Participants:
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