunday, athletic events on Sunday and therefore, the
47:10 workers they're having to work and they don't have a time to
47:12 rest. They need to get a day of rest from their capitalist
47:17 overlords. I bet you you can't guess what day he suggests.
47:21 Sunday. Then he says the family you know they're so busy during
47:24 the week. They're taking the kids to the school and they're
47:28 working and they just don't have any time to spend together as a
47:32 family. The family needs a day when they can reconnect. I'll
47:36 bet you can't guess what day that is. Sunday. I want to read
47:42 this statement from his encyclical Laudato Si. The pope
47:49 wrote: On Sunday our participation in the Eucharist,
47:53 that's what we call
47:55 the Lord's Supper has special importance. Sunday like the
47:59 Jewish Sabbath. Huh, where does the Bible speak of the Jewish
48:04 Sabbath. Anybody want to show me a verse where the Bible calls
48:07 the Sabbath a Jewish Sabbath? It's always the Sabbath of the
48:10 Lord your God. God says it's my holy day. It's the day that God
48:15 rested. So once again, on Sunday our participation in the
48:20 Eucharist has special importance Sunday, like the Jewish Sabbath,
48:23 is meant to be a day which heals our relationships with God...
48:29 Which is the day that God gave us to heal our relationships
48:33 with God? The Sabbath...With ourselves. What day did God give
48:38 us to kind of rest and retread? The Sabbath...With other's...
48:44 Which day did Jesus use especially to heal and benefit
48:49 others. Sabbath...And with the world. What is the problem with
48:54 what the pope is saying? Are these bad causes? Is it a bad
48:59 cause to give the hard workers a day of rest? No. Is it bad to
49:04 give the environment a day of rest? No. Is it bad for the
49:08 family to be able to spend a whole day together to rest and
49:12 reconnect? No. Where's the problem? He's got the wrong day.
49:15 And so you say, who cares about the day? I can dedicate any day
49:22 I want to God. That's what people say. Well let's take a
49:26 look at that. Remember the story of Nadab and Abihu. They took
49:34 common fire and they offered it to God as if it was holy. And
49:39 God said, Aw you don't have to take the holy fire from the
49:41 altar. Fire is fire, I don't care. Is that what God said?
49:44 No. The Bible says that because they took common fire and
49:48 offered to God as if it was holy fire came from the Lord and
49:52 consumed them because they took the common and they presented it
49:56 as if it was holy. Another story in Daniel chapter five is
50:01 Belshazzar. He took the holy vessels and he treated them as
50:03 if they were common. And what happened with him? He was slain
50:08 that very night. So how do you think the Lord feels today when
50:13 people take a common day of work Sunday, and they make it a day
50:18 of rest. And they take a holy day like the Sabbath and they
50:22 treat it as if it were common. If God accepts that he's going
50:25 have to apologize to Nadab and Abihu and Belshazzar. Because
50:30 when God says it's the Sabbath He means the Sabbath! He does
50:34 not mean any other day. Now what is the final test going to be
50:39 all about? You know it's about the mark of the beast and the
50:42 seal of God, right? And that's what we've been discussing in
50:46 the seals. You know God's people will be sealed with the seal of
50:49 God and the wicked will be marked with the mark of the
50:53 beast. Now what is the real issue at the end of time? The
50:56 great final test that will divide the world is not merely
50:59 a matter of days, but rather a matter of authority. The
51:05 observance of the Sabbath is a sign of loyalty and obedience to
51:10 the Creator. The observance of Sunday is the sign of loyalty
51:15 and obedience to the beast. Thus the matter of days will test
51:19 which authority you will obey. The first angel's message
51:23 commands us to worship the Creator and the third tells us
51:27 not to worship the beast or the little horn. So the final
51:33 conflict has to do more with authority than just with days.
51:36 Let me ask you when we keep the Sabbath whose authority are we
51:40 recognizing? God's authority because He established the
51:43 Sabbath as a sign of creation. When we observe Sunday as the
51:48 day of rest who created Sunday as the day of rest. The papacy.
51:52 So whose authority are we recognizing when we keep Sunday?
51:55 God's authority? No, we're recognizing the papacy's
51:58 authority. The little horn thought that it could change
52:02 God's law. So behind the days is the issue of which authority we
52:10 will obey. Now you find in your syllabus several statements,
52:13 we're not going to be able to read them all but I want to read
52:18 just one of them and this is... and if we have time we'll read
52:21 another but on page 370, at the bottom of the page. Right now
52:27 the protestant churches are coming back to Mother! There's
52:32 a big ecumenical movement going on now where protestants are
52:37 just let's forget about doctrine And let's just all hold hands
52:43 and sing Kum Ba Ya my lord. Let's just all get along. You
52:47 know let's care for the poor and let's make sure that the climate
52:52 change doesn't destroy the planet and let us just emphasize
52:54 the need for the family and so and so on and then everything
53:00 will be okay. That's the emphasis these days. But when it
53:03 comes to doctrine protestant churches say don't focus on
53:06 doctrine, that's not important. They also have been influenced
53:08 by post-modern thinking. There's no such thing as absolute truth.
53:12 Your truth is your truth even if it contradicts reality and
53:17 common reason. If you want to believe that two plus three is
53:20 seven well that's your truth. It's okay. And if I want to
53:25 to believe that two plus two is four, well that's my truth. It's
53:28 all right. But don't condemn me because I don't accept your
53:31 truth. That's the mood of the day. It's post-modern thinking.
53:34 The problem with the protestant churches is that they were never
53:38 able to totally sever the connection with the mother,
53:41 with the mother church, they were born from. They did discard
53:45 many of the
53:47 things that linked them with the mother church. For example, they
53:53 restored the idea that baptism, many of them did, that baptism
53:55 is by immersion, they restored the idea that man is justified
53:59 by faith without works of law. They restored many of the
54:03 aspects that the church had gone astray from in the Bible but
54:07 there are some doctrines that the protestant world was never
54:11 able to discard and that still connect them with the mother.
54:15 Things like Sunday as a day of rest. An eternally burning hell.
54:21 And the idea of the immortality of the soul. So they still have
54:27 a link or a connection with the mother, a doctrinal connection
54:30 with the mother. And notice what John O'Brien in the book The
54:35 Faith of Millions, pp. 400-401 wrote. He was a professor many
54:40 years at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana, one of the
54:44 great Catholic universities of the United States. He caught
54:48 this nuance. He wrote: But since Saturday, not Sunday, is
54:53 specified in the Bible isn't it curious that non-Catholics who
54:57 profess to take their religion directly from the Bible and not
55:00 from the church observe Sunday instead of Saturday? Yes, of
55:05 course it is inconsistent but this change was made about 15
55:09 centuries before Protestantism was born and by that time the
55:14 custom was universally observed. They, that is protestants, have
55:18 continued the custom even though it rests upon what? The
55:24 authority of the Catholic church and not upon an explicit text in
55:30 the Bible. And now here comes the key portion. That observance
55:34 remains as a reminder of the mother church from which the non
55:42 Catholic sects broke away. Like a boy running away from home but
55:47 still carrying in his pocket a picture of his mother or a lock
55:50 of her hair. Are you catching the picture? There is still the
55:58 desire to what? To return to mother from where they left.
56:04 We have time to read one other one. At the top of p. 370: It
56:09 was the Catholic church which by the authority of Jesus Christ
56:15 that's questionable, has transferred this rest to the
56:20 Sunday in remembrance of the resurrection of our Lord. Thus
56:25 the observance of Sunday by protestants is an homage they
56:30 pay in spite of themselves to the authority of the church.
56:36 Once again, it's a matter of what? What authority do you obey
56:42 Why can't we keep Sunday as well as Sabbath. Well let me give you
56:49 the reason. My birthday is June 26, not going to tell you the
56:54 year. (Laughter) June 26. What day do you suppose my family
57:01 celebrates my birthday. June 26. Why can't they celebrate on June
57:07 27? Because I wasn't born that day. You see that event
57:11 is rooted in
57:12 history. You can't change an event that's rooted in history.
57:15 So let me ask you. What day did God rest at creation? The
57:21 Sabbath day. Can I say that it's Sunday. No because it's an event
57:25 that's rooted in history. And you cannot change the event that
57:29 is rooted in history. That's why Ellen White says that when we
57:32 keep the Sabbath that we commemorate the Creator's rest.
57:36 Like on June 26 you commemorate my birthday. You can't change
57:43 the date of my birthday. You cannot change the day that God
57:47 rested because on Sunday, God did not rest. So we see these
57:53 things happening right before our eyes. Things are happening
57:57 very quickly. The final movements are rapid ones. And we
58:01 need to make that in the trial ahead we have the seal of God.
58:07 ♪ ♪


Revised 2022-08-31