SDA CHURCH LEADERSHIP SURRENDERS TO ROME'S ANTI-ABORTION DOGMAS

(SDA Church has wandered onto Rome's enchanted ground, as she did in adopting the Trinity dogma)

INTRODUCTION

The abortion controversy involves issues of extreme complexity, and imagery which arouses strong negative emotions. It should therefore surprise no-one that Satan would choose to hide the Great Lie of the immortality of the soul within these extremely complex issues. The following inspired statements and predictions of Ellen G. White call for commensurate reliance on divine guidance through the treacherous waters of the controversy, when the spirits of devils are manifestly at work. (Rev. 16:13-14):

I have been shown that Satan has not been stupid and careless these many years, since his fall, but has been learning. He has grown more artful. His plans are laid deeper, and are more covered with a religious garment to hide their deformity. The power of Satan now to tempt and deceive is ten-fold greater than it was in the days of the apostles. His power has increased, and it will increase, until it is taken away. (2 SG, P. 277; emphasis supplied.)

It is the first and highest duty of every rational being to learn from the Scriptures what is truth, and then to walk in the light and encourage others to follow his example. We should day by day study the Bible diligently, weighing every thought and comparing scripture with scripture. With divine help we are to form our opinions for ourselves as we are to answer for ourselves before God.... (Maranatha, P. 94; emphasis supplied)

The first of these two statements emphasizes the formidable power of Satan to ensnare the human mind in these last days. The second statement underscores the role of the Bible as our protection against ensnarement by the devil, the necessity of utter reliance upon God, and the duty to follow His guidance in forming our opinions. It was Jesus Himself who promised the Holy Spirit to guide us into all Truth.

THE BIBLE AND THE ABORTION CONTROVERSY

The late John V. Stevens, Sr. was the former Director of the Pacific Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists' Department of Public Affairs and Religious Liberty. His book The Abortion Controversy, is thoroughly researched and heavily documented. He points out the following in the chapter titled "Abortion Law in the Scriptures— Accidental and Induced":

Both sides of the religious controversy over abortion generally recognize the Bible teaching that God is the Author of life and forms humanity in the womb, both fearfully (with great respect) and wonderfully. Without Him there is no life, not even for birds, fish, and animals—or for the vegetation on the face of the earth. Both sides also believe that the Scriptures are inspired, come from God, and should be followed. Many who oppose abortion believe that the sixth commandment, "You shall not murder" and Psalm 139 clearly prohibit abortions of any kind following conception. Inasmuch as most religious denominations take stands against abortion based on their understanding of the Holy Scriptures, it may come as a surprise that only two passages in the entire Bible deal with an induced miscarriage—one accidental, and the other planned. No other references deal with abortion, either in the Old Testament or the New Testament. We shall do a detailed examination of those two passages. Religious adherents who favor choice cite these two passages that deal explicitly with abortion—one accidental, and one induced. They point out that biblical law mandated only a misdemeanor fine against one who accidentally caused a woman to have a miscarriage. The induced abortion performed by the priest was the result of a pregnancy that arose from infidelity, and no punishment was imposed for inducing the abortion. Rather, a command came from God to cause it to take place. Of special significance is that both references are part of the law given at Mt. Sinai by God, or Jehovah, as He is referred to oftentimes in the Old Testament. Both references are not only laws, but God spoke them directly, so it was not someone simply recording a law. The first passage is found in the book of Exodus, chapter 21, at the close of the Ten Commandments, and is a continuation of God speaking concerning His law. Those commandments are found in the previous chapter. God's laws are universal, for all time and all peoples. But purely religious laws are not to be adopted by the state and enforced. However, many social laws which the state should enforce, such as the last six commandments, protect people from people. Hence, the One who commanded that we not murder is the same One who continues His laws in the following chapters. They are repeated in Deuteronomy chapters 10-15 and also appear in parts of the book of Numbers. God, the source of all life, has established all the necessary provisions for life. He carries every developing fetus during its formation in the womb, from its conception through birth, and that fetus is dependent on borrowed life from the mother while in the womb until birth, when breath makes its life independent of its connection with the mother through the umbilical cord. . .

In Scripture God does not call for a manslaughter or murder punishment for an accidentally caused miscarriage—but only for a fine. The distinction between the fine for the miscarriage and the penalty for injuring or killing the mother is clear. The fact that God is speaking personally and directly and that the passage comes from the statutory portion of the Scripture makes it of even greater authenticity and force.' The inescapable conclusion of the most obvious meaning of Exodus 21 is that God does not recognize the fetus as a human person. Such a fetus is not given the same protection under the law as one having been born. In Jewish legal reckoning, the fetus is to be regarded as part of the pregnant woman. This is in agreement with the passage found in the book of Numbers, chapter 5. In that passage a woman, guilty of infidelity resulting in a pregnancy, was required to have an induced miscarriage, as a result of the law that God established. The Scripture refers to this miscarriage as the belly swelling and the thigh rotting—the fetus being expelled. This is also consistent with the principle that the fetus has only borrowed life from the mother, whose blood feeds the fetus oxygen, causing it to develop and grow. The position is also in harmony with Scriptures that attribute life and personhood only when one is breathing, following birth. Hence, birth marks the beginning of personhood. (The Abortion Controversy: Abortion Law in the Scriptures— Accidental and Induced (Pp. 157-162; Underscored emphasis added.)

"Only two passages in the entire Bible deal with an induced miscarriage. No other references deal with abortion, either in the Old Testament or the New Testament." This is an inescapable fact, as also the fact that neither passage condemns either the accidental or the induced miscarriage as murder. Moreover, the induced miscarriage was by express commandment of God.

These facts which cannot be denied present no problem for the Roman Catholic Church. Why?! - because Rome's ideology on abortion and birth control were never based on the Bible. (The two cannot be separated in discussing the "Pro-Life" movement, because Rome, the originator of the abortion controversy opposes both on the basis of the same dogmas.) The Seventh-day Adventist Church has in the past recognized that fact, as evidenced in a 1969 Ministry article by J. R. Spangler:-

Adventists and Birth Control

IF BIRTH CONTROL per se is a moral problem, Satan, at this point, must be about as exuberant as he was when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit. What would the world, especially the Christian world, talk about if we solved the birth control problem? Protestants may sneer at Rome's dilemma, but most recently over thrown, seldom enforced, United States State laws against birth control are traceable to Protestant legislation.

Discussions on birth control and related issues range from possible immorality in creases among married and unmarried to imponderable questions such as When does a fertilized egg become a human being? Modern science has now presented the human race with two rather extreme biological and spiritual questions.

1. At what point from fertilized egg to infant does microscopic murder take place in the event of abortion?

2. At what point does death take place in the case of those whose hearts or other vital organs are used for transplant purposes?

We could mini-word these two problems by simply asking, What is the definition for life and death? How fortunate our forefathers were in escaping many a head ache during a time when such issues were nonexistent.

The magnitude of these and related questions for twentieth-century man was impressed upon my mind through a booklet given me by a good Catholic neighbor. This forty-page booklet, prepared by the archdiocese of Washington, D.C., contains thirty-eight questions and answers related to Pope Paul's historic seven-thousand-word encyclical Humenae Vitae ("Of Human Life"). Some of the questions read like this: Why can't a Catholic form his own conscience on the subject of contraception?

Won't the next pope, or the one after him, reverse what Pope Paul has done?

But suppose the condemnation of contraception isn't infallible. Then it's fallible, isn't it? And if it's fallible, couldn't it be mistaken?

The remarkable opening statement of J. R. Spangler in the article, is right in line with the warning of Ellen G. White above.

Rome, by the force of her activism and propaganda has overcome the problem of her position on contraception since 1969 when the two-part article was written by J.R. Spangler. Although the Roman Catholic Church has advocated against birth control as well  abortion, the emphasis of the Protestant churches which have joined in her activism has been on the latter. This is symptomatic of their blindness. Furthermore, unlike Rome they have had to conjure up Scriptures to support their campaign. A Roman Catholic publication has republished almost all of an article which first appeared in the Washington Post and is no longer accessible. The portion omitted is small, but significant, and was quoted in an earlier Adventistlaymen.com web page. The omitted portion is in italics below:-

Roe v. Wade anniversary: How abortion became an evangelical issue

There is more to the story of course. One often overlooked dimension of the story is the intersection of evangelical and Roman Catholic concerns in the emergence of a pro-life coalition. While most evangelicals were either on the wrong side of the issue or politically disengaged, Roman Catholic leaders were on the front lines opposing abortion as a fundamental assault on human dignity. By the late 1960s, the Roman Catholic Church was fighting demands for the legalization of abortion nationally and state by state – opposition that preceded the 1968 papal encyclical Humanae Vitae.

By the time Roe was handed down, Catholic leaders had developed sophisticated arguments and growing organizations to fight for the pro-life cause. In 1967, six years before Roe, Catholics had led in the creation of the National Right to Life Committee. The Catholic tradition, drawn largely from the natural law, became the foundational intellectual contribution to the development of a united front against abortion. Nevertheless, for evangelicals to join the movement in a decisive way, arguments drawn directly from Scripture had to be formed and then preached from the pulpits of evangelical churches. . . (Underscored emphasis added.)

RELIGIO-POLITICAL "PRO-LIFE" ALLIANCE MISAPPLIES PASSAGES FROM THE BIBLE

The following essay reveals the true reason for the emergence of the religio-political alliance between the Roman Catholics and right-wing Evangelicals. The passages quoted are long; but essential for the perfect understanding which is essential in relation to a satanic doctrine cloaked in a garb of Christian morality:-

The Real Origins of the Religious Right

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

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

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

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

Today, evangelicals make up the backbone of the pro-life movement, but it hasn’t always been so. Both before and for several years after Roe, evangelicals were overwhelmingly indifferent to the subject, which they considered a “Catholic issue.” In 1968, for instance, a symposium sponsored by the Christian Medical Society and Christianity Today, the flagship magazine of evangelicalism, refused to characterize abortion as sinful, citing “individual health, family welfare, and social responsibility” as justifications for ending a pregnancy. In 1971, delegates to the Southern Baptist Convention in St. Louis, Missouri, passed a resolution encouraging “Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.” The convention, hardly a redoubt of liberal values, reaffirmed that position in 1974, one year after Roe, and again in 1976.

When the Roe decision was handed down, W. A. Criswell, the Southern Baptist Convention’s former president and pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas—also one of the most famous fundamentalists of the 20th century—was pleased: “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person,” he said, “and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.”. . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

“The new political philosophy must be defined by us [conservatives] in moral terms, packaged in non-religious language, and propagated throughout the country by our new coalition,” Weyrich wrote in the mid-1970s. “When political power is achieved, the moral majority will have the opportunity to re-create this great nation.” Weyrich believed that the political possibilities of such a coalition were unlimited. “The leadership, moral philosophy, and workable vehicle are at hand just waiting to be blended and activated,” he wrote. “If the moral majority acts, results could well exceed our wildest dreams.”

But this hypothetical “moral majority” needed a catalyst—a standard around which to rally. For nearly two decades, Weyrich, by his own account, had been trying out different issues, hoping one might pique evangelical interest: pornography, prayer in schools, the proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution, even abortion. “I was trying to get these people interested in those issues and I utterly failed,” Weyrich recalled at a conference in 1990.

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

One such school, Bob Jones University—a fundamentalist college in Greenville, South Carolina—was especially obdurate. The IRS had sent its first letter to Bob Jones University in November 1970 to ascertain whether or not it discriminated on the basis of race. The school responded defiantly: It did not admit African Americans.

For many evangelical leaders, who had been following the issue since Green v. Connally, Bob Jones University was the final straw. As Elmer L. Rumminger, longtime administrator at Bob Jones University, told me in an interview, the IRS actions against his school “alerted the Christian school community about what could happen with government interference” in the affairs of evangelical institutions. “That was really the major issue that got us all involved.”

Weyrich saw that he had the beginnings of a conservative political movement, which is why, several years into President Jimmy Carter’s term, he and other leaders of the nascent religious right blamed the Democratic president for the IRS actions against segregated schools—even though the policy was mandated by Nixon, and Bob Jones University had lost its tax exemption a year and a day before Carter was inaugurated as president. Falwell, Weyrich and others were undeterred by the niceties of facts. In their determination to elect a conservative, they would do anything to deny a Democrat, even a fellow evangelical like Carter, another term in the White House.

Weyrich, Falwell and leaders of the emerging religious right enlisted an unlikely ally in their quest to advance abortion as a political issue: Francis A. Schaeffer—a goateed, knickers-wearing theologian who was warning about the eclipse of Christian values and the advance of something he called “secular humanism.” Schaeffer, considered by many the intellectual godfather of the religious right, was not known for his political activism, but by the late 1970s he decided that legalized abortion would lead inevitably to infanticide and euthanasia, and he was eager to sound the alarm. Schaeffer teamed with a pediatric surgeon, C. Everett Koop, to produce a series of films entitled Whatever Happened to the Human Race? In the early months of 1979, Schaeffer and Koop, targeting an evangelical audience, toured the country with these films, which depicted the scourge of abortion in graphic terms—most memorably with a scene of plastic baby dolls strewn along the shores of the Dead Sea. Schaeffer and Koop argued that any society that countenanced abortion was captive to “secular humanism” and therefore caught in a vortex of moral decay.

Between Weyrich’s machinations and Schaeffer’s jeremiad, evangelicals were slowly coming around on the abortion issue. At the conclusion of the film tour in March 1979, Schaeffer reported that Protestants, especially evangelicals, “have been so sluggish on this issue of human life, and Whatever Happened to the Human Race? is causing real waves, among church people and governmental people too.”

By 1980, even though Carter had sought, both as governor of Georgia and as president, to reduce the incidence of abortion, his refusal to seek a constitutional amendment outlawing it was viewed by politically conservative evangelicals as an unpardonable sin. Never mind the fact that his Republican opponent that year, Ronald Reagan, had signed into law, as governor of California in 1967, the most liberal abortion bill in the country. When Reagan addressed a rally of 10,000 evangelicals at Reunion Arena in Dallas in August 1980, he excoriated the “unconstitutional regulatory agenda” directed by the IRS “against independent schools,” but he made no mention of abortion. Nevertheless, leaders of the religious right hammered away at the issue, persuading many evangelicals to make support for a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion a litmus test for their votes. . .

This Randall Balmer exposé is so solidly based in historical fact that it is widely quoted in respected publications.

The last sentence of the italicized quotation above from the original article "Roe v. Wade anniversary: How abortion became an evangelical issue" is a candid admission by the author, who was evidently a Roman Catholic, and in any event clearly anti-abortion.

None of the following compilation of Bible texts on the Focus on the Family, website can exegetically support their anti-abortion position. The author even includes Exodus 21:22-25, which actually refutes the contention that the fetus is a life in being. Many of the texts are so clearly unrelated to the question of when life begins that even a non-theologian author should be embarrassed:-

What the Bible Says About the Beginning of Life

The quotation of Bible texts to support an erroneous position on abortion is an egregious example of "eisegesis" as distinct from "exegesis." (Cf. What is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis?)

Even more egregious is the fact that, on careful exegetical examination, it can be seen that the deadly dogma of the immortality of the soul is the basis of misapplication of Bible texts in  support of the "pro-life" movement. This dogma is the foundation pillar of the ideology that life begins at conception.

SPURIOUS USE OF THE BIBLE EXPOSED BY SOUND BIBLICAL EXEGESIS

The chapter titled "Puzzling Passages Made Plain" in John V. Stevens' book The Abortion Controversy exegetically demonstrates the misapplication of Bible texts to support the anti-abortion movement. It is a desecration of the Scriptures to support the dogma of the immortality of the soul:-

THE ABORTION CONTROVERSY - Puzzling Passages Made Plain

PROPAGANDA CONFIRMS THE UNDERLYING DOGMA AND STIRS UP EMOTIONS

The Roman Catholic hierarchy are masters of propaganda. The word derives from the propagation of the Catholic religion. By means of propaganda, Rome has kept the issue of abortion constant in the minds of Americans. There is one clever manipulation of language that has aroused intense strong emotions against ALL induced terminations of pregnancy. The following passage in The Abortion Controversy put it succinctly in a chapter titled "Efforts to Impose Dogma":

Those opposing abortion picked up on the choice language of the decision [Roe v. Wade] and agreed that women had a choice—a choice of whether to get pregnant or not. Once pregnancy occurred, choice ended. They also proclaimed loudly and clearly that while the members of the Court may not have known when life began, they did, and it was at conception. Language became a tool in the controversy in a most masterful manner. Scientific terms such as zygote, embryo, and fetus were readily replaced with the finished product—baby—and used at every stage of the pregnancy. Revisionism blurred distinctions and confused the public. And we can understand from personal experience that our conceived children were "babies"—at least to us. While not scientific, it satisfied our emotional needs, and it seemed natural. But to use such language when the debate on abortion raged only served to blur the white with the black and produce gray areas. (P. 3)

This propaganda has been very effective in blinding reason. This has made it very difficult for many who would otherwise have no affinity with Roman Catholic dogma to avoid being ensnared.

THE GREAT LIE OF THE DEVIL PASSED DOWN FROM THE GARDEN OF EDEN

The "pro-life" movement is a particularly effective purveyor of the first great lie of Satan. Assent to this lie is deadly at any time, but especially now when the final fate of believers is being determined in the closing work of Jesus Christ in the heavenly sanctuary. There will soon be no time left for recovery. Ellen G. White has written, "Through the two great errors, the immortality of the soul, and Sunday sacredness, Satan will bring the people under his deceptions. While the former lays the foundation of Spiritualism, the latter creates a bond of sympathy with Rome." (GC88 588.1). The evidence is conclusive that the dogma of the immortality of the soul is diabolically concealed in the "pro-life" movement by an almost irresistible play on the emotions of sincere Christians:-

A DECEPTIVE TERM MASKING A DEADLY THEOLOGICAL FALSEHOOD (ET AL.):-

The term "pro-life" is deceptive, conjuring up in the minds of sensitive men and women a living human being in the womb of a woman. Nevertheless, upon close examination it is also revealing. In reality the primary meaning of "life" in this context is not the cluster of living cells changing and developing in the woman's womb. It is the unbiblical dogma of an immortal soul, with the time of "ensoulment" determining when life begins. (Cf. Immortality? (SDA;) The origins of the doctrine of the “immortality of the soul” (Non-denominational. N.B. Citation does not imply support for any theology on the hyperlinked website contrary to the theology of Adventistlaymen.com) From the last citations, it is obvious that belief in the immortality of the soul is not unique to Roman Catholicism. In fact, there is "almost universal adherence to the immortality of the soul within contemporary Christendom" (The immortality of the soul: Could Christianity survive without it? (Part 1 of 2).) It has never been a part of Seventh-day Adventist theology; and happily there still remain some other Protestant denominations which have resisted this false theology.) Also, the concept of "ensoulment" is not unique to Roman Catholicism (Cf. The Breath of Life: Christian Perspectives on Conception and Ensoulment, by two Anglican essayists.) All of this emphasizes the mountain of false theology that confronts those who do not believe in the immortality of the soul. . .

THE COMPLEX PROBLEM OF ABORTION

Roman Catholic Teaching on Abortion

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

The facts stated in the two passages above [these facts are not quoted in this extract; but cf. in full A DECEPTIVE TERM MASKING A DEADLY THEOLOGICAL FALSEHOOD (ET AL.)] reveal the arbitrary setting of spurious feast dates clashing with the theory of progressive ensoulment, and leading to the promulgation of the blasphemous dogma of the Immaculate Conception, absolutely without biblical foundation (Cf. Four Great Marian Dogmas.) How easily are those ensnared who abhor blasphemous Roman Catholic dogmas and yet are either active proponents of the anti-abortion movement or even simply assent to what it advocates!

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

Pope Pius IX (1792-1878)

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

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

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

The foregoing are the irrefutable facts. The adoption of a religio-political "pro-life" position of necessity involves assent to the dogmas of Rome, including the great lie of the immortality of the soul.

HISTORICAL FACTS FROM THE PROTESTANT WORLD

Very significant historical facts have come to light in the course of researching the divisive issue of abortions, which have always been performed, whether or not prohibited by law. While the Roman Catholic Church has been consistent since the First Vatican Council (1869–70) in unqualifiedly opposing abortion at any time of gestation, Protestant church leaders tended to distance themselves from this extreme position. Indeed, it is surprising to learn that two members of the Presbyterian clergy, Landreth and Sandon, admitted publicly that they were actually helping women in Tallahassee, Florida, to obtain abortions:-

The Surprising Role of Clergy in the Abortion Fight Before Roe v. Wade

Landreth and Sandon’s abortion referral activities at Florida State University had drawn the attention and anger of a state senator and a district attorney who in turn denounced them in the press. After twice appearing before a grand jury, the clergymen worried that they would be charged and prosecuted.

But Landreth and Sandon were not alone. Their experiences reveal how, in the half-decade before Roe v. Wade, respected religious leaders participated in a nationwide struggle to make abortion more accessible. This largely forgotten history undercuts the popular myth that religious people oppose abortion rights. Fifty years ago this month, in May of 1967, as mainline Protestants and Reform Jews called for the liberalization of abortion laws, a group of clergy in New York City founded the Clergy Consultation Service on Abortion (CCS), an international network of clergy that helped women obtain legal and illegal abortions from licensed medical professionals. When Landreth spoke out, it was as part of CCS, which by then counted over 2,000 other ministers across the United States and Canada as members. . .

As trusted members of their communities to whom congregants turned for counseling, clergy witnessed a medical crisis unfolding because of restrictive abortion laws. In the 1950s and 1960s, prohibitions against abortion drove anywhere between 200,000 and 1.2 million women to obtain illegal abortions. By the end of 1972, the CCS had helped between a quarter and half a million women obtain safe legal and illegal abortions from physicians.

CCS members also demanded that their state legislators repeal abortion laws, and publicly testified for that cause. In 1968, Reverend Carl Bielby spoke with Michigan lawmakers who were conducting public hearings on that state’s abortion laws. Bielby was a leader of Michigan’s CCS. At the hearing he represented the Michigan Council of Churches’ position that, “as a matter of human right, each woman be given the control of her own body and procreative function, and that she has the moral responsibility and obligation for the just and sober stewardship thereof.” Likewise, Reverend Allen Hinand of the Philadelphia CCS proclaimed at a 1972 legislative hearing that it was time for women to “rise up and take control of a situation and a choice that belongs to them as females.”

Most importantly, CCS clergy emphasized that no single religion had a right to impose its religious values upon others. For these clergy, freedom of religion had to include freedom from those religious groups that sought to place restrictions on abortions.

Caught between these opposing positions, the Seventh-day Adventist Church long avoided taking an official position. The denomination in 1992 finally adopted what has been described as a centrist position which was both pro-life and pro-choice by Ronald L. Lawson, Ph.D.

COMPLICATED HISTORY OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST POSITION ON ABORTION

Dr. Lawson has published a comprehensive history on the subject of abortion in the Seventh-day Adventist Church which is an excellent means of understanding the Church's position prior to October of 2019. Hopefully Dr. Lawson's use of the term "pro-life" in describing the Church's centrist position is not synonymous with its religio-political meaning - i.e. "life begins at conception," which life is the implantation of an immortal soul:-

PRO-WHAT? Seventh-day Adventists and Abortion

Dr. Lawson's study is so lengthy and detailed that it is best summarized, with a minimum of quotations. Reading the full history is beneficial for understanding of the Church's evolution on the issue of abortion prior to October, 2019.

Quotation:

The Seventh-day Adventist Church is conservative in its interpretation of the Bible, and typically upholds conservative­ standards on “family” issues: it has, for example, adopted strict rules concerning divorce and remarriage and has stated that ­practicing homosexuals are not acceptable as members [Seventh-day­ Adventist Church Manual, 1990: 160]. However, it avoided recommending a position on abortion to its members, despite the ­sharpness of the debate over the issue within American society ­ and the relevance of the question to both its members and its ­hospitals, until the end of 1992. At that time, unlike many other ­conservative denominations, it adopted a statement that attempted to be both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice concurrently.

This paper examines the evolution of the abortion issue ­within the Adventist Church and the dynamics and significance of ­its recent resolution. It highlights the tensions between the conservative inclinations of Adventist theology and of the majority among its global membership and the demand for ­flexibility by its extensive and influential hospital system. . ."

Abortion was widespread in the U.S. in the nineteenth century–it is estimated that 20% of pregnancies ended in ­abortion. Around 1860 the medical profession launched a campaign ­to change this, in part to help establish their profession. Abortion was proscribed in 40 states between 1860 and 1880, and prohibition of it was universal by 1900 [Pearson, 1990:92-4].

Though Adventists were not involved in the crusade against abortion, they supported its stand. Both the Advent Review and­ Sabbath Herald, the in-house paper, and The Health Reformer, a ­missionary paper founded in 1866, carried articles warning against abortion, dubbing it “child murder” [Gainer, 1988:5,6; Pearson, 1990:100]. Once he became editor of The Health Reformer and chief of both the Battle Creek Sanitarium, the church’s first medical institution, and its fledgling medical school, Dr. John­ Harvey Kellogg echoed these views. For example, he dubbed America ­”a nation of murderers” [Pearson, 1990: 103].

Ellen White, the Adventist prophet, never addressed the issue directly – though it can be assumed that she was aware of it because of the strong stand taken by her protege, Dr. Kellogg, and because her husband included an article by a non-Adventist, Dr. E.P. Miller, railing against abortion, along with other sex-related articles by the prophet, in a book which he edited [White, 1870]. There is also considerable evidence that she would have found it morally repugnant. For example, she laid great­ emphasis on the importance of prenatal influences, and urged mothers to “consecrate their offspring to God, both before and after its birth” [cited Pearson, 1990:97].

Since the doctors’ crusade resulted in laws banning abortions, there was little controversy over the issue during the first six decades of the twentieth century. Adventists remained almost totally silent on the topic during that time. . .

Though we walk the fence, SDA’s lean towards abortion rather than against it. Because we realize we are confronted by big problems of hunger and over-population, we do not oppose family planning and appropriate endeavors to control population [quoted by Gainer, 1988: 13]. . ." [Cf. Spirit of Prophecy Policy on Family Planning.]

On May 13, 1970, the General Conference officers voted to­ accept “suggestive guidelines for therapeutic abortions,” the first formal pronouncement made by the Adventist church. The stated purpose of this document was to inform the policies of Adventist hospitals in the U.S. It permitted abortions, after ­consultation with two colleagues, during the first trimester under the following conditions:

1. When continuation of pregnancy may threaten the life of the woman or seriously impair her health.

2. When continuation of the pregnancy is likely to result in ­the birth of a child with grave physical deformities or mental retardation.

3. When conception has occurred as a result of rape or incest [Ministry, March 1971].

These conditions closely paralleled those put forward by the American Law Institute in its Model Penal Code, issued in 1959, ­in which it suggested reforms that would bring the law up to date­ with what was then the practice in most hospitals [Luker: 1984,­65, 278]. However, the situation in the U.S. had changed dramatically since that time. Consequently, when members of the Adventist medical community objected to the new guidelines on the grounds that they were inadequate, church leaders decided not to take them to the General Conference Session for approval.

Instead of this, the General Conference officers decided to enlarge the earlier abortion guidelines committee “to study what counsel should be given regarding elective abortions” [Minutes,­ July 6, 1970, quoted by Gainer, 1988: 16]." . . . (Underscored emphasis added).

[Here it should be noted that the Seventh-day Adventist Church operates the "largest Protestant integrated network of hospitals and clinics worldwide." This creates complications in providing comprehensive hospital services to communities in accordance with the laws of the land as distinct from Bible-based morality or non-biblical religious dogma.]

Summary

In July 1970­, R.R.Bietz, a vice president of the General Conference, met with leaders of the Hawaii hospital and later wrote in a letter that "several of the doctors using the hospital wished to do more than therapeutic abortions." If this were not allowed “chances are fairly good that they will take their patients [to other hospitals] for other treatments as well." [This was not necessarily a mercenary consideration. It is self-evident that loss of patients could reach a level which would force the closure of a hospital.]

"The situation was further complicated by the fact that several of­ the Adventist doctors were opposed to doing elective abortions . . ." The hospital administration needed the support of "the higher Church organization" to silence these physicians.

"In December 1970 the chief of staff of Castle Memorial Hospital wrote to the president of the General Conference to complain about the length of time that had elapsed without a decision." By this time there was reliable information that "a number of Adventist west coast hospitals had in their practice 'greatly liberalized' their definitions of therapeutic abortion."

In June, 1971, a new position covering both therapeutic and elective abortions was voted by the General Conference officers.

Quotation

The new position, entitled “Interruption of Pregnancy ­Statement of Principles” because it covered both therapeutic and elective abortions [N.C. Wilson to W.J. Blacker, July 13, 1971, cited by Gainer, 1988: 23], was finally voted by the General­ Conference officers on June 21, 1971. The need to consult with other physicians before conducting an abortion was removed, and the conditions under which abortion was acceptable were broadened considerably. Two of the original conditions were liberalized: ”seriously” was removed as a qualifier of a threat to “impair­ [the woman’s] health”, and “physical deformities and mental retardation” no longer had to be “grave.” Two additional conditions were added:

“When the case involves an unwed child under 15 years of age.”

“When for some reason the requirements of functional human life demand the sacrifice of the lesser potential human value” [Widmer,­1986: 15, emphasis supplied ] (Original.) . . .

In creating abortion guidelines for Adventist hospitals, church leaders had shown an astonishing eagerness to be in step with the changing climate of opinion [see, e.g., W.R. Beach to ­N.C.Wilson, March 8, 1971, cited by Gainer, 1988: 22]. In ­arriving at their position they had called for neither theological nor ethical studies, but had deferred to the judgment of their medical establishment, since “the performing of abortions” is “the proper business of responsible staffs of hospitals” [Ministry, March 1971, 10-11]. Moreover, they had granted the hospitals a high degree of autonomy in interpreting­ the guidelines as they developed their own policies. (Underscored emphasis added.) [Failure to call for theological and ethical studies was probably fatal. The ministry and the laity should have been educated by sound biblical exegesis. In particular, the existence of the deadly dogma of the immortality of the soul in the religio-political Pro-life movement should have been exposed.] . . .

Meanwhile, Adventist members received mixed messages from their church concerning abortion. Church periodicals broached the topic infrequently, but when they did so they were “markedly more conservative than the thinking represented in the General Conference Guidelines” [Pearson, 1990:123]. While an occasional article advocated a moderate position, allowing abortions in especially difficult situations [Londis, 1974], the vast majority adopted stances strongly opposing abortion [Dick, 1971; Gow, 1977; Drennan, 1977; Muller, 1985; Sabbath School Quarterly, ­August 1982]. However, advice to women from their pastors varied­ considerably [Sweem, 1988:14], and many of the young pregnant women who chose to utilize Adventist Adoption and Family Services reported that they had been strongly advised by college and academy deans of women, teachers and pastors to put the problem behind them by having an abortion [interview].

Some American Adventists became pro-life activists. . .

Survey data indicate that while there are deep divisions among Adventists in North America concerning abortion, a majority of the laity, in particular, express pro-life sentiments. . .

Thus, in spite of the fact that by the mid-1980s the Adventist church ran a network of over 400 health institutions ­globally and women members inevitably faced their share of crisis ­pregnancies, it did not have a consistent position on abortion, nor had it yet fostered any sustained discussion of the issue. Instead it drifted along according to local culture. Given this situation, and the increasingly bitter debate in society, it is not surprising that church leaders often stated that the church had avoided adopting a position . . .

The situation of drift changed dramatically in October 1985, when demonstrators representing conservative Christian churches picketed Washington Adventist Hospital, protesting its abortion program–an action which was reported in the Washington Post. In earlier years, when it was difficult to get an abortion at any hospital in or around Washington, a very liberal obstetrics group at WAH had felt they should provide abortions, and they had since done a lot [interview]. The demonstrators asserted that hospital records showed that 1,494 abortions had been performed there between 1975 and 1982. . .

The demonstration at WAH was especially embarrassing to church leaders because of its proximity to the General Conference and their sensitivity to the public image of the church in Washington. It took place at a time, during the Reagan administration, when abortion was at the center of public debate and the pro-life forces seemed to be on a roll politically.[The beginning of the ascendancy of the Church of Rome in America.] Adventist leaders, whose concern to be in step with public opinion on the issue from as early as 1970 was noted above, wondered whether they were now out of step with it. A chorus of­ lay people asked questions and began to apply pressure from varying points of view. The abortion issue was suddenly placed under close scrutiny within Adventism in North America. (Underscored emphasis added.) [Note the concern to be in step with public opinion, instead of finding out what the Bible sanctions.] . . .

Summary

The scrutiny involved four main thrusts:

First, the Church press addressed the issue systematically. "The Adventist Review published the core of both the 1970 and 1971 statements–the first time that any portion of the 1971­ guidelines appeared in print [Widmer, 1986:14-15], and the Review (Sept. 25, 1986), Insight, the magazine for youth [Jan.1988], and Ministry all attempted to run articles representing the differing opinions among Adventists. However, the latter two both continued to show sympathy to the pro-life position."

Second, "scholars began to research the issue of Adventist hospitals and abortion. [Note that once again the focus was not on exegesis of the Bible.]

Third, "the constituency meeting of the Potomac Conference, whose territory contained two hospitals, Washington Adventist Hospital and Shady Grove Adventist Hospital, which had been objects of pro-life protests, voted to form a study commission to examine abortion policies at the hospitals and records of the numbers and reasons for abortions there.

Fourth, the delegates to the study commission voted an appeal to the hospitals "to immediately adopt and implement abortion policies that institutionally prohibit abortions for social or economic reasons including convenience, birth control, gender selection, or avoidance of embarrassment; limiting the abortion procedure to those times when a pregnancy threatens the mother’s physical ­life, when the fetus is gravely abnormal, and in cases of rape or ­incest."

Fifth, and finally, "the Center for Christian Bioethics at Loma Linda­ University planned a conference for November 1988." This conference was entitled "Abortion: Ethical Issues and Options." This "spawned" action by the General Conference, and a committee was formed to address the issue. It is interesting that among the contributors to the committee's deliberations was John V. Stevens, Sr., who presented a paper to the committee, from which Lawson quotes as follows:

”The abortion issue is the catalyst to subject America, and indeed the world, to the papal ‘divine right of rule’ in all moral matters, social and religious, thus establishing its religion as the law of the land, and inflicting civil penalties on religious dissenters…. The abortion issue will likely serve as the needle ­that pulls behind it the thread of oppressive Sunday religious ­worship laws”

It is a certainty that Stevens must have gone into the issue in much greater detail. However, his own exegesis of the Bible is not mentioned by Lawson.

Ultimately the committee's work resulted in an official statement in 1992, titled “Guidelines on Abortion, "which was the Church's position until October, 2019.

Since the latest position was published, it is no longer possible to find the relevant page on the official Seventh-day Adventist website. However, Lawson provides the content, which is quoted in full:

The statement, as approved, begins by affirming the sanctity of life:

“Prenatal human life is a magnificent gift from God. God’s ideal for human beings affirms the sanctity of human life, in God’s image, and requires respect for prenatal life.”

While this does not necessarily exclude abortion, it means that

“Abortion is never an action of little moral consequence. Thus prenatal life must not be thoughtlessly destroyed. Abortion should be performed only for the most serious reasons.”

Item 4 considers abortion in greater detail:

“Abortions for reasons of birth control, gender selection, or convenience are not condoned by the church. Women …, however, may face exceptional circumstances…such as serious threats to a pregnant woman’s life, serious jeopardy to her health, severe congenital defects carefully diagnosed in the fetus, and pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. The final decision whether to terminate the pregnancy or not should be made by the pregnant woman after appropriate consultation.”

Therefore, (5) because Christians are accountable before God, ”any attempt to coerce women either to remain pregnant or to terminate pregnancy should be rejected as infringements of personal freedom;” and (2),

“the church should offer gracious support to those who personally face the decision concerning an abortion. Attitudes of condemnation are inappropriate.”

Item (3) attempts to bring life and choice together: “In practical, tangible ways the church as a supportive community should express its commitment to the value of human life” – including “educating both genders concerning Christian principles of human sexuality, emphasizing responsibility of both male and female for family planning,…offering support and assistance to women who choose to complete crisis pregnancies… the church also should commit itself to assist in alleviating the unfortunate social, economic, and psychological factors that may lead to abortion.

Since these principles are relevant to Adventist hospitals, “(6) Church institutions should be provided with guidelines for developing their own institutional policies in harmony with this statement. Persons having a religious or ethical objection to abortion should not be required to participate in the performance ­of abortions."[5][Adventist­ Review, Dec.31, 1992:11-12]

By trying to straddle the fence – making the fetus significant, yet allowing a woman the right to choose - to keep Adventists together, the committee created some ambiguity. Consequently, while Whiting held that the committee had arrived at “a modified pro-life stand” [interview], Winslow described it as “ultimately pro-choice, since its bottom line is that the pregnant woman must decide. It places emphasis on the value of life, but this is limited to persuasion” [Winslow, 1991].

Under a paragraph titled "Interpretation," Lawson states:

Because of its sectarian roots and conservative theology and view of the Scriptures, many would expect the Seventh-day Adventist Church to adopt an uncompromising pro-life position. However, although surveys confirm that a majority of members in ­he U.S. do lean in that direction and that globally Adventists are strongly opposed to abortion, Adventists have never adopted the expected position. It has been shown that while America argued and anguished over abortion policy for over twenty years, the Adventist church failed to give guidance to members wrestling with personal decisions over problem or unwanted pregnancies and allowed a permissive policy within its hospital system. When it finally addressed the issue in 1992, the church issued guidelines to its members which affirmed the value of the life of a fetus and strongly discouraged abortions for trivial reasons, but left the ultimate decision to the pregnant woman. Meanwhile, however, an attempt to issue a companion statement which would have had the effect of bringing unity of practice to Adventist hospitals by eliminating abortions of convenience has apparently been diverted.

After his interpretation, Lawson provides an analysis of "the reasons for the complexity of the current situation," which it is not necessary to include here.

The following is a 1988 Ministry article which appears to be one of those which indicated sympathy for the "pro-life" position:

Abortion: the Adventist dilemma

Note the following passage:

The Adventists' dilemma is compounded by the fact that the major sources to which they normally turn for direction in matters of faith and practice the Scriptures and the writings of Ellen White are silent, or at least less than unequivocal about abortion. Some have argued cogently that there is an anti-abortion ethic implicit in Scripture. A recent MINISTRY article, containing a careful interpretation of Exodus 21:22, 23, was a persuasive example of this viewpoint. . .

Ellen White's writings are equally in conclusive [S/B inconclusive.] It is not difficult to select quotations from her writings to support the view that abortion violates the purpose of God, and as such is a sinful act. The following is but one example: "Life is mysterious and sacred. It is the manifestation of God Himself, the source of all life. Precious are its opportunities, and earnestly should they be improved. Once lost, they are gone forever. . . . [The author's ellipsis.]

"God looks into the tiny seed that He Himself has formed, and sees wrapped within it the beautiful flower, the shrub, or the lofty, wide-spreading tree. So does He see the possibilities in every human being."

It is safe to conjecture that Ellen White found abortion a deeply repugnant act. It is interesting, however, that she refrained from condemning it, even though it was of widespread concern in society in her day. While there are, no doubt, perfectly adequate reasons that she omitted any reference to abortion in her work, the point here is simply that at no time did Ellen White directly address the issue in a way that could supply a norm for Adventists.

Thus an editorial writer in the Adventist Review was prompted to observe that "our church leaders have noted that neither the Bible nor Ellen White say any thing definite about elective abortion. They have felt that where Inspiration is silent, we should not legislate." . . .

What elements in Adventist theology might figure in the abortion decision? The doctrine of conditional mortality is clearly relevant to the debate, though surprisingly little has been said about it in Adventist publications. The Catholic view that a soul is infused into the embryo at conception, and that it, as an inheritor of original sin, must not be allowed to perish without baptism, clearly dictates a certain course of action. In contrast, Adventists believe neither that there exists a separate entity called a soul, nor that baptism is essential to salvation. They prefer to say that man "becomes a soul" rather than that he "possesses a soul." Soul is therefore understood to mean both "life" and "individuality." This then allows them to say that "a new soul comes into existence every time a child is born." which might seem to permit some concession to the abortion option.

On the other hand, this view of humanity means that a soul cannot exist without a body. Possessing a body material entity is part of what it means to be a soul. Thus it could be argued that since a material entity with a unique genetic inheritance is formed at conception, a soul exists from that point and absolute value should be attached to it.

Adventist doctrine overlaps with the abortion issue at several other points, and we as a church can only acknowledge our delinquency in failing to chart the area more adequately.(Underscored emphasis added.)

Note what the author states about Exodus 21:22-23: "Some have argued cogently that there is an anti-abortion ethic implicit in Scripture. A recent MINISTRY article, containing a careful interpretation of Exodus 21:22, 23, was a persuasive example of this viewpoint." Compare this with the exegesis of John V. Stevens above. Moreover the case in the Bible of expressly authorized abortion of a fetus is completely ignored.

To the author's credit, he acknowledges that "at no time did Ellen White directly address the issue in a way that could supply a norm for Adventists."

Exceptionally, the author has something to say about the issue of mortality and immortality; and he acknowledges that "The doctrine of conditional mortality is clearly relevant to the debate, though surprisingly little has been said about it in Adventist publications." This has been a fatal deficiency in the Church's consideration of the status of a fetus.

In spite of their much vaunted reliance on the writings of Ellen G. White for guidance, it is clear that they are ignoring her warning. The Seventh-day Adventist Church has not taken the deadly peril of the Immortality of the Soul dogma seriously. That this dogma is the central underpinning of the "Pro-life" movement is irrefutably established:

THE SEVENTH-DAY CHURCH BENDS TO THE PREVAILING WINDS

Seventh-day Adventists are not immune to diabolical propaganda. Our only protection is in the Word of God. The following warning of Ellen G. White fits the circumstances of the abortion controversy, in which the propaganda plays upon valid moral convictions and reactive emotions:

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Isaiah 8:20. The people of God are directed to the Scriptures as their safeguard against the influence of false teachers and the delusive power of spirits of darkness. Satan employs every possible device to prevent men from obtaining a knowledge of the Bible; for its plain utterances reveal his deceptions. At every revival of God's work the prince of evil is aroused to more intense activity; he is now putting forth his utmost efforts for a final struggle against Christ and His followers. The last great delusion is soon to open before us. Antichrist is to perform his marvelous works in our sight. So closely will the counterfeit resemble the true that it will be impossible to distinguish between them except by the Holy Scriptures. . . (Great Controversy, p. 593.)

The tragic reality for too many of both lay members and the ministry of the world community of Seventh-day Adventists is that the propaganda has prevailed to obscure the distinction between the counterfeit and the true. They have not delved deeply enough into the Holy Scriptures to perceive the distinction. Superficial reading of the Bible will not provide the answer to the abortion controversy. Fifty years of progressive departure from the fundamental doctrines of the Advent Movement have come to this pass - that 2 Thess. 2:10-12 applies.

Bible texts are now being misapplied to bolster preconceived notions derived from the propaganda - the great lie. This is reflected in the agitation which culminated in the Annual Council meeting of the Executive Committee of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in October, 2019:-

Amidst Growing Criticism, SDA Church Is Revisiting Abortion Position (update)

When it comes to abortion, Seventh-day Adventists range from providers to prominent pro-life advocates. Now the 21-million-member denomination is revisiting its position on the controversial issue.

The Seventh-day Adventist Church has announced that it is considering revisiting its pro-choice stance on the topic of abortion. According to a press release issued on August 29, the denomination's Biblical Research Institute (BRI) has been studying the issue from a theological perspective for the last two years.

BRI has prepared a statement that "reflects Scriptural principles bearing on the discussion of abortion." The issue has been intensely debated in the church as some institutions have recognized the contributions of Adventist physicians who operate abortion clinics while other high-profile physicians have taken a strong stance against abortion. . .

The debate over the church's affiliation with the abortion industry became intense in 2013 when Christianity Today reported that La Sierra University, a 2,400-student Adventist liberal arts college in Riverside, California, had named its Center for Financial Literacy after Dr. Edward C. Allred Allred was the founder of Family Planning Associates, one of the largest abortion chains in the United States with 23 locations in California. According to the La Sierra University website, Allred, an active member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, is "both the principal sponsor of the center and the inspiration behind its economic philosophy." According to the Family Planning Associates website Allred's business partner, Dr. Kenneth Wright, "pioneered the use of saline amniocentesis, a technique for terminating pregnancy safely in the second trimester." . . .

In contrast, Dr. Ben Carson, who currently serves as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, spent his career before politics performing life-saving procedures on babies in the womb. As the Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Maryland from 1984 to 2013, he performed the first successful neurosurgical procedure on a fetus inside the womb. Dr. Carson is also an outspoken pro-life advocate.

Pro-life Adventist Ben Carson Pioneered Neurosurgery Inside the Womb

Earlier this year, Carson gave an interview at CPAC 2019 about the subject of abortion,

"God has orchestrated an incredible situation where the egg and the sperm come together, and within a matter of 10 to 12 weeks, you can see the little fingers and the little toes, and the little nose, and the face, the heart is starting to beat," Carson said. "It's absolutely amazing."
"And then (the brain) goes on to develop very rapidly from there. Hundreds of thousands of neurons every single day… I've had the privilege of being able to operate on little babies that were 25, 26, 27, 28 weeks' gestation. I can guarantee you, they can feel, they can react… You have to give them anesthesia if you're going to cut them. They can also respond to comfort and to warmth."

"For somebody to say that's a meaningless bunch of cells," Carson said, "honestly is just totally ignorant.". . .

In 1985, protesters from a local megachurch gathered outside two Adventist hospitals in the Washington, DC area to protest abortion, according to the Washington Post. . .

While the church's official publications have avoided discussion of the abortion issue, pro-life Adventists have taken to the Internet to call on the church to revisit its position.

Jamey Houghton, the pastor of the Franktown Adventist Church in Colorado, wrote,

"With the evidence in Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy, as a Seventh-day Adventist Christian, I have no choice but to be in favor of supporting the lives of the unborn if I am to stay faithful to God's word."

Adventist pastor and WhiteHorse Media director Steve Wolhberg released a 13-part television series entitled "The Abortion Controversy: Two Women Tell Their Stories of Hope and Healing." He has recently made the series available on YouTube.

Last month, Scott Ritsema, director of Belt of Truth Ministries, released a video, "Abortion: Are Seventh-day Adventists Pro-Life?" (YouTube), featuring prominent church leaders, including It is Written speaker John Bradshaw, General Conference President Ted Wilson, Pastor Doug Batchelor, and other key evangelists discussing their support of a pro-life position. . .

Last year, Adventist author Martin Weber, D.Min., and former associate editor of Ministry Magazine gave several reasons why he believes the denomination should revisit its guidelines in the North Pacific Union Gleaner . . .

Here it is worthy of note who Dr. Ben Carson really is! Consider Carson's opposition to separation of church and state and his support of the Religious Right claim that America was founded as a "Christian" nation, which is a historical falsehood. Ben Carson is a theocrat. It is noteworthy that he offers no scriptural basis for his position. Indeed, as The Abortion Controversy establishes by objective exegesis of the Bible, the issue cannot be safely resolved by passages of Scripture which only establish general principles of life. This is so especially since there are two specific references to aborting the fetus in the Bible. Ben Carson's description of the development of a fetus is an example of the persuasive power of imagery in the abortion controversy. It is worthy of note that those who support freedom of choice do not claim that at all stages of development the fetus is just "a meaningless bunch of cells."

As to the Biblical Research Institute, the motivation of this "think-tank" of the Seventh-day Adventist Church can be deduced from their engaging in dialogue with theologians of the Church of Rome as long ago as 2002. Notwithstanding the reason offered for the dialogue, it was a compromise of the Seventh-day Adventist Church's fundamental Bible-based antipathy towards the papacy. Of great significance is BRIs position on ecumenism, which is antithetical to the foundation principles of the Advent Movement:

Adventists and Ecumenical Conversation

The Seventh-day Adventist Church does not exist in isolation from other Christian communities. Social and religious trends in the Christian world impact us; they force us to decide how we should relate to those trends and changes. The Christian concern about the unity of the church, voiced particularly through the World Council of Churches, forces us to define where we stand on this important subject. Certainly, “no Adventist can be opposed to the unity Christ Himself prayed for.”

This article looks at the nature of Seventh-day Adventist involvement in the search for unity among Christians, as well as the doctrinal and theological parameters within which we operate in that search. It also briefly discusses the risks and benefits present in the conversations with other Christian bodies. . .

There is much debate in the ecumenical movement about church unity. Traditionally that unity has been understood as “agreement in the confession of the faith and mutuality in the sacraments and in the ecclesiastical office (ministry), common worship life in prayer, common witness and common service to all human beings, the ability to act and speak together in view of the concrete tasks and challenges, the local as well as the universal dimension of the ecclesiastical unity, unity as well as diversity.”

This far-reaching understanding of unity is incompatible with Adventist self-understanding, especially as Adventists see themselves called into being to be a reformation movement based on a particular prophetic role. The kind of unity expressed in the above statement ignores the damage that apostasy has inflicted on Christianity and, consequently, does not attempt to remedy it.

Hence Adventists are reluctant to be officially involved in the organized ecumenical movement.

Three specific models for unity have been proposed in ecumenical circles.

The first one, the Cooperative-Federal Model, is considered the most elemental type in that it does not address topics like communion of faith, worship, sacraments, and ministry. These are issues of great concern in the ecumenical movement (which is why some people refuse to call it a model of Christian unity).

This “model "consists in the development of a confederation or alliance of churches in order to work together on common interests. The identity and autonomy of each church is preserved and respected. Adventists have remained open to possible involvement in such a federation because it does not threaten the church’s message and mission. This is particularly the case in France, with our participation in the French Protestant Federation. . . (Underscored emphasis added.)

Risks

The Adventist involvement in interfaith conversations has never had the purpose of seeking unity with other ecclesiastical bodies. We have used such conversations as a means of sharing our true identity and mission with others, and as a way of eliminating misunderstanding and prejudices against us.

In that task the Council on Interchurch/Faith Relations of the General Conference has performed a significant role; it has been of great service to the Adventist Church and has represented it with dignity and respect. . .

Benefits

Despite the potential dangers, meetings with other Christians also come with potential benefits. Therefore we should not discourage, formally or informally, approaching other Christians and even non-Christian religions. . .

At such meetings we come to know each other much better and occasionally sensitive questions are asked behind the scenes, on the basis of the developing friendship. It is safe to say that these important questions would almost certainly not be asked in the more formal setting of the main meetings. Here witnessing takes a personal dimension at a moment when confrontation is at its lowest point. . .

Conclusion

Adventists have not isolated themselves from the Christian world and its search for unity. We have been selectively involved in conversations with other religious communities, not because we want to pursue unity on their terms, but because we want to make ourselves known and, at the same time, eliminate misconception. (Underscored emphasis supplied.)

What a self-deception it is to think that dialogue with apostates to gain their favor could be pleasing in the sight of God! Ellen G. White predicted the result:-

The heavenly Teacher inquired: "What stronger delusion can beguile the mind than the pretense that you are building on the right foundation and that God accepts your works, when in reality you are working out many things according to worldly policy and are sinning against Jehovah? Oh, it is a great deception, a fascinating delusion, that takes possession of minds when men who have once known the truth, mistake the form of godliness for the spirit and power thereof; when they suppose that they are rich and increased with goods and in need of nothing, while in reality they are in need of everything." . . .

Who can truthfully say: "Our gold is tried in the fire; our garments are unspotted by the world"? I saw our Instructor pointing to the garments of so-called righteousness. Stripping them off, He laid bare the defilement beneath. Then He said to me: "Can you not see how they have pretentiously covered up their defilement and rottenness of character? 'How is the faithful city become an harlot!' My Father's house is made a house of merchandise, a place whence the divine presence and glory have departed! For this cause there is weakness, and strength is lacking." . . . (Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 8, Pp. 249-250)

We have seen this come to pass. If "the divine presence and glory have departed," how in the world can the deluded leaders of the Church withstand the guiles of Satan, whose power "now to tempt and deceive is ten-fold greater than it was in the days of the apostles?" The point cannot be over-emphasized that it is the Holy Spirit alone Who guides us into all Truth! The opposite is happening in the Seventh-day Adventist Church:

There will be seducing spirits and doctrines of devils in the midst of the church, and these evil influences will increase; but hold fast the beginning of your confidence firm unto the end.--Ms 61, 1906, p. 2. ("Hold Fast the Beginning of Your Confidence," June 29, 1906.) (8MR 345.2)

How many Seventh-day Adventists take this warning seriously? It requires acute alertness at a time when the condition of the laity is one of careless indifference to sound exegesis of the Bible.

ENSNARED BY THE ARCHDECEIVER

Before proceeding to consideration of the October 16, 2019, Statement of the Seventh-day Adventist Church Executive Committee, here is a brief look at three subsequent reports, all non-Adventist:-

BREAKING: Adventist Church approves pro-life position on abortion

On October 16, 2019, the Executive Committee of the Seventh-day Adventist Church voted at its Annual Council meeting [see Video] to adopt the position that "[t]he Seventh-day Adventist Church considers abortion out of harmony with God's plan for human life." The newly adopted position statement affirms that "God considers the unborn child as human life" and that "the principle to preserve life enshrined in the sixth commandment places abortion within its scope."
The document also states that "Life is protected by God. It is not measured by individuals' abilities or their usefulness, but by the value that God's creation and sacrificial love has placed on it. Personhood, human value, and salvation are not earned or merited but graciously granted by God." . . .

The adoption of a pro-life position does not imply that the denomination will become active in civil legislation on abortion-related issues but does provide internal guidance for church members and institutions. (Underscored emphasis added.)

Ironically, this report appears on a "Religious Liberty" website; but harmonizes with the Religious Right's activism for their brand of "Religious Freedom," which denies that of those who do not agree with them. Grotesquely, the website belongs to "Founders First Freedom," an atheist organization. This brings to mind Ellen G. White's warning that the "great error" of the immortality of the soul "lays the foundation of Spiritualism."

Seventh-Day Adventist Church Adopts Pro-Life Position: Abortion is “Out of Harmony With God’s Plan”

The Seventh-Day Adventist Church confirmed its solidly pro-life position in a vote Wednesday during its annual council meeting in Maryland.

The Christian denomination declared abortion to be “out of harmony with God’s plan for human life” in a new position statement approved by its executive committee, Religious Liberty TV reports.

The statement of belief affirms the value of babies in the womb and condemns abortion as murder under the sixth commandment. It states that “God considers the unborn child as human life,” and “the principle to preserve life enshrined in the sixth commandment places abortion within its scope.”

Some mainline Protestant denominations have abandoned Christian teachings on the sanctity of human life, but others, including the Catholic Church and Seventh-Day Adventists, hold strong to the core belief that every human life is valuable because he/she is created in the image of God. (Underscored emphasis added.)

Seventh-day Adventist Church Releases Official Statement: “Abortion is out of harmony with God’s plan”

In a statement released by its executive committee, the Seventh-day Adventist Church took a strong pro-life stance during its Annual Council in Maryland.

The four-page document states “human beings are created in the image of God” and “abortion is out of harmony with God’s plan.” No previous statement on the sanctity of preborn life had been written before this, according to the Adventist News Network. The last time guidelines on abortion had been established by the church was in 1992. Adventist World Church President, Ted N.C. Wilson said the 1992 guidelines gave a “far more limited approach in terms of a comprehensive view of the Biblical approach to this precious subject.”

The statement released by the Seventh-day Adventist Church takes the position that every child should be “loved, valued and nurtured even before birth.” Quoting from the biblical books of Genesis, John, Psalms, and Jeremiah, the statement outlines “life is a gift from God,” sacred and important. It goes on to give biblical proof that God considers the “unborn child as a human life.” (Underscored emphasis added.)

These non-Adventist websites are telling us that they understand perfectly the Seventh-day Adventist Church's unequivocal commitment to their ideology and all that it necessitates, although the first one cited does not expect the Church to become activist. Clearly assent to the ideology in which the immortality of the soul is central and indispensable is all that is required for their approbation.

The new statement of the Seventh-day Adventist Church on abortion follows precisely in the path of the Evangelicals, who for religio-political reasons decided to adopt the Roman Catholic position, which is entirely based on tradition. The Evangelicals then sought to find biblical justification for this decision. The Seventh-day Adventist Church has done the same, with the embellishment of numerous Bible texts on the general principles of life, quoted on the presupposition that the fetus is a life in being at all stages of development:-

STATEMENT ON THE BIBLICAL VIEW OF UNBORN LIFE 3AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR ABORTION

Statement on the Biblical View of Unborn Life and Its Implications for Abortion . . .

This statement affirms the sanctity of life and presents biblical principles bearing on abortion. As used in this statement, abortion is defined as any action aimed at the termination of a pregnancy and does not include the spontaneous termination of a pregnancy, known also as a miscarriage. . .

2. God considers the unborn child as human life. Prenatal life is precious in God’s sight, and the Bible describes God’s knowledge of people before they were conceived. “Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, the days fashioned for me, when as yet there were none of them” (Psalm 139:16) [Cf. Stevens' exegesis.] In certain cases, God directly guided prenatal life. Samson was to “be a Nazirite to God from the womb” (Judges 13:5). [Cf. Stevens' reference.] The servant of God is “called from the womb” (Isaiah 49:1, 5). [Cf. Stevens' exegesis.] Jeremiah was already chosen as a prophet before his birth (Jeremiah 1:5), [Cf. Stevens' exegesis,] as was Paul (Galatians 1:15), [Cf. Commentaries; (Bible Hub Commentaries)] and John the Baptist was to “be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb” (Luke 1:15). [Cf. SDA Bible Commentary and Stevens Exegesis.] Of Jesus the angel Gabriel explained to Mary: “therefore the child to be born will be called holy— the Son of God” (Luke 1:35). [Cf. Stevens' exegesis.] In His Incarnation Jesus Himself experienced the human prenatal period and was recognized as the Messiah and Son of God soon after His conception (Luke 1:40-  45). The Bible already attributes to the unborn child joy (Luke 1:44) [Cf. Stevens' exegesis.] and even rivalry (Genesis 25:21-23). Those not-yet-born have a firm place with God (Job 10:8-12; 31:13-15). [Cf. Stevens' exegesis.] Biblical law shows a strong regard for protecting human life and considers harm to or the loss of a baby or mother as a result of a violent act a serious issue (Exodus 21:22-23) [Exaggerated interpretation which distorts the true meaning of the text; Cf. Stevens' exegesis.] . . .

4. God is the Owner of life, and human beings are His stewards. Scripture teaches 2 that God owns everything (Psalm 50:10-12). God has a dual claim on humans. They are His 3 because He is their Creator and therefore He owns them (Psalm 139:13-16). They are also His because He is their Redeemer and has bought them with the highest possible price—His own life (1 Corinthians 6:19-20). This means that all human beings are stewards of whatever God has entrusted to them, including their own lives, the lives of their children, and the unborn. . .

5. The Bible teaches care for the weak and the vulnerable. God Himself cares for those who are disadvantaged and oppressed and protects them. He “shows no partiality nor takes 1 a bribe. He administers justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the stranger, giving  him food and clothing” (Deuteronomy 10:17-18, cf. Psalm 82:3-4; James 1:27). He does not hold children accountable for the sins of their fathers (Ezekiel 18:20). God expects the same of His children. They are called to help vulnerable people and ease their lot (Psalm 41:1; 82:3-4; Acts 20 20:35). Jesus speaks of the least of His brothers (Matthew 25:40), for whom His followers are responsible, and of the little ones who should not be despised or lost (Matthew 18:10-14). The very youngest, namely the unborn, should be counted among them. . .

Implications

The Seventh-day Adventist Church considers abortion out of harmony with God’s plan for human life. It affects the unborn, the mother, the father, immediate and extended family members, the church family, and society with long-term consequences for all. Believers aim to  trust God and follow His will for them, knowing He has their best interests in mind.

While not condoning abortion, the Church and its members are called to follow the example of Jesus, being “full of grace and truth” (John 1:14), to (1) create an atmosphere of true love and provide grace-filled, biblical pastoral care and loving support to those facing difficult decisions regarding abortion; (2) enlist the help of well-functioning and committed families and educate them to provide care for struggling individuals, couples, and families; (3) encourage church members to open their homes to those in need, including single parents, parentless children, and adoptive or foster care children; (4) care deeply for and support in various ways pregnant women who decide to keep their unborn children; and (5) provide emotional and  spiritual support to those who have aborted a child for various reasons or were forced to have an  abortion and may be hurting physically, emotionally, and/or spiritually.

The issue of abortion presents enormous challenges, but it gives individuals and the Church the opportunity to be what they aspire to be, the fellowship of brothers and sisters, the community of believers, the family of God, revealing His immeasurable and unfailing love. . .

Only paragraphs in which the pro-lifers' catch phrases could be found have been quoted above. All of the paragraphs of the Statement except "2. God considers the unborn child as human life" are  general biblical principles with no specific application to abortion. Paragraph "2. God considers the unborn child as human life" is the one which follows the path of the Evangelicals in eisegetical application of certain passages of Scripture to the abortion controversy. (Ref. John V. Stevens' exegeses inserted within Paragraph 2 above.) The Bible texts which are not analyzed by Stevens do not support the findings of the BRI.

On Judges 13:5 - "from the womb" is not defined by the Bible Commentaries.

On Isaiah 49:1, 5 - "from the womb" is similarly not defined. However, some apply verse 5 as a Messianic prophecy, and Jesus is unique because of Christ's pre-existence.

On Galatians 1:15, - respected Bible Commentaries expressly contradict the application made by the BRI. On the expository side, Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers states:

From my mother’s womb.—A comparison of other passages where this phrase is used seems to make it clear that the sense is rather “from the moment of my birth” than “from before my birth.” (See Psalm 22:10; Isaiah 49:1; Isaiah 49:5; Matthew 19:12; Acts 3:2; Acts 14:8.) From the moment that he became a living and conscious human being he was marked out in the purpose of God for his future mission.

Meyer's NT Commentary states:

ὁ ἀφορίσας με ἐκ κοιλίας μητρός μου] who separated me, that is, in His counsel set me apart from other men for a special destination, from my mother’s womb; that is, not in the womb (Wieseler); nor, from the time when I was in the womb (Hofmann, comp. Möller); nor, ere I was born (Rückert); but, as soon as I had issued from the womb, from my birth. Comp. Psalm 22:11; Isaiah 44:2; Isaiah 49:1; Isaiah 49:5; Matthew 19:12; Acts 3:2; Acts 14:8 (in Luke 1:15, where ἔτι is added, the thought is different). ἐκ γενετῆς, John 9:1, has the same meaning. Comp. the Greek ἐκ γαστρός, and the like. We must not assume a reference to Jeremiah 1:5 (Grotius, Semler, Reithmayr, and others), for in that passage there is an essentially different definition of time (πρὸ τοῦ με πλάσαι σε ἐν κοιλίᾳ κ.τ.λ.).

Expositor's Greek Testament states:

Galatians 1:15. ἀφορίσας. Paul looks back on his parentage and early years as a providential preparation for his future ministry: this view is justified by his antecedents. By birth at once a Hebrew, a Greek and Roman citizen, educated in the Hebrew Scriptures and in Greek learning, he combined in his own person the most essential requisites for an Apostle to the Gentiles. He was further moulded by the spiritual discipline of an intense, though mistaken, zeal for the Law of his God, which issued in bitter remorse. By this career he was fitted to become a chosen vessel to bear the name of Christ before the Gentile world. He did not hesitate accordingly to regard himself, like Hebrew prophets of old (Isaiah 49:1; Isaiah 49:5, Jeremiah 1:5), as dedicated from his birth to the service of God.

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges states:

separated me … womb] ‘Set me apart from my birth,’ comp. Jeremiah 1:5. The good pleasure was from all eternity, the setting apart was at birth, the call was on the road to Damascus, the revelation, then and subsequently.

Other commentaries such as Barnes' Notes on the Bible, and Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible similarly explain the meaning of the term "from my mother's womb" to mean from birth. Note the linkage to Jeremiah 1:5 in the passages quoted above.

On Luke 1:15, - It is noteworthy that the BRI ignored the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (1956,) which states:

From his mother's womb. John's very existence was due to the will and power of God, and not of man. He came into the world with his assigned lifework, and was to be dedicated to God from the very first. It was possible for the Holy Spirit to "fill" John from birth because the Spirit had first been able to fill John's mother Elisabeth, directing and controlling her life. (Underscored emphasis supplied; cf. "John the Baptist . .")

As John V. Stevens pointed out, "since God predicted the birth and life of some persons, it is automatically assumed that they already exist somewhere other than on the earth." In other words, the assumption is clearly based on the idea of an immortal soul. The BRI has followed the Evangelicals by quoting Bible texts that make such predictions in support of the "pro-life" position. By so doing, they have endorsed the dogma of the immortality of the soul even before joining in the egregious error of attributing personhood to the fetus.

Having laid a very lengthy foundation, it is unnecessary to go into further examination of the October 16, 2019, statement of the Seventh-day Adventist Church's Executive Committee. "Res ipsa loquitur" ("the thing speaks for itself." It is clear that the Church has capitulated to Rome and all of her dogmas related to abortion. The document is spotted with the terminology of Rome and the Religious Right, as demonstrated by the underscored text above.

"It is the rejection of Bible truth which makes men approach to infidelity. It is a backsliding church that lessens the distance between itself and the Papacy." Ellen G. White, The Signs of the Times, Feb. 19, 1894.

One thing it is certain is soon to be realized,--the great apostasy, which is developing and increasing and waxing stronger, and will continue to do so until the Lord shall descend from heaven with a shout. (NYI, February 7, 1906 par. 1)

DELUSIONS ROOTED IN FALSE THEOLOGY

Delusional thinking, speech, and behavior are proliferating in America to a degree beyond imagination in the earlier history of the nation. The President repeats the same lies and adds new ones almost every day. Some claims are so palpably false that in normal times only the simple-minded would believe them. (Cf. Alternative Fact of the Week: The imaginary wall; Trump’s Metaphysical Wall: An Investigation.) Nevertheless, a significant percentage of the population chooses to believe or profess to believe the man, and defend him with astonishing claims supposedly based on the Bible. The vast majority are Evangelicals and Roman Catholics in alliance. The Evangelicals profess to be great students of the Bible, but betray an abysmal and fatal ignorance of biblical Truth. Their theology is a desecration of the Holy Scriptures, and though a minority in the nation's population their evident thralldom to the unclean spirits of Rev. 16:13-14 has been imposed on the nation at large. Their strong delusion (2 Thess. 2:10-12) is reflected in their commitment to a man thoroughly corrupt and divorced from reality.

The White House Press Secretary, spokesperson to the nation, is an Evangelical. Emboldened by the power now exercised by right-wing Evangelism, she recently made the preposterous statement that God wanted Donald Trump to be President:-

Sarah Sanders: God wanted Trump to become president

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders claimed Wednesday that President Donald Trump’s presidency is part of a higher calling.

“I think God calls all of us to fill different roles at different times, and I think that he wanted Donald Trump to become president,” Sanders said during an interview with Christian Broadcast Network News. “And that’s why he’s there, and I think he has done a tremendous job in supporting a lot of the things that people of faith really care about.” . . .

Trump's multiple divorces and alleged affairs have also not significantly affected the president’s popularity among white evangelical voters.

The sacrilege of charging God with responsibility for the candidacy and election to the presidency of Donald Trump is not new. It has been openly embraced by the Religious Right from the time that he emerged as a serious contender for the office, and into and throughout his presidency to date (cf. A Time of Boundless Delusions.)

Hopefully, we are paying close attention to this phenomenon. With what is happening in plain view, it is unreasonable to think that the Image to the Beast is yet future. Reports such as the following underscore the reality that the Image is formed; although the events prophesied in Rev. 13:13-15 still await fulfillment:

Sarah Sanders says 'God wanted Trump to be president'

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders has told a religious television network that God "wanted Donald Trump to become president".

Ms Sanders made the claim in an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN), saying it was the reason Mr. Trump was in office.

The press secretary also said it was "very hard" to take morality lessons from the Democratic Party.

Democrats have attacked Mr. Trump's proposed border wall as immoral.

US evangelicals strongly support the president.

The Washington Post reports Mr. Trump won 80% of the white evangelical vote in 2016, a higher share than Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney and John McCain in previous elections. . .

The interview comes days after Mr. Trump tweeted his support for Bible study.

Several states have legislation pending that would make Bible literacy courses part of public school education. . .

The American Civil Liberties Union attacked Mr. Trump's endorsement.

"More often than not, public school Bible classes resemble Sunday school lessons and violate students' and parents' First Amendment rights," senior attorney Heather Weaver wrote.

"Public schools are for education, not religious indoctrination."

Note the photos in the report which were taken in the White House.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders Pins The Trump Presidency On God

A news story last week raised many eyebrows: White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told TV preacher Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network Jan. 30 that God wanted Donald Trump to be president.

“I think God calls all of us to fill different roles at different times, and I think that he wanted Donald Trump to become president,” Sanders said during an interview with CBN’s David Brody and Jennifer Wishon. “That’s why he’s there, and I think he has done a tremendous job in supporting a lot of the things that people of faith really care about.”

Sanders’ comments aren’t really anything new. They merely echo statements made by several Religious Right figures since Trump’s election. Evangelist Franklin Graham, for example, told The Washington Post shortly after the election, “I could sense going across the country that God was going to do something this year. And I believe that at this election, God showed up.” . . .

Sanders was criticized for her comments, but the American Family Association leaped to her defense, pointing out that a passage in Romans 13 states that leaders are “established by God.” Funny thing, though, that passage seems to disappear whenever a Democrat is occupying the White House. The same passage also tells people to obey their governments and implies that leaders are to be treated with deference. I don’t recall that being the Religious Right’s line during the Obama years.

Claims that God put someone in office are scary. From the Christian emperors of the late Roman Empire and the “divine right” kings of the Middle Ages up to the theocrats of today, leaders who assert they’re God’s choice are usually just trying to squelch criticism. After all, if God put the ruler there, who are you to question his policies? To do that is to challenge the will of God.

The plain truth is, Trump got into office because he eked out narrow victories in a handful of swing states and managed to get more votes in the Electoral College than Hillary Clinton. There’s plenty of evidence that the Russians had something to do with it – but it’s safe to assume that God’s off the hook. (Underscored emphasis added.)

It is critically important to note the central commitment of the Trump presidency which motivates the Evangelicals', and in a cleverly muted way the Roman Catholic hierarchy, in their unshakeable support of the President. It is ending the right of women in America to terminate a pregnancy:

The Religious Right’s Power Grab: How Outside Activists Became Inside Operatives

Values voters during this election have been quick to sidestep Trump’s spotty personal life and caustic temperament, not to mention his inconsistent positions on important evangelical causes. Instead, Religious Right leaders have offered up a litany of concerns that they say Trump will champion, from anti-abortion measures to sufficiently conservative Supreme Court nominees. . .

GIVEN HOW POWERFUL the Religious Right quickly became, it’s worth remembering the movement’s modest origins. Troubled by the social and cultural changes of the 1960s and the legalization of abortion in 1973, conservative evangelicals organized politically to redeem the nation. Yet they did so shaped by their own historic indifference to and distrust of politics, avoiding what they saw as its distasteful practices and sinful temptations of power and corruption. Overcoming that longstanding avoidance of politics required that Religious Right leaders and laypersons alike imagine their new involvement as outside agitators rather than inside power brokers, lest they become sullied by the process. Mobilized to defend conservative causes and back candidates of character, the nascent Religious Right promised allegiance only to its own conscience. . .

The joy of Reagan’s win, though, soon gave way to the disappointments of politics. Reagan had courted religious conservatives by promising action on their cherished causes: overturning Roe v. Wade, restoring school prayer, and fighting against gay rights and other perceived threats to the traditional family. But once in office, Reagan mostly ignored those issues. His nomination of Sandra Day O’Connor, a moderate pro-choice jurist, to the Supreme Court outraged his evangelical supporters. Sixty-eight percent of pro-life activists deemed Reagan’s handling of the abortion issue as “fair to poor” during his first four years. Falwell publically admitted his disappointment that the president had ignored the Religious Right’s concerns. The fundamentalist pastor Bob Jones sent his complaints directly to Reagan. “Do not take us for granted,” he wrote the president. “We are not going to vote for you in desperation in 1984.” . . .

The evangelical theologian Francis Schaeffer profoundly shaped this shift through his writings and his friendship with Falwell. Schaeffer advocated for evangelicals to practice “co-belligerency” in order to accomplish political goals. “A co-belligerent,” Schaeffer explained in his 1980 book Plan for Action, “is a person with whom I do not agree on all sorts of vital issues, but who, for whatever reasons of their own, is on the same side in a fight for some specific issue of public justice.” When Falwell, a strict fundamentalist independent, initially resisted such advice, Schaeffer set him straight. “God used pagans to do his own work in the Old Testament, so why don’t you use pagans to do your work now?” Schaeffer asked. That thinking broadened the Religious Right—conservative evangelicals could now look to Catholics and Mormons as political allies rather than as religious heretics—but it also altered their relationship to politicians and the political process. Conservative Christians now would work with anyone, including politicians who did not align with all of their values, if that partner held the right position on key issues, especially abortion. . . (Underscored emphasis added.)

It is unclear how many Seventh-day Adventists perceive that the central ideology of the Roman Catholic Church and the Evangelicals on abortion and birth control is a deadly snare. It is based on the great lie of the immortality of the soul, propagated by Satan in the Garden of Eden and perpetuated down through the centuries. He now seeks to beguile the world through the Church of Rome and her Evangelical dupes. (Cf. Bookmark "There is more to the story of course" in "Final World Events in Prophecy Foreshadowed 2016".) (NB. A DECEPTIVE TERM MASKING A DEADLY THEOLOGICAL FALSEHOOD.) We have a clear warning from Ellen G. White to be on guard for this deadly error as much as for the enforcement of the false sabbath. Satan is unlikely to present the immortality of the soul in language easily detectable. This is not his modus operandi, especially at this stage of the world's history.

Predictably, the Evangelical fantasy about divine intervention enabling the election of Donald Trump is based on a misapplication of Scripture. Their interpretation of Romans 13:1-7 reveals an abysmal ignorance of the rules of biblical exegesis. The exegesis by a Seventh-day Adventist Church titled THE POWERS THAT BE is an excellent example of sound biblical exegesis. A careful search online found no Seventh-day Adventist article which could relate directly to the right-wing Evangelical interpretation of Romans 13:1-7. However, there are web pages of other Protestant churches which demonstrate exegetical skills superior to those of the Evangelicals. There is still some light remaining in the midst of the gross darkness overshadowing the ranks of contemporary Protestantism:

The Limits of Submission to Man

One of the crucial issues before the church in America today is: Shall we be American with a pinch of religious flavoring? Or: Shall we be Christ's people with a pinch of American flavoring? I think the issue is crucial because there are many in our churches (many of us) who have not seriously and earnestly asked themselves: Am I more American than I am Christian? Are there not impulses in our society which define us in the world as Americans and which influence us daily, but which are incompatible with the Christ-life and the cross-life? Are we not constantly being shaped by forces in our culture which make it almost impossible for the world to see any difference in our values? If we are ever going to appear to the world as aliens and exiles on the earth, then we are going to have to go back and renew the declaration of allegiance by which we became Christians, namely, Jesus is Lord! And we are going to have to wake up to the fact that this is a cultural and political statement. It is a radical declaration of independence from our culture and of absolute allegiance to a foreign king, Jesus. Therefore, the point of my message today is to call us to submit to Christ alone as king; and whatever other submission to man we render, to do it within the limits of the lordship of Christ and always for the sake of his glory.

Romans 13:1–7 has often been used to justify an unseemly conformity to the status quo in this country and in others. It could be used to keep the church docile to the Nazi regime in Germany, and to impede the efforts of those in our own land who worked for equal rights for black people twenty years ago. I want us to look at this text in order to see what the apostle was really teaching.

[The Bible text quoted.]

Paul's argument has three main steps. Step one is found in the second half of verse 1: all governing authority has been ordained or instituted by God. If there is a government, God put it there. Step two is found in verse 2: therefore, a person who resists or opposes governing authorities experiences two things: one is pangs of conscience that he is really opposing God, and the other is punishment that the authorities mete out to those who oppose them. To avoid these two experiences, verse 5 concludes with step three: to avoid wrath and a bad conscience, therefore, be subject to the governing authorities. In summary then, governing authorities are appointed by God; therefore, to oppose them is to oppose God and to incur punishment; therefore, do not oppose them, but be subject to them.

I believe "all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16, 17). That includes this text in Romans 13. But it also includes many other texts which don't seem compatible with Romans 13. So if we want to honor the whole Bible as God's Word, we have to ask how Romans 13 fits in with some other parts of Scripture.

[Examples of Civil Disobedience in Biblical history: The midwives of Exodus 1:15-17; the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego to obey the edict of Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 3:16–18;) the reaction of Daniel to Darius the King's decree; Peter and John's response in Acts 4:19 to the Jewish authorities' command not to speak or teach in the name of Jesus.]

All of this makes it very hard to say that the Bible teaches that since all governing authority is from God, it must, therefore, be obeyed. Such stories as these make Paul's teaching appear on the surface incredibly naïve. How could Paul say in verse 3, for example, "Rulers are not a terror to good conduct but to bad"? How could he say, "Do what is good, and you will receive the authority's approval"? If it weren't for some of the other things Paul wrote, we might think that he lived in an idealistic dream world where good is always rewarded and evil always punished by the governing authorities.

[Paragraph heading]

But we know for a fact that Paul was not so naïve. For example, he said in 1 Corinthians 2:8, "None of the rulers of this age understood the wisdom of God; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." Paul was keenly aware that the death of Jesus was the ultimate breech of justice—that the governing authorities did not praise the good and punish the wrong. They did just the opposite. And he knew from his own missionary journeys that the ruling authorities could be a menace to his own ministry (Acts 16:16ff.).

What then are we to make of Romans 13:1–5, which calls for subjection to governing authorities? Is the basic premise wrong? Are all governing authorities really instituted by God? Is all authority from God? Or are only just governments instituted by God? I would say that, given Paul's view of God's sovereign sway over history, he would not give up this truth under any circumstances. Yes, all authority which exists has been set up by God.

The evidence for this outside of Paul's writings is found in Daniel and John. Even though Daniel describes the deeds of very evil kings, he says in 2:21 that it is God who "removes kings and sets up kings," and in 4:32, "The Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will." So, according to Daniel even wicked kings should acknowledge that they have their position and authority only from God. The same thing is taught in the Gospel of John. Pilate, by whose authority Jesus was finally crucified, was a governing authority set and ordained by God (cf. Acts 2:23; 4:27, 28). In John 19:10 Pilate says to Jesus, "'Do you not know that I have authority to release you and authority to crucify you?' Jesus answered, 'You would have no authority over me unless it had been given to you from above.'" Therefore, if Pilate, Nebuchadnezzar, and Darius were set in their places and given authority by God, even though they did much evil, then we have no reason to deny Paul's assertion that "there is no authority except from God" (Romans 13:1).

[Paragraph heading]

What does have to be qualified is verse 3. In view of what Paul knows about the miscarriage of justice in the death of Jesus, he can't have meant it to be an absolute fact with no exceptions when he said in verse 3, "Rulers are not a terror to good conduct . . . Do good, and you will receive their praise." This verse and the next one must be a general statement of how governments should and often do function. Paul simply does not have in view the problem of evil governments. Instead he has in view a good government in which doing good deeds will generally find approval and doing evil will generally be punished.

If this is correct, then it will no longer be possible to insist that Christians should always be subject to the governing authorities. As long as authorities punish only what is evil and praise only what is good, submission to God will always conform to submission to the authorities. But if the authorities ever begin to punish the good and reward the bad (as has repeatedly happened in church history), then submission to God will bring us into conflict with the authorities. So the command to be subject in verses 1 and 5 is not absolute; it depends on whether subjection will involve us in doing wrong. The ultimate criterion of right and wrong is not whether a ruling authority commands it, but whether God commands it. The fact that God has ordained all authority does not mean all authority should be obeyed. It is right to resist what God has appointed in order to obey what God has commanded. His appointment of Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, Darius, Pilate, Domitian, Bloody Mary, Adolf Hitler, and Idi Amin may be for our testing (cf. Deuteronomy 13:3). Will we save our lives and submit to the ruling authority, or will we say with Peter, "We must obey God rather than men," and thus risk our lives?

When verse 5 says we are to be subject in order to avoid wrath, it means the punishment that comes from wrongdoing, not from obedience to Christ. 1 Peter 4:15, 16 makes this issue clearer. It says, "Let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or a wrongdoer or a mischief-maker; yet if one suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but under that name let him glorify God." In other words, strive to avoid incurring wrath for wrongdoing, but if doing what Christ demands brings wrath, don't have a guilty conscience, glorify God.

We can sum up in several sentences. 1) There is no authority except from God. The greatest human ruler should humbly confess he is where he is by virtue of God's sovereign appointment. 2) Nevertheless, some rules and governments are good, and some are bad. Some reward the right and punish the wrong. Others do the reverse. Most do a little of both. 3) Therefore, the demand for subjection is relative, not absolute. It depends on whether the demands of the governing authorities require us to disobey Jesus. If they do, we will not be subject at that point but will say with Peter, "We must obey God rather than men." We will honor God above the state.

But if the demands of the state do not require us to disobey Jesus (as with speed limits, stop signs, income taxes, curfews, building codes, fishing licenses, and many other laws), we will be subject for the Lord's sake (1 Peter 2:13). And it is very important to stress that, just as we may have to disobey the civil authorities for Christ's sake, so all our obedience should be for his sake as well. We never have two masters. All our submission to man is not only limited by the lordship of Christ; it is also an expression of our yieldedness to that lordship. Every time we say yes to any law, it should be a yes to Jesus.

This is all alien to the power hungry thinking of the Evangelicals.

Another article, while somewhat lacking in biblical exegesis, is strong in its rejection of the Evangelical misapplication of Scripture:

OPINION: Sarah Huckabee’s Trump Pronouncement Amounts To Fraud In The Name Of God

As faith leaders we are both disturbed and alarmed by the manipulation of the Word of God coming out of this White House. In particular, regardless of one’s theology, press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders’ pronouncement that God wanted Trump to be president of the United States showed a deep lack of respect for religion, and it represents a danger to our democracy.

Claims of divined power and divined competence is political subterfuge that manipulates the citizenry by misusing the glory and authority of God. It is fraud perpetrated in the name of God.

Across human history, people have wrongly deified leaders and celebrities, elevating false gods in their own image. Such assertions are far more than foolhardy; they have led to dangerous influence over others and unabashed power grabs. To hear such claims come out of our White House in 2019 assigns a chilling false faith in executive power.

Our concern is not a progressive concept; it is a faithful construct. Christian conservative Rev. Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, the moral and policy arm 
of the Southern Baptist Convention, rightly says, “Those who claim earthly rule now by divine appointment are, according to Jesus and his apostles, frauds.”

That’s true whether they are seeking a murderous rule over a nation, or whether in a more benign setting they are trying to use God’s Word to snuggle up to the local powers-that-be by promising a ‘Thus saith the Lord’ in exchange for a place at the table. This is a claim to speak where God has not spoken. God has made clear, repeatedly, what he thinks of such”. . .

To be sure, some conservative faith leaders have also implied that Trump’s presidency is divinely mandated, making his authority virtually unlimited. These are dangerous assertions from Trump evangelical advisors like Paula White and Robert Jeffress, which suggest that if God chose Trump, who are we to challenge him and his policies? But these conservative leaders have the free speech right to their opinions, however radical, and no matter how much we may disagree.

When these radical religious ideologies come from within our government, the phone call, as the horror film says, is coming from inside the house. The White House in this case.

Recall Attorney General Jeff Sessions used Romans 13:1-7 to argue that the Trump administration had the political and biblical right to remove and cage children and parents at the southern border. And that is precisely why when Sanders says that God wanted Trump to be the president — we must resist.

Sanders’ statement is a flagrant breach of the First Amendment’s wall of separation between church and state. So concerned were our nation’s founders about the State imposing or restricting religion that they expressly prohibited the establishment of state religion in order to protect the integrity and free exercise of all religions. Sanders took a sledgehammer to the First Amendment when, as an officer of the state, she declared definitive understanding of the mind of God. (Underscored emphasis added.)

In conclusion, an article by a CNN religion editor quotes an intriguing criticism made by a Notre Dame professor:

Does God really want Donald Trump to be President?

"That's a hard passage," said Michael Rea, a professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame. "Romans 13 needs to be handled with care."

If you read Romans 13 to imply that God "wanted" or established Trump in office, Rea says, then it also implies the same about every other world leader, including those whose views and policies do not align with evangelicals' agendas.

And Romans says nothing about whether God is happy with the ruler and pleased with his policies, nor whether Christians should legally and peacefully resist the rulers and policies they disagree with.

"So what Romans 13 might invite us to do is just ask what God might be doing with some particular leader," Rea said. "In the case of Trump, I am tempted to say God might have been working to discredit the forces in evangelicalism that contributed so much to his being elected."

This smacks of hypocrisy on the part of a teacher at one of the leading Roman Catholic universities in America. After all, it was the Church of Rome which set the Evangelicals on the path to power in the United States, with the objective of imposing her dogmas, advancing her influence and achieving theocratic government - and what about the claims of the Pope and his hierarchy?

On one point in particular we can agree with Rea that God "might have been working to discredit the forces in evangelicalism that contributed so much to his being elected." This must include Rome as the enabler of the Evangelicals and the primary reason for Divine judgment.

NATIONAL RUIN

INITIAL CONSEQUENCE OF PAPAL EMBRACE

In 1980, under the title "NATIONAL APOSTASY," Elder Grotheer wrote :

In the Last Day Events compilation from Ellen G. White's Writings, there are three additional statements not cited by Elder Grotheer. One refers to enforcement of the papal sabbath. We are clearly not there as yet. The other two are obviously applicable to these times:

Roman Catholic principles will be taken under the care and protection of the state. This national apostasy will speedily be followed by national ruin.—The Review and Herald, June 15, 1897. (LDE 134.2)

This prophecy has been in the process of fulfillment  since Ronald Reagan was elected to the presidency in 1980 (Cf. REVEALING DOCUMENTATION OF THE PAPACY'S ROLE IN AMERICA.)

When the state shall use its power to enforce the decrees and sustain the institutions of the church—then will Protestant America have formed an image to the papacy, and there will be a national apostasy which will end only in national ruin.—The S.D.A. Bible Commentary 7:976 (1910). (LDE 134.4)

This prediction is clearly not confined to Sunday legislation, and is manifestly being fulfilled by  the aggressive adoption and enforcement of anti-abortion laws at the instigation of Rome, through the agency of an alliance with Protestant apostates. It is no secret that the "Right to Life" movement is sustained by the dogma of the Immortality  of the Soul. This dogma in turn is defensive and protective of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

ADVANCED COURTSHIP OF ROME

The courtship with Rome beginning to be manifested during the Carter presidency was accelerated under succeeding presidencies, most notably those of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Even President Obama, who had fundamental differences with the major papal teachings, established a friendly working relationship with Pope Francis on matters of common interest, ranging from climate change to US relations with Cuba:

Obama's papal balancing act

President Barack Obama’s upcoming White House meeting with Pope Francis will mark the latest chapter in a growing relationship between two men with often-similar priorities. But behind the scenes, Obama aides are working to avoid politicizing the papal visit, even as they hope to capitalize on it.

That will likely mean praising and deferring to Francis, whose calls for action against climate change and mass incarceration dovetail with the president's vision, but taking care not to explicitly link the pope to Obama's legislative agenda. It's the type of balancing act that will affect everything from what policy initiatives Obama announces in conjunction with the papal visit to what gift he gives the popular pontiff. . .

Obama has made no secret of his admiration for the pope, whom he first met at the Vatican in March 2014. He has called Francis a "transformative leader" and cited the pope in efforts to promote his own stances on issues, such as alleviating poverty. The president even name-checked Francis in his State of the Union address this year when discussing his administration’s decision to restore ties to Cuba, an initiative the pope helped push through.

Obama was deeply involved in the triumphal tour of America by Francis in 2015. In the "Final World Events in Prophecy Foreshadowed" column for that year we reported as follows:

The triumphal tour is over, and Pope Francis has returned to the Vatican. There is surely significance in the three cities visited on the tour: Washington, capital of the American Nation; New York City, financial capital of America and arguably of the world, also headquarters of the United Nations; and Philadelphia, cradle of the Nation and its constitution guaranteeing individual liberty, of which Rome has never been a friend. There was tremendous symbolism in the delivery of Pope Francis' speech at the very same lectern used by President Lincoln in his Gettysburg address. Be assured that the Pope will continue to loom large over the American nation through the papal policies of the Vatican enabled by the United States government (Rev. 13:12,) until the ultimate despotism predicted by prophecy is ushered in. The tour has been like a "Royal Progress." The Pope is an earthly potentate presenting himself as a lowly servant and a humble man of peace; but poised to wage war on the true saints of God. At the very inception of the papacy Pope Leo the Great, "declared in a sermon that the former Rome was but the promise of the latter Rome; that the glories of the former were to be reproduced in Catholic Rome; that Romulus and Remus were but the forerunners of Peter and Paul; that the successors of Romulus therefore were the precursors of the successors of Peter; and that, as the former Rome had ruled the world, so the latter Rome, by the see of the holy blessed Peter as head of the world, would dominate the earth. Later, "Pope Boniface VIII presented himself in the sight of the multitude, clothed in a cuirass, with a helmet on his head and a sword in his hand held aloft, and proclaimed: “There is no other Caesar, nor king, nor emperor than I, the Sovereign Pontiff and Successor of the Apostles;” and, when further he declared, ex cathedra: “We therefore assert, define, and pronounce that it is necessary to salvation to believe that every human being is subject to the Pontiff of Rome.” (From Alonzo T. Jones' The Consecrated Way to Christian Perfection, Chapter XIII, "The Transgression and Abomination of Desolation.") Apply these declarations to Pope Francis' posture of humility on his tour of the three American cities; and consider that Rome has been working with particular zeal for over a century to make America Catholic. Rome has not changed:-

IN PHILADELPHIA

Hundreds of thousands flood Philly for Pope Francis' final Mass

Pope Francis celebrated Mass with hundreds of thousands in the streets of the City of Brotherly Love on Sunday, closing his historic six-day visit to the U.S. where he drew big and enthusiastic crowds wherever he went. . .

Catholics, as well as non-Catholics who are simply fans of "the people's pope," began flooding the Benjamin Franklin Parkway early on an overcast Sunday in hopes of landing a prime spot to bid Francis farewell. The parkway, an iconic thoroughfare, was dotted with big screens to watch the 78-year-old pontiff deliver his final message to the American people before his return trip to Rome.

Boisterous church groups banging drums and singing songs went suddenly silent as the first strains of the musical preludes of the service wafted over the city streets. Crowds blocks away joined in the chanting and prayers as Mass began.

The crowds were packed as far away as Philadelphia's city hall, more than a mile from the pope's altar. The Mass could be heard across much of the city's downtown, where crowds stood rapt watching the celebration on the big screens.

"We are having a blessed time," said Maureen Cobb, 65, a retired teacher from Canal Winchester, Ohio. "The weather is beautiful, the people are beautiful. All these Christians who want to celebrate the good news of Jesus Christ."

Long lines stretched for hours ahead of the Mass, as National Guard soldiers worked to keep the surging crowds orderly. . .

Ahead of the Mass, Francis made an unscheduled stop at Saint Joseph’s University to view a newly dedicated statue commemorating the 50th anniversary of Nostra Aetate, a Vatican II document that helped bolster the relationship between the Catholic and Jewish faiths.

The document highlighted the historic bond between the two faiths and dismissed past efforts by the Church to convert Jews. Saint Joseph’s, a Jesuit university, established the Institute for Jewish-Catholic Relations in 1967 in response to the Vatican call for strengthening the interfaith relationship.

Pope Francis brought joy to the United States

Pope Francis ended his remarkable nine-day visit to the Americas on Sunday with a triumphal outdoor Mass in Philadelphia, where he urged the million attendees to believe in miracles. . .

He ended his trip at about 7:30 p.m. when he climbed aboard an American Airlines flight for the trip home to Rome.

Thus ended the Royal Progress, which was a remarkable demonstration of the forward movement of prophetic events under Rev. 13. We do indeed have ". . . the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts." (2 Peter 1:19, NKJV; emphasis added) [Cf. As of Friday evening, September 25, 2015]

DISASTER IMMEDIATELY LOOMED

In the midst of the well-publicized preparations for the Pope's visit, Donald Trump announced his entry into the race for nomination as the Republican candidate for the presidency of the United States of America. In retrospect this placed the seal on the impending national ruin of the nation. Trump was famous and disreputable:

The Many Scandals of Donald Trump: A Cheat Sheet (Article dated January 23, 2017.)

The 2016 presidential campaign saw a long string of stories showing scandals involving Trump, both large and small—from questionable business dealings to allegations of sexual assault. While they did not derail his presidential hopes, many of them remain live issues as Trump begins his transition to the White House.

The breadth of Trump’s controversies is truly yuge, ranging from allegations of mafia ties to unscrupulous business dealings, and from racial discrimination to alleged marital rape. They stretch over more than four decades, from the mid-1970s to the present day. To catalogue the full sweep of allegations would require thousands of words and lump together the trivial with the truly scandalous. Including business deals that have simply failed, without any hint of impropriety, would require thousands more. This is a snapshot of some of the most interesting and largest of those scandals. . .

The Grifter in Chief

History will remember 2018 as the year it became increasingly clear that a grifter — and likely a felonious one — is living in the White House.

No matter what you think of tariffs, border walls and tax cuts, there should no longer be any illusions: What we're seeing isn't normal, or the product of some entrenched deep state, some Democrat-led conspiracy or a biased news media. No, what we're seeing is the result of a man — and a family — that repeatedly puts personal gain over all else, the rule of law be damned.

Amid all the speculation about Robert Mueller's probe into whether Trump's campaign colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 election and whether he then obstructed justice, not to mention the daily barrage of tweets, it's easy to lose track of the fact that there has been an abundance of detailed reporting this year to show that everything Trump touches ends up bilked and it shouldn't be lost on anyone that the Trump Organization, the Donald J. Trump Foundation, the Trump presidential campaign, the Trump Inaugural Committee and Trump himself are all currently under investigation amid substantial and extensive allegations of wrongdoing.

The mere fact that such a man as this could become President of the United States was in itself an omen of looming disaster. Most ominous was the fact that Trump, in competition with Senator Ted Cruz as the darling of the Religious Right, was chosen by these Christian Supremacist Theocrats as their candidate to achieve the goal of totalitarian governance.

It appears probable that national ruin will fall on America by degrees, with the ultimate disaster following the enforcement of the false sabbath. Even so, already the nation has been sowing to the wind, and is beginning to reap the whirlwind. Disaster is in the air! National ruin looms, far beyond what followed President Jimmy Carter's action in honoring Pope John-Paul II by inviting him into the White House, the "People's House," in the presence of the legislative leaders of the nation.

The man who was elected President of the United States, and the most powerful person in the world, in 2016 was an admitted liar, and continues to lie brazenly and in high volume:

The raging controversy over whether to call Trump’s lies “lies,” explained

It’s not the word you use that matters — it’s whether you extend him the benefit of the doubt.

Donald Trump is a liar. Not just in the sense that we are all fallible human beings who probably say things that aren’t true sometimes — he has made flagrant disregard for the truth a hallmark of his approach to business and politics.

He wrote about his strategic use of dishonesty in The Art of The Deal. He admitted to routinely lying about important matters in a sworn deposition. And of course it’s obvious to anyone who’s followed his political career that he has continued to exhibit a flagrant disregard for the truth as he pivoted from real estate developer to celebrity brand licenser to president. A core belief of his is that lying is a good way to get ahead, which is why he lies so much.

In addition to being a liar, Trump is unusually ill-informed about public policy for a president, so he plausibly says some things that aren't true out of genuine lack of knowledge. This leads to a natural caution on the part of some journalists who cover the White House about calling a lie a lie, with phrases like “demonstrable falsehood” instead. . .

This preference for euphemism over straightforward language is silly, so it’s attracted considerable social media criticism. . .

The good news is that euphemisms are not nearly so harmful as their critics fear. The thing that Trump does is lie, and whether we call the lies “lies” or “demonstrable falsehoods” is ultimately not that important either politically or journalistically.

The bad news is the fact that Donald Trump is a liar remains incredibly important and yet poorly integrated into ongoing coverage of his administration. Every politician I can think of has, at some point, said something that isn’t true. But almost all of them seem to mostly adhere to at least defensible interpretations of the facts. They do so to avoid obtaining a reputation for dishonesty, in part because they fear that obtaining a reputation for dishonesty would hurt their future efforts at communication.

Trump, thus far, has avoided this penalty. He says untrue things. The falseness of his statements is revealed and reported on. And then his future pronouncements are nonetheless treated as deserving the same presumption of truth that we grant to normal people.

That’s a big mistake. Presidents naturally end up making representations about things where the facts are not fully knowable to the public. When Trump does that, we need, as a country, to remember that our president is a huge liar. . .

DEADLY DANGER FROM A DELUDED MINORITY

A President in power who is a brazen serial liar is arguably a national disaster. The mental attitude of Trump's most ardent supporters, the Religious Right, should also command the attention of Christians who truly live by the Bible and believe in the prophecies of Rev. 13. These determined advocates of totalitarian "Christian" government not only voted for Trump with full knowledge of his disreputable character but believed that he was chosen by God. As his unconscionable mendacity has persisted, the Theocrats have continued in their blind faith. This exposes the deadly danger to individual and religious freedom from a fanatical and deluded minority which is just large enough to make it possible for Trump to be re-elected by clever manipulation of the electoral system:

Donald Trump didn't tell the truth 83 times in 1 day

Trump is averaging -- AVERAGING -- 30 false or misleading claims a day in the last seven weeks. And, per the Fact Checker, he often of late soars far above that average. As one example: On October 22, when he traveled to Houston to hold a rally for Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R), Trump, said 83 untrue things in a single day. 83!

The scope of Trump's falsehoods is literally breathtaking. In the 649 days between his inauguration and October 30, Trump has made 6,420 claims that are partially or entirely false. That includes a number of assertions -- that the Russia probe being overseen by special counsel Robert Mueller is a hoax, that the Trump tax cut was the biggest in history -- that Trump has repeated ad infinitum. He's said the Russia investigation is a hoax or a witch hunt 157 times and claimed his was the biggest tax cut ever 120 times, according to the Fact-Checker.) . . .

Facts are, for Trump, fungible things. When they fit his narrative, he is happy to tout them. But they rarely fit his narrative. And when they don't, he has zero concern about creating his own narrative that simply doesn't have any real resemblance to the established truth.

In fact, as the Fact Checker's numbers make clear, Trump seems to flaunt his fact-less claims -- assuring his supporters that he is telling the "real" truth that the media won't let them in on. Trump has turned that tendency toward untruthfulness into a political strategy; he is so politically incorrect that he doesn't even abide by the rules of fact and truth that the so-called "elites" think he should.

It's truly stunning -- and frightening -- stuff. What's more terrifying to me is that Trump's supporters don't seem to know -- or care -- about any of this. They regard fact checks by the media as simply the "fake news" doing everything they can to slow down Trump's momentum. And to the extent they acknowledge that Trump doesn't tell the truth a lot of the time, they write it off as either a) him just talking or b) that all politicians lie. (Most politicians do say untrue things from time to time. When called on them, however, they stop saying the false things. Trump is not like that.)

Trump also works aggressively to ensure that his base sees him as the only honest man in the country, the only person who is really telling it like it is.

"Stick with us," he told a VFW crowd in Kansas City back in July. "Don't believe the crap you see from these people, the fake news. ... What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening."

Here's the thing, though: It is happening. Facts are not a partisan position. And here's one fact no one should forget: Donald Trump is misleading -- and outright lying at times -- at a pace that we have never seen before in politics. Never.

PROPHESIED DISASTER REALIZED

National ruin was predicted to follow America's alliance with Rome and the assimilation by the nation of papal principles and practices. National ruin has been in progress since the presidency of Jimmy Carter. President Carter was hit by the disastrous Iran hostage crisis. With ties deepening between America and the papacy during the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush in particular, two more major national disaster can be identified - the 9/11 attacks of 2001 and the great recession of 2008. Then came Pope Francis' triumphal "Royal Progress" of 2015, followed in the next year by the election of Donald Trump. We are now witnessing national ruin on an unimaginable scale. The very structure of America's federal government is disintegrating before our eyes:

Trump Is Dragging American Governance Into the Fourth Regime, Whether We're Ready or Not

Social media, governmental dysfunction, and Supreme Court malfeasance have all combined to create an atmosphere ripe for constitutional chaos.

The first 18 months of Donald Trump's presidency have been the most transformative for the United States' federal government since the New Deal—but rather than expand the institutions of government, Trump has effectively destroyed them.

This is not an exaggeration. Beyond merely trimming the fat of America's bloated federal bureaucracy, the Trump administration has effectively waged war on federal agencies. The Department of State is a shadow of its former self; the Environmental Protection Agency has shrunk to Reagan-era levels; the entire federal workforce itself shed some 16,000 positions in the first year of the Trump presidency. One-time Trump consigliere Steve Bannon pledged shortly after the former took office that the administration's core objective was the "deconstruction of the administrative state," and he wasn't lying: While policies were once determined by collaborative processes, agencies are now forced to scramble to maintain the many, oft-conflicting decrees tweeted from the commander-in-chief's iPhone.

This Is How the Republican Party Plans to Destroy the Federal Government (A February 13, 2017, article)

The Overthrow Project existed before Trump, but it may not survive his presidency.

Before moderate Republicans became virtually extinct, the party advocated limited government. Today, however, President Trump is pursuing a radical shrinkage of the federal government that comes close to overthrowing it entirely. The goal of this project: to leave the country with a minuscule government that is basically an appendage to private enterprise. Call it the Overthrow Project.

The essence of the Overthrow Project is familiar: to reduce taxes on the very rich, free the business community from taxes and regulations that interfere with its money-making, and subsidize that community with public funds. In addition, the Overthrow Project aims to privatize as many governmental activities as possible. Left for government is the maintenance of the remaining public infrastructure that enables private enterprise to operate efficiently and safely, as well as the assurance of public safety through ever-higher funding of the military, the homeland-security apparatus, the police, and other forces of so called law and order.

Unlike conventional attempts by political parties to remain in power, the Overthrow Project also aims to obtain permanent control over all branches of the federal and state governments. That goal is pursued with an increasingly aggressive and norm-violating form of hardball politics only rarely seen in recent times. . .

Whether the project is a thought-out strategy or the skillful use of every opportunity to implement its far-right ideology will have to be determined by future historians. Either way, much of the Republican program and strategy originated in the many right-wing think tanks created and supported by the donor class and the business community.

Understanding the GOP’s various activities as a single project makes it possible to see the unstated purposes of these activities and how they are connected.

Donald Trump campaigned as a populist outsider and frequently attacked the Republican establishment. Nonetheless, he has always supported its Overthrow Project, adopting its goals and its hardball methods. In fact, Stephen Bannon, President Trump’s most senior adviser, has been quoted as saying, “Lenin wanted to destroy the state and that’s my goal too.”

Steve Bannon is no longer with the Trump Administration, but his ideological influence remains. This is because it is a Roman Catholic ideology that prevails. The foregoing article does not identify the Republican objectives as the same as those of the Church of Rome. No major publication would dare to confront the Church of Rome in that way; but we know that it is the power of the papacy that controls the Religious Right and the Republican Party. What the article calls the "Overthrow Project" is the Roman Catholic project.

The destructive actions of the Trump Administration range far and wide, and spell national ruin:

Environmental Protections on the Chopping Block

The Trump Administration is rolling back a wide variety of regulations that protect our water, air, land, and public health in order to benefit high-pollution industries that donate heavily to political campaigns.

Although the numbers show that environmental regulations on the whole are good for the economy and have benefits that far exceed costs by preventing illness and death from dangerous pollution, Trump’s war on environmental protections has been relentless. The administration has targeted almost 80 environmental rules, including those meant to control greenhouse gases, coal ash waste, water pollution, mercury, and smog.

Trump’s “Presidential Executive Order on Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth,” directs that “[t]he heads of agencies shall review all existing regulations… that potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources, with particular attention to oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy resources.”

Both the nation and President Carter's legacy were affected adversely by his grievous mistake in embracing the papacy. Similarly, and in far greater measure, the nation and the legacy of Barack Obama are being denigrated as a result of the part he played in the triumphalism of the Roman pontiff:

How Trump is rolling back Obama’s legacy

During President Trump’s first year in office, Congress and his administration plan to review, revoke and overwrite key parts of his predecessor’s domestic legacy. . .

Builder-turned-president Donald Trump has in many ways made good on his promise to be a political wrecking ball. But, he has found more success using the executive branch to undo his predecessor’s legacy than in writing new legislation or working with Congress. . .

The extensive and detailed list which follows in the report is highly reprehensible, because the actions are inflicting grievous harm on the body politic in the process of systematically rolling back policies which benefitted nation.

Consider further the many ways in which the Trump Administration's policies and enactments are ruinous for the nation: 

Trump trillion-dollar-plus deficits are putting America on a path to fiscal ruin

Though no one in Washington will admit it, our nation's finances are in deep trouble. Spending is up, revenue is down, and this will only get worse.

It became very clear this month that neither the Trump White House nor its allies on Capitol Hill want you to know that the federal budget is already in very bad shape ... and getting worse. . .

Unlike the trillion dollar budget deficits that occurred during the Obama administration that were temporary and largely the result of the Great Recession, the Trump deficits that will soon reach and exceed $1 trillion are permanent and will only get worse in the years ahead.

Trump is destroying the U.S.’ global image

After 19 months of Donald Trump being the president, it might seem folly to seek a single area in which he has done the most damage. But I’d like to suggest one, which seems to me at least the most comprehensive: he has undermined the rule of law, both nationally and internationally.

The damage he’s done nationally to legal norms is well recognized. He has personally violated the law, both constitutionally and statutorily, in conspiring with a foreign power to turn the 2016 elections in his favor; in obstructing justice by seeking to thwart the investigation of the matter, including the dismissal of the chief investigator; in profiting grossly from his office in violation of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution; in attacking and discrediting the fundamental instruments of law and justice, the courts, Congress, and his own Justice Department; in systematically undermining laws he doesn’t like and bending others to his will against their express intent. He has acted, in short, despotically.

And yet, I’d suggest, it is in the world at large that he has done the greatest damage. He’s played the schoolyard bully around the globe, smashed or neutered long-established alliances, walked out on treaties, thrown the world economy into disarray, and threatened annihilation against those who defy his will. This has received far too little attention at home, and very little pushback. But the rest of the world has paid great attention, and the image of America as a nation gone rogue will have lasting consequences that will be hard to undo.

Donald Trump’s War on Democracy

The president’s actions have been much more sinister than just tantrums and Twitter antics.

During a lifetime of make-believe, Donald Trump has never pretended to be a conventional politician. When he finally decided to make a serious bid for office, he built his presidential aspirations on the flimsiest of foundations: a wild conspiracy theory about Barack Obama’s birthplace. His leadership bona fides were equally laughable, having presided over bankrupt casinos and failed real-estate projects, fabricated the persona of a lady-killer, and created a reality TV show about a tin-pot entrepreneur.

It wasn’t difficult to predict how all this would end up politically. Plenty of oddballs had run for president, from Jello Biafra to Roseanne Barr, and gotten nowhere. The guardrails of American democracy were set up to prevent just such outsiders from making it anywhere near the Oval Office. Donald Trump’s three presidential qualifications—money, name recognition, and unbounded arrogance—were obviously not enough to overcome his lack of sway with party bosses. Seasoned politicians and backroom operators, the putative “adults in the room,” had spent years ridiculing the blowhard with the bad hair banging on the door and demanding red-carpet treatment.

And then, of course, he won. In the 2016 presidential election, the guardrails of democracy collapsed. The Electoral College, designed to weed out all those with what Alexander Hamilton had once called “talents for low intrigue and the little arts of popularity,” delivered a victory to a candidate who had talents for little else. As Jeff Greenfield wrote at Politico immediately after the elections,

“The blunt fact is that many of the guardrails that were supposed to protect the world’s oldest functioning democracy have been shown to be perilously weak, as vulnerable to assault as the Maginot Line was in the face of the German army some 75 years ago.”

Donald Trump is destroying America’s democracy

It is said that we get the government we deserve. If so, what have we done to get the incompetent who now holds the office of presidency once occupied by Lincoln, Roosevelt, Eisenhower and so many others?

This man, who had five draft deferments, seems to have no hesitation in threatening to use our military without considering the results or consequences. He took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution but demeans and degrades those who use their First Amendment rights of freedom of the press or speech. He has no regard for the rule of law and thinks he can disregard any law he doesn’t like.

He has alienated our allies, strengthened our enemies and weakened national security. He lies or misrepresents facts, blames others for his mistakes and then denies he ever said or did those things. His administration appointees are weakening or destroying the hard work done in the past to protect the public health and welfare. All the while he is using his office to enrich himself and his family.

Members of Congress, meanwhile, sit quietly by, refusing to use their power to restrain the executive branch. This president is not making America great. He is ruining our democracy.

ROMAN CATHOLIC RESPONSIBILITY AS FORECAST BY A. T. JONES

The prophetic statements of Ellen G. White are being fulfilled. It is essential to recognize that the national ruin now undermining the democratic institutions and governance of the United States of America is precisely what the Church of Rome has sought to achieve for over one hundred years. A. T. Jones' masterful analysis of the papal aims of Leo XIII deserves careful reading, because it explains what seems to be inexplicable in America's present state of affairs:

THE PAPACY

And she is acting without hindrance. Now I am not saying that the constitution should be in such shape that Congress could legislate against the papacy. Not at all. The surest safeguard against the papacy is the constitution as it is, but under the circumstances she is making that the surest means to the dominance of the papacy. Leo continues:

Yet, though all this is true, it would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the church or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for state and church to be, as in America, dissevered and divorced.

Although the church has prospered under this constitution and has here the finest chance and prospect of any place on the earth, that is not to be taken as evidence that it is better to have the church and the state separate. Oh, no, because before he gets done with this paragraph, he teaches that they shall be joined. Here are his words:

The fact that Catholicity with you is in good condition, nay, is even enjoying a prosperous growth, is by all means to be attributed to the fecundity with which God has endowed His church, in virtue of which, unless men or circumstances interfere, she spontaneously expands and propagates herself, but she would bring forth more abundant fruits if, in addition to liberty, she enjoyed the favor of the laws and the patronage of the public authority.

It is not enough that she shall be free and unmolested; she must be favored and supported before she is satisfied, and although the constitution leaves her totally unfettered, that is not enough. And although she prospers under it, that is not enough. Nothing can satisfy but that she shall be supported and favored by the laws and the public authority. . .

You see he is watching America for these greater things in view of "the times to come."

Now it is our wish that the Catholic church should not only share in but help to bring about this prospective greatness. We deem it right and proper that she should by availing herself of the opportunities daily presented to her, keep equal step with the Republic in the march of improvement, at the same time striving to the utmost, by her virtue and her institutions, to aid in the rapid growth of the States. Now she will attain both these objects the more easily and abundantly, in proportion to the degree in which the future shall find her constitution perfected. [That is, the church's constitution.] But what is the meaning of the legation [that is, Satolli's position] of which we are speaking? or what its ultimate aim, except to bring it about that the constitution of the church shall be strengthened, her discipline better fortified?

There is the whole situation laid out. The church sees herself in need of a new formation, a new molding of machinery and of the framework by which she carries forward her work and imposes her doctrines and dogmas upon the peoples of the earth. The United States is leading the nations, and she joins herself to this in view of the times to come and by reclothing herself, remodeling herself, intends to use this nation as the chief agent in her schemes. Here is a most forcible figure of this in the letter from Rome before quoted from the Catholic Standard of November 3, 1894:

Now to the mind of Leo XIII so receptive to the broad and fruitful ideas of Cardinal Gibbons, of Monsignors Ireland and Keane, Europe is going through the process of casting off its slough.

Europe here relates to the papacy as the chief of all and she proposes to cast off her slough, as the snake casts off its skin, and applying the argument and allowing the papacy to speak for herself, it is a very appropriate figure, because the Scripture says that she is actuated by that "old serpent." It is correct, and she casts off her old rough, worn skin and is coming out in such a new skin, so beautiful and so rosy that thousands of Protestants think it is another thing altogether, but God says it is the same old serpent, whether it be in the same old skin or not. It is the same old serpent in her new skin, working the same way for the same purposes for bringing the nations under her hand and she now proposes to do it, and will do it.

I must read a few more statements and make a few more comments. I read from the Catholic Standard of November 3, 1894, as follows:

There is an awakening, a metamorphosis, uneasiness and hope. The tradition is that in ancient Rome there were such strange expectations while the tragedy on Golgotha was being enacted and even now mysterious voices may be heard announcing that Great Pan is dead. What new order will arise? Will humanity be once more its own dupe? and will the old evils appear again under new names to people the world once more with false gods? Who knows?

The idea is suggested there that nobody knows what the answer will be. Now he tells:

What we do know is that a world is in its death agony.

Is it not time that Seventh-day Adventists knew that thing full well too? The papacy knows that the world is in its death agony. Do you know that? If you know it, is it not your place to tell it to the world, as well as it is the place of the papacy to tell it to the world? What has God given us this message for all these years but that we may show that the world is in its death agony and that we may tell the people so, that they may turn to the Author of life and be saved when the agony brings the last result? The papacy knows this, and she is acting in view of it. I will now read the rest of the sentence:

What we do know is that a world is in its death agony, and that we are entering upon the night which must inevitably precede the dawn.

Of course we are. "Watchman, what of the night? Watchman, what of the night? The watchman said. The morning cometh, and also the night."

Continuing I read:-

In this evolution, the church, in the eyes of the pope, has a mission to fill.

This is in view of the times to come. What is she looking for? A world in its death agony. All nations uneasy, society racked, everything going to pieces as it is.[1] The papacy sees all that is going on and expects it to go on until the finish, and out of the agony and the tearing to pieces that comes with it, she expects to exalt herself once more to the supremacy over the nations, as she did of old. And she is going to do it; we know that. The Scriptures point that out.

She sees precisely what we see. We see the world in its death agony. We see society racking itself to pieces. We see thrones trembling. She sees that too, and she proposes to exalt herself upon what comes through all this at the end. We see that coming. We know she is going to do it, for her triumph comes out of this death agony. She gains new life herself and then glorifies herself upon it, living deliciously. . . .saying in her heart, I sit a queen and am no widow and shall see no sorrow. Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death and mourning and famine. And she shall be utterly burned with fire, for strong is the God who judgeth her.

Are we not, then, in the very whirl of events that brings that thing before the whirl shall stop? We are in it; the whirl is going on. What are we here for but to tell the people that the world is in its death agony and to call upon them to flee to Him who is the life of all?

Has not the papacy had experience in just that thing? Has not the papacy seen, practically, the world once in its death agony? The Roman Empire was the world; all civilization was embraced within its limits, was under its control. She saw the Roman Empire go to pieces; she saw universal anarchy there. As the world then stood and then was, she saw the world once in its death agony, and out of that death agony of the world she exalted herself to the supremacy that she had in the Dark Ages and wrought the mischief that cursed the world so long. She sees the same elements working again--the same movements again going on among the nations, and she congratulates herself. "We did it once. Once I rose upon the ruins of that thing. I will do it again. That demonstrated to the world in that day that I was superior to all earthly things. This will demonstrate to the world in this day--large as it is--'I am, and there is none else beside me.' I shall be a lady forever. 'I sit a queen and am no widow and shall see no sorrow.'"

That is her tone. That is what she is watching for, and God has opened this up to us in the prophecies that are before us and he wants us to call to all the people that the world is in its death agony. She raised herself upon the ruins of the death agony of the Roman world, and after the pattern of her old experience, she proposes to do the like thing now. She will succeed; that is certain. And it is likewise certain that her success will be her certain ruin, and therefore, "Come out of her my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins and that ye receive not of her plagues."  (Underscored emphasis added.)

THE HIDDEN ACTIVISTS

This website has amply documented the historical fact that the Republican Party was taken over by the Church of Rome behind the facade of a Protestant Religious Right movement. The documentation has come from Roman Catholic publications, including the USCCB's pastoral letters, and admissions of open activists. However, long before this event, the Jesuits had established an innocuous reputation in America as educators; but they have had a secretive and sinister history which is well-documented in the chapter of Christian Edwardson's book Facts of Faith titled THE JESUITS. There can be little doubt that the Society of Jesus has played a secret and major role in the Catholicization of America and the Church of Rome's ascendancy to political power. Note in particular the following passages written by Edwardson:

When we reflect upon their past history, and remember that the Jesuits have been expelled from fifty different countries, seven times from England, and nine times from France, and from the Papal States themselves, there must be a reason why civil governments, Catholic as well as Protestant, have found it necessary to take such steps. Only in countries such as the United States, where they are allowed to carry on their work peaceably, we hear little of them. But some day Americans may wake up to find our present generation completely Romanized, and our boasted "liberty" a thing of the past. The prophet declares: "And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; . . . and by peace shall destroy many.” Daniel 8: 25. Any one desiring to know the historical facts should read the “History of the Jesuits,” by T. Griesinger, and “The Roman Catholic Church,” by F. T. Morton, pp. 167, 168. . .

Those who feel that the foregoing facts constitute no danger to American civil and religious liberty, would do well to remember that the Jesuits carry on an extensive educational program in this country, and that, according to their textbooks, their principles of civil government are diametrically opposed to the American ideas of separation of church and state. See their "Manual of Christian Doctrine, by a Seminary Professor," pp. 131-133. Philadelphia: 1915. The author has stated the foregoing facts, not because of any enmity towards Jesuits as individuals, nor to Catholics in general, but only from a feeling of responsibility to enlighten the American people regarding a public danger. We can truly love the persons, while we warn people against their dangerous tendencies. If we did not sincerely love everybody, we would not be true Christians. (Matthew 5: 43-48)

JERUSALEM CROSSCURRENTS AND THE PROPHETIC WORD

IDENTIFYING THE KING REFERRED TO IN DANIEL 11:45

The exegesis of Luke 21:24 which holds that the year 1980 marked the completed fulfillment of Jesus' Own Prophecy has been amply confirmed as correct by history and current events. The one remaining major prophecy to be fulfilled as a sign that intercession for humanity by Jesus Christ in the Heavenly Sanctuary is about to end is Dan. 11:45. It is a certainty that Satan does not want any human being to understand any prophecies; least of all those that enable believers to correctly interpret the closing events of earth's history. He has other plans. Regrettably, there is a confusion of interpretations of Dan. 11:45 in contemporary Seventh-day Adventism. No doubt the devil seeks to obscure the significance of current events in Palestine, Jerusalem, and the Middle East which point to the coming fulfillment of the prophecy. Exegetically it is clear that the papacy is "the King" of Dan. 11:36. It follows logically that the "he" and "him" of Dan. 11:40-45 must be the papacy. This is so obvious when reading Dan. 11:36-45 in context as written in the Bible that it seems a mystery why so many in Seventh-day Adventism insist that the pronouns refer to the "King of the North." This is perplexing, because it is probably a majority who also incorrectly identify the "King of the North" as the papacy. Is recognizing the papacy as the one prophesied by Daniel to "plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain" a saving factor even though the papacy is mistakenly identified as the "King of the North?" - a serious question for those who cannot see that Dan. 11:36-39 flows logically right into verse 40. It is then crystal clear that both the King of the South and the King of the North battle against this third King, who is the actor in verse 45. Wrongly identifying the papacy as the King of the North could be a fatal mistake. It is difficult enough to read the significance of current events with a correct understanding that "the King" of verse 36 is the "he" and the "him" of verses 40 and 45.

THE HISTORICAL RECORD

There is overwhelming evidence in the historical record that events in Palestine have been wholly consistent with the identification of the papacy as the central figure of Dan. 11:45. It is the papacy which with single-minded determination has focused its own and the world's attention on Jerusalem. Rome's objective came closest to achievement in 1993. Negative developments have followed in succession over the years since then, beginning with Benjamin Netanyahu's defeat of Peres for the Premiership of Israel in 1996.

INTENSIFYING ATTEMPTS TO OBSTRUCT

With the recent major event of America's recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and the opening of the Embassy on May 14, 2018, prospects for the papacy's plan seem more remote than ever (Cf. Republicans celebrate opening of US embassy in Jerusalem). Netanyahu seeks to cap it off by luring the embassies of the world's nations to Jerusalem:-

From [D]@gmail.com:

Israel to Build Diplomatic Compound in Jerusalem Despite Uproar

Israel is advancing plans for a 25-acre (10-hectare) diplomatic compound to house embassies it expects will move to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv following the relocation of the U.S. mission in May.

The area, located near the U.S. Embassy, will be able to accommodate several missions as well as nearby housing for staffers, according to a Construction and Housing Ministry statement on Wednesday. . .

Guatemala transferred its embassy to Jerusalem shortly after the U.S. move, and Brazil and Australia have signaled their intention to do so, too. Paraguay moved its embassy after Guatemala did, then recanted.

World leaders from the Vatican to Tehran, who consider Jerusalem contested territory due to Palestinian claims on its eastern sector, denounced the U.S. transfer, and the Palestinians have cut off ties with Washington.

More on the ambitious plan:

Israel preparing Jerusalem compound for embassies

In hopes other countries follow US example, Housing and Construction Ministry leads plan for 'diplomatic quarter' built over 25 acres in East Talpiot; 'Hurry up, the best spots are running out,' Minister Galant tells international community.

The Housing and Construction Ministry is planning a secure diplomatic complex in Jerusalem to house embassies that Israel hopes would follow the US and Guatemala's lead and move to the capital.

The plan, which was initiated by Minister Yoav Galant, will see the construction of a quarter that will include embassies, residential buildings for embassy employees and residences for ambassadors.

The embassies complex will be built over 100 dunams (25 acres) in the neighborhood of East Talpiot, close to the new American Embassy and some 1.5 kilometers (1 mile) from the separation barrier.

If more embassies move to the capital and the need arises for another complex, it will be built in the Rekhes Lavan neighborhood. . .

"I'm convinced many additional countries will move their embassies to Jerusalem," Minister Galant said. "Therefore, I've instructed the professional ranks in the Housing and Construction Ministry to create appropriate solutions for a location for the embassies in the future, among other things in a special 'diplomatic quarter.'"

"I turn to the international community and say: Moving your embassies to Jerusalem, our eternal capital, is the right thing to do. Hurry up, the best spots are running out," he added.

The right-wing Zionists in Israel are riding high; evidently believing that expansion of the State of Israel to include all of the Palestinian occupied territory can be achieved. In this they are supported by a powerful religio-political movement:

Christian Zionism, by Dr. Ninan Koshy

Christian Zionism is a modern theological and political movement that embraces the most extreme ideological positions of Zionism, thereby becoming detrimental to a just peace within Palestine and Israel. The Christian Zionist programme provides a worldview where the Gospel is identified with the ideology of empire, colonialism and militarism. In its extreme form it places an emphasis on apocalyptic events leading to the end of history rather than bringing Christ’s love and justice today. (Sabeel) (1)

The origins of Christian Zionism lie in the theology of dispensationalism, an approach to biblical interpretation that emerged in 19th century England, largely through the efforts of Anglican ministers Louis Way and John Nelson Darby. Dispensationalism is a form of pre-millenialism, which asserts that the world will experience a period of worsening tribulations until Christ comes. Darby added several unique features to Way’s teachings including the doctrine of “Rapture” whereby “born-again Christians” would be literally removed from history and transferred to heaven prior to Jesus’ return. Like many other Christians, dispensationalists believe that Christ’s return is foretold in Old and New Testament prophecies and that the return of Jews to Palestine is a key event in the pre-ordained process that will lead to the Second Coming. . .

The founding of the state of Israel in 1948 gave new vigour to the dispensationalist movement. Perhaps more important than this was the Six-Day War in 1967 which the leaders of the movement say was a “miracle of God”. These two events are the historical touch-points for the Christian Zionist movement. Dispensationalists interpreted Israel’s seizure of all of Jerusalem and the West Bank (which like Israel’s Likud Party they refer to as Judea and Samaria) as the fulfillment of the Old and New Testament Prophecies. These “signs” encouraged them as fulfillment of part of the prophecy as they understood. Christian Zionists sensed that ‘end times’ were coming. . .

Christian Zionists oppose a two-state solution or any other form of territorial concession to the Palestinians. They denounce any division of the land. On the eve of Anwar Sadat’s breakthrough visit to Jerusalem in 1977, evangelical groups published advertisements in major newspapers saying that they viewed “with great concern any effort to carve out of the Jewish homeland another nation or political entity”. In 1996, the Third International Christian Zionist Congress resolved that ‘the Land which He promised to His people is not to be partitioned…It would be further error for the nations to recognize a Palestinian state in any part of Eretz Israel”

This would make impossible any resolution for just peace with the Palestinians, including the two-state solution that is the basis of all peace plans of the past decades. Christian Zionists also tend to overlook or even excuse the blatant and well-documented acts of violence of many Jewish settlers against Palestinians. What makes this even more problematic and hurtful from a Palestinian point of view, particularly to Christian Palestinians who expect a more sympathetic response from fellow Christians, is that Christian Zionists for the most part project a ‘maximalist’ stance on the issue of land ownership. They insist that the boundaries of the Jewish state should conform to a biblical map that includes not only the present state of Israel, but the whole of the Occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip as well, territories they call ‘Judea and Samaria”. In this Christian Zionists have adopted, which is considered even by many Israelis to be the most extreme and problematical position viz. the occupation – that of the militant settler movement.

PREVAILING FRUSTRATIONS CONFRONTING ZIONISTS

In spite of the Zionist power bloc's views on Jerusalem and "Eretz Yisrael," attempts to establish embassies in Jerusalem have faltered in the past, with skittish governments moving embassies to the City only to reverse themselves:

Trump, Take Note: How Jerusalem Went From Hosting 16 Embassies to Zero

The U.S. and a handful other nations are moving their embassies to Jerusalem. But in the past other countries – including Chile, the Netherlands and Kenya – sent ambassadors to the city, and then left.

Just two days after the festive rededication of the U.S. Consulate in the neighborhood of Arnona as the new U.S. Embassy, Guatemala will also transfer its embassy to the capital, and Paraguay is expected to follow suit by the end of the month. Honduras, too, has announced plans to transfer its legation to Jerusalem.

For Guatemala, however, the move to Jerusalem will actually be a return. In fact, there was a period in Israel’s short history when it was one of at least 16 states that had their ambassadors stationed in the city.

Three of them were African nations – Ivory Coast, Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo) and Kenya; 11 were from Latin American countries – Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Panama, Uruguay and Venezuela, in addition to Guatemala – which began opening embassies there as early as the 1950s; as well as the Netherlands and Haiti.

The stationing of their embassies in Jerusalem did not constitute de jure recognition of the city as Israel’s capital: the universal consensus was and remains that the status of Jerusalem must be decided upon by Israel and the Palestinians in negotiations.

Though this seems very far away today, the general expectation has always been that with the establishment of a Palestinian state, both it and Israel would share the city as a joint capital – the former based in the east, and the latter in the west. . .

So how did Jerusalem go from hosting 16 embassies to zero? The first blow occurred after the Yom Kippur War, when Ivory Coast, Zaire and Kenya all severed relations with Israel following a meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement in Algiers in September 1973. Though all three eventually restored relations with Israel – Zaire in 1981, Ivory Coast in 1986 and Kenya in 1988 – ultimately their reopened legations were based in the Tel Aviv area.

The remaining 13 states shuttered their Jerusalem embassies in 1980, following the Knesset’s passage of the Basic Law on Jerusalem, the Capital of Israel, which stated that the city would remain the “complete and united capital of Israel.”

Though the law did not substantially change the situation that had existed on the ground since Israel had reunited the divided city in June 1967, expanding its boundaries by a factor of three, the UN Security Council perceived the move as a provocation and condemned it as a violation of international law. Security Council Resolution 478 in August 1980 called upon member states to remove their diplomatic missions from Jerusalem.

Although both Costa Rica and El Salvador brought their embassies back to West Jerusalem for a spell, beginning in 1984, by 2006 they had once again left the city. (Bolivia broke off relations with Israel altogether in 2009.)

The UN Security Council is clearly not without influence, and there are surely other political forces resisting Israel's efforts to legitimize the idea of Eretz Yisrael and her claim to undivided sovereignty over Jerusalem.

THERE ARE WARNINGS

There have been warnings against overconfidence:

Jerusalem ignores the UN’s forgotten partition plan of 2012 at its peril (A November, 2017, article)

As Israel hails General Assembly’s Resolution 181 as a harbinger of independence in 1947, few note that the same body overwhelmingly endorsed Palestinian statehood 5 years ago

Many Israelis celebrated Wednesday as a “holiday” marking the 70th anniversary of the United Nations Partition Plan. In the eyes of much of the Israeli public, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 marked the first time in two millennia that the world gave its approval to independence for the Jewish people in its ancestral homeland.

But on November 29 there was another significant anniversary, one that Israelis — and even Palestinians — curiously neglected to mark: Exactly five years ago, the very same General Assembly overwhelmingly recognized “Palestine” as a state, and called for an Israeli withdrawal from all territories it captured in 1967. . .

But in countless statements marking the event, neither Israelis nor Palestinians noted UN General Assembly Resolution A/67/L.28, which was passed in 2012.

Besides according “Palestine” nonmember observer state status in the UN, the resolution reaffirmed “the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967.” It also endorsed the Palestinians’ desire to become full-fledged members of the UN (though that can only be effected by the Security Council, where so far the US has vetoed all such attempts).

Nearly three-quarters of voting countries — 138 — backed the text; only nine opposed and 41 abstained. . .

Resolution 181 mentions the words “Jewish state” 30 times; the 2012 resolution makes no mention of the concept.

“They have never been willing to accept what this very body recognized 65 years ago,” Prosor said in a speech following the vote.

Israel, on the other hand, continues to believe in partition, he argued, noting Netanyahu’s professed support for the creation of a demilitarized Palestinian state that recognizes Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.

“That’s right. Two states for two peoples,” Prosor said.

Netanyahu never formally rescinded the position, which he first formulated in a 2009 speech at Bar-Ilan University. But since the election of US President Donald Trump last year he has painstakingly avoided re-endorsing it, leaving some to argue he no longer believes in a two-state solution.

Israeli critics of the 2012 resolution posited at the time that a vote at the UN General Assembly would change nothing on the ground. That assertion was only partially correct. Palestine is still not an independent country, to be sure, but the new status conferred on it by the General Assembly opened the door for Ramallah to gain membership in international organizations such as the International Criminal Court (where it continues to pursue charges against Israeli leaders) and Interpol (where it now has access to the agency’s secure global police communications network).

Much changed between 1947 and 2012. And the world has shifted again in the past five years. But Israelis celebrating UN General Assembly Resolution 181 as a harbinger of Jewish statehood ignore the same body’s 2012 partition plan at their own peril.

Seventy years ago, a comfortable majority of the world’s nations backed a two-state solution accepted by the Jews but rejected by the Arabs. Today, the tables have turned: The Arabs now profess acceptance of a two-state solution, which much of the Israeli government opposes. The international community, however, still overwhelmingly endorses partition, to an even larger degree than in 1947.

Seventy years after it first affirmed the idea of an Arab state existing alongside a Jewish one in the Holy Land, the world is growing increasingly impatient about its implementation. As a consequence, parts of the international community have started calling for sanctions against Israel, such as boycotts and blacklists.

As Israelis extol the UN’s past endorsement of partition, maybe it’s time for them to contemplate whether Israel is still in favor of the idea, and if so, how to go about bringing it to fruition.

ATTEMPT TO PERMANENTLY SABOTAGE THE TWO-STATE SOLUTION

It can reasonably be argued that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has always been a hypocrite about a two-state solution to the conflict in Palestine. At the very time that he declared support for partition he laid down conditions that were certain to provoke rejection by the Palestinians:

Netanyahu Backs Palestinian State, With Caveats

The prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, on Sunday endorsed for the first time the principle of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, but on condition that the state was demilitarized and that the Palestinians recognized Israel as the state of the Jewish people.

In a much-anticipated speech meant in part as an answer to President Obama’s address in Cairo on June 4, Mr. Netanyahu reversed his longstanding opposition to Palestinian statehood, a move seen as a concession to American pressure.

But he firmly rejected American demands for a complete freeze on Israeli settlements in the West Bank, the subject of a rare public dispute between Israel and its most important ally on an issue seen as critical to peace negotiations.

And even his assent on Palestinian statehood, given the caveats, was immediately rejected as a nonstarter by Palestinians. . .

Netanyahu's policies are seen as having destroyed the prospects for a two-state solution to the Palestine crisis:

We Should Thank Netanyahu for Destroying the Two-state Solution

Netanyahu was the one-state visionary. The struggle for its character lies with those who will follow him

Benjamin Netanyahu must be excoriated. One can understand those who are dying for him to just go away. It’s clear his time is almost up. But one cannot say he hasn’t done anything.

In his dozen years as prime minister he has changed the face of Israel in ways that he considers wildly successful. Some of the changes he’s made could be rolled back if only some worthy liberal leader was given the chance – a hope that for now seems far-fetched.

But there is one big, fateful change, the fruit of Netanyahu’s calculated policy, that is irreversible. Against the stance of the entire world, the United States, the Palestinian Authority and even against the declared position of most Israelis, Israel’s ninth prime minister has managed to remove the possibility of a viable Palestinian state from the agenda. He has irrevocably destroyed the two-state solution. Whether reelected or not, Netanyahu will be remembered as a revolutionary statesman; the man who shaped the country in his image.

It is very easy to detail the damage done by his governments, the destruction they sowed. But don’t say he didn’t do anything and that he was just here to survive. His supreme goal was and is to perpetuate the occupation, preserve Jewish superiority, and eradicate all resistance to both, in Israel and the world.

His success was greater than expected. Contrary to those who claimed the world wouldn’t let him, contrary to those who thought it would lead to awful bloodshed, contrary to those who predicted Israel’s status would be fatally undermined and it would be boycotted, ostracized and isolated, Netanyahu proved otherwise. He showed that Israel can thumb its nose at the whole world, and even at a large portion of its citizens; that the occupation and the settlers are stronger and more determined than any other force. Netanyahu proved it is possible not only to maintain the occupation, but to sabotage the chances of ending it without paying any price.

President Donald Trump appears to have placed his own seal of approval on the destruction of the two-state solution:

Two states? One state? In the end, Trump has destroyed the Palestinian peace process

It is difficult to know what the US president really wants, but so far his actions have spoken much louder than his words

Donald Trump likes to say and do "unpredictable" things. At the United Nations General Assembly meeting last week, he suddenly seemed to perform a U-turn by endorsing a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians. As is frequently the case with Mr. Trump's pronouncements, there may be less here than meets the eye.

The issue is crucial, because his relentless attacks on the Palestinian national movement have seemed to be aimed at obliterating even the notion of Palestinian sovereignty.

Mr. Trump began by vowing to achieve the "ultimate deal", but dropped the traditional American endorsement of a two-state solution. That might have been a crass marketing ploy: if you're selling a shack, call it a palace.

Mr. Trump probably realised early on that a fully accomplished peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians wasn't available in the short term, so his first instinct was to decouple the notion of "peace" from the realisation of a two-state arrangement. That way, he could market some kind of interim agreement as peace and claim his accolades and Nobel Prize.

But soon enough Mr. Trump’s team, led by his son-in-law Jared Kushner, took an increasingly uncompromising, harshly anti-Palestinian approach. When Palestinians reacted angrily to the US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital and Mr. Trump's insistence that the issue had been "taken off the table", a campaign of maximum pressure against them was launched.

Every single Palestinian-related civilian project underwritten by Washington has been defunded. Only the Palestinian Security Forces, which Israel relies on, are still supported. In addition to Jerusalem, Mr. Kushner has been trying to strip Palestinians of the refugee issue, seeking to close the UN agency responsible for Palestinian refugees and to redefine the overwhelming majority of them out of existence by removing their legal refugee status.

In case anyone didn't get the message fully, the Trump administration also closed the de facto Palestinian embassy in Washington.

It therefore became increasingly clear that the real goal of this campaign could not be the successful realisation of an interim agreement, let alone real peace. Nor could it be simply a clumsy effort to pummel Palestinians into being more compliant with a forthcoming US plan.

As the Trump administration shattered the logic and infrastructure of the Palestinian-Israeli peace process delineated in the 1993 Declaration of Principles, with its enumerated final status issues (two of which are Jerusalem and refugees), its intentions emerged as entirely destructive.

The real target of all of these measures, it seems clear, wasn't just Palestinian recalcitrance, or Israeli vulnerability on such issues as Jerusalem or refugees. Rather, it targeted the very notion of Palestinian sovereignty as a central theme in peacemaking and a consensus outcome of peace talks.

The US’s close ally, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has long insisted that Palestinians must accept a "state minus" in any peace deal. He reiterated that in an interview after his meeting with Trump.

A FURTHER COMPLICATION

As high as Zionism, Jewish and Christian, has been riding in opposition to the two-state solution and in favor of Eretz Yisrael, there has been a startling and contradictory development in relations between the Israeli government and the Arab Gulf States. This is a de facto alliance against their common enemy, Iran; but it is a complicated picture:

How Far Can Netanyahu Take Israel's Romance With the Arab World?

Despite warm receptions in Oman and Abu Dhabi, Israel shouldn't over-state the strength of its Gulf alliances. A common enemy like Iran can produce photo-ops and covert collaboration - but that isn't normalization

The last few weeks have seen a flurry of apparent breakthroughs in Israel’s foreign relations with the Arab world. A week ago, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited Oman, an Arab monarchy with which Israel lacks formal diplomatic ties.

The following weekend, Israeli Culture Minister Miri Regev was present at an international judoka tournament in Abu Dhabi where Hatikvah, the Israeli national anthem, was played for Israeli medal winners, a sharp departure from the Egyptian judoka who snubbed the offer of a handshake by his Israeli competitor in 2016.

Days after, Emirati officials accompanied Regev on a tour of their capital’s Grand Mosque, although the UAE, like 29 other Arab and Muslim states, does not recognize Israel. Minister of Communications Minister Ayoub Kara was also in the Emirates, although his trip was for a meeting of a United Nations agency.

Some have leveraged these developments to question the axiom that Israel’s international standing will suffer as the country drifts further and further away from a negotiated two-state solution. The Mitvim Institute’s recently released 2018 Israeli Foreign Policy Index showed that 49 percent of Israelis think a breakthrough with the Arab states is achievable even absent movement on the Palestinian track. On Wednesday, U.S. envoy Jason Greenblatt also praised this apparent progress.

Such sentiment – that Israel's relations with the Arab world are flourishing, rather than being diminished, by the lack of progress in resolving the conflict with the Palestinians - seems to gain traction whenever a Gulf Arab state makes even the most basic gesture toward the Jewish state.

But it was never quite so simple.

Israel’s position in the world is stronger today than it was for most of the country’s history. Netanyahu deserves some credit for this, but the groundwork for this shift occurred over two decades ago. . .

The Arab-Israeli conflict, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict especially, only have an immediate impact on a small number of countries. Israel’s relative isolation during its formative years was reflective of Arab state and Soviet influence, as well as communist, anti-colonial, and non-aligned political commitments in developing nations.

The end of the Cold War rendered these alliances obsolete, opening Israel to the world. This wasn’t the work of any one Israeli leader, but a side-effect of broader geopolitical events.

But the Arab and Muslim countries remained obstinate. Their quarrel with Israel was direct, not an extension of the East-West superpower struggle. Ultimately, Israel’s victory in the 1967 war removed the Jewish state’s total erasure as an objective for all but the most radical regimes, namely Syria and Iraq (later joined by Iran after the Islamic Revolution).

But it also opened up the question of Palestinian statehood on the newly occupied territories, especially after the 1980s: the catastrophe in Lebanon, the First Intifada, and the Palestinian declaration of independence. Progress on the Palestinian front would yield progress in regional integration. On the flipside, stagnation would keep the Arab world at arms length, and Israel’s ties with Egypt and Jordan would never evolve past a cold peace.

The heady days of the Oslo peace process saw officials in the Labor governments of Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres as guests in many countries that lacked relations with Israel. Like Netanyahu, Peres and Rabin visited Oman, but not just Oman. Morocco and Indonesia also welcomed the Israeli leader. Bahrain hosted an Israeli minister in 1994. As prime minister, Peres also traveled to Qatar.

It’s useful to juxtapose the circumstances informing Israeli foreign policy advancements in the 1990s versus today’s developments. Rabin and Peres were riding the wave of optimism surrounding a reinvigorated peace process. That diplomacy yielded real, lasting improvements. For instance, in 1994, Saudi Arabia and other members of the Gulf Cooperation Council stopped enforcing most elements of the Arab League boycott and ceased urging other countries to do the same.

Thus, in a way, Netanyahu is instrumentalizing the products of a peace process he vehemently opposed two decades ago, and has partly helped upend today.

But Netanyahu has also benefited from regional tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia and its allies. While the confrontation with Iran takes clear precedence over the Palestinian question in terms of immediate impact and importance to the Arab states, it will not last forever and so its benefits for Israel will likely prove ephemeral. A relationship that is a function of present circumstances is the basis for a tactical arrangement, not a lasting peace.

Recall that before Israel destroyed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor, Iran attempted to do the same thing. Israel coordinated its attack on their shared enemy with Tehran, and even continued arms sales to the Islamic Republic into the 1980s - well after the fall of the Shah. Where are the fruits of that alliance today?

A common enemy can produce some meetings and covert collaboration, but only a final status agreement with the Palestinians can inspire normalization. Jordan’s recent termination of leases on two small territories to Israel under the 1994 peace treaty, a concession to the country’s massive anti-Israel movement, is evidence of that. . .

Despite the real gains made by Israel’s government over the weekend and in previous years, Israel’s position vies-a-vies the Arab world is anything but normal. Playing a country’s national anthem at an international sporting event signals the most basic level of decorum, opening a trade office is pretty standard fare, and leaders exchange visits regularly. . .

That right-wing Israeli leaders and their supporters now fawn over the Gulf states for undertaking relatively simple steps only underscores the enormous room for growth that still remains. Israeli leaders could exploit the situation with Iran and recent minor openings to build Arab state support on the back of progress toward a comprehensive agreement with the Palestinians. But absent momentum with the Palestinians, sustainable growth with the rest of the Arab world will remain elusive.

Thus, the improved/improving relations between Israel and the Arab Gulf States rest on an unstable foundation.

OMINOUS THREATS AGAINST ISRAEL

As Israel gloats over her apparent success in defying world opinion, there are threats of boycotts and sanctions against her:

The UN’s resolution on Israel doesn’t include any sanctions. It could hurt Israel’s economy all the same. (December 29, 2016, article.)

It gives the green light to activist groups to accelerate campaigns aimed at striking Israel’s economic interests.

The high-profile United Nations resolution condemning Israeli settlements that passed last week does not impose any kind of financial sanctions or other punitive measures on Israel. What it does do, though, is essentially give the green light to activist groups and countries to accelerate campaigns aimed at striking Israel’s economic interests and weakening its international reputation. And that could potentially prove to be just as damaging.

In the past few years, movements like “boycott, divestment, and sanctions” (BDS), a campaign modeled off the economic activism that helped end apartheid in South Africa, have begun to gain traction in the West. And in November 2015, the European Union issued new guidelines on the labeling of imported goods that distinguish between goods from Israel proper and those from its settlements in occupied Palestinian territories, a policy that’s expected to hurt Israeli exports. Last month, France became the first country to enforce the new guidelines.

So far, the impact of these efforts have been modest, but if they continue to gain momentum with boosts like the UN resolution, real money is at stake: Experts estimate they could lop anywhere from $15 billion to $47 billion off the Israeli economy over the next decade.

That’s a substantial sum of money. But perhaps even more important is the psychological toll such economic pressure would exact on Israel’s government, forcing it to consider how its already beleaguered international reputation could slide even further. That in turn could change the calculations the Israeli government makes about the price it’s willing to pay for its defense of settlements. . .

BDS itself has been around for more than a decade, and it enjoys high levels of support among Palestinians, in part because it seems to have better prospects of effecting change than the divided and anemic Palestinian political leadership. But it’s really in the past few years that it’s begun to gain international prominence, evolving from a fringe movement to an adversary of Israel worthy of harsh criticism from the prime minister himself.

The BDS movement’s accomplishments mainly fit under the “B” and “D” categories — it has been successful in promoting sustained boycotts and divestment — but it hasn’t persuaded state governments, which don’t want to interfere with the Washington-mediated peace process, to impose sanctions on Israel.

In the past few years, scores of universities, pension funds, churches, and unions in the US, Europe, and elsewhere have supported BDS by boycotting Israeli goods and investments. The United Methodist Church’s $20 billion pension board, the biggest pension fund asset manager in the US, blacklisted the five largest Israeli banks. Norway’s $810 billion Government Pension Fund Global, the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund, blacklisted two Israeli companies over their involvement in settlement building in East Jerusalem. . .

The international impact of BDS is cause for concern in Israel, and inspires hope for the Palestinians:

BDS: how a controversial non-violent movement has transformed the Israeli-Palestinian debate

Israel sees the international boycott campaign as an existential threat to the Jewish state. Palestinians regard it as their last resort.

The movement for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel – known as BDS – has been driving the world a little bit mad. Since its founding 13 years ago, it has acquired nearly as many enemies as the Israelis and Palestinians combined. It has hindered the efforts of Arab states to fully break their own decades-old boycott in pursuit of increasingly overt cooperation with Israel. It has shamed the Palestinian Authority government in Ramallah by denouncing its security and economic collaboration with Israel’s army and military administration. It has annoyed the Palestine Liberation Organization by encroaching on its position as the internationally recognised advocate and representative of Palestinians worldwide.

In an era of corporate social responsibility, BDS has given bad publicity to major businesses tied up in Israel’s occupation and helped push other large firms out of the West Bank. It has disrupted film festivals, concerts and exhibitions around the world. It has riled academic and sports organisations by politicising them, demanding that they take a stand on the highly divisive conflict. It has angered Palestinian performers and artists who work with Israeli institutions, accusing them of giving Palestinian cover for Israel’s human rights violations.

In the UK, BDS has brought turmoil to courts and local councils, embroiling them in disputes over the legality of local boycotts of settlement goods. In the US, BDS has caused two dozen states to pass bills or issue orders inhibiting or penalising those boycotting Israel or its settlements, pitting Israel’s allies against free speech advocates such as the American Civil Liberties Union. It has ignited debates in Protestant churches in the US, some of the largest of which have divested from companies that profit from Israel’s occupation. It has become the bane of college administrators, forced to adjudicate complaints from BDS-supporting professors and students that their free speech has been stifled, and claims by Zionist faculty, donors and undergraduates that their campuses have become “unsafe” spaces. It has pulled liberals toward greater support for the Palestinians, making Israel an increasingly partisan issue in the US, associated less with Democrats and progressives than with Trump, evangelicals and the far right. . .

For many diaspora Jews, BDS has become a symbol of evil and repository of dread, a nefarious force transforming the Israel-Palestine debate from a negotiation over the end of the occupation and the division of territory into an argument about the conflict’s older and deeper roots: the original displacement of most of the Palestinians, and, on the ruins of their conquered villages, the establishment of a Jewish state. The emergence of the BDS movement has revived old questions about the legitimacy of Zionism, how to justify the privileging of Jewish over non-Jewish rights, and why refugees can return to their homes in other conflicts but not in this one. Above all, it has underscored an awkward issue that cannot be indefinitely neglected: whether Israel, even if it were to cease its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, can be both a democracy and a Jewish state. . .

It is significant, given the Vatican's role in the creation of the European Union, that sanctions against Israel have been considered in the past ('EU report urges sanctions against Israel over Jerusalem policies'.) The BDS movement has become entangled with EU policies, which have included sanctions against Israeli products made in Israeli settlements:

The E.U. vs. B.D.S.: the Politics of Israel Sanctions (A January 22, 2016 report.)

This past Monday, the European Union’s Foreign Affairs Council reaffirmed a November requirement that Israel label products made in the settlements differently from those made in Israel. On Tuesday, the State Department spokesman John Kirby unexpectedly reinforced the E.U. position, saying that “construction, planning, and retroactive legalization of settlements” is illegitimate, and that the U.S. does “not view labelling the origin of products as being from the settlements as a boycott of Israel.”

The E.U.’s action, and the Obama Administration’s concurrence, might seem unremarkable. Their opposition to settlements is long-standing. The E.U. labelling requirement, which would apply to little more than one percent of the fourteen billion dollars in goods and services Israel exports to the E.U., is a practical matter, since settlement products were never subject to a free-trade agreement between the two. E.U. ministers, too, were careful to insist that they don’t consider their action “a boycott of Israel, which the E.U. opposes”; there is an obvious difference between opposing the Israeli government’s policies and opposing the state’s existence.

Predictably, though, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded to the November resolution with indignation. “The E.U. decided to mark only [goods made by] Israel, and we are unwilling to accept the fact that E.U. labels the side being attacked by terror.” His justice minister, the Jewish Home Party member Ayelet Shaked, called Brussels “anti-Israel and anti-Jewish.” Most senior opposition leaders have toed the government line. The Labor Party leader, Isaac Herzog, conjured a parallel between the E.U.’s decision and the U.N.’s 1974 “Zionism is Racism” resolution, which his father, Chaim Herzog, Israel’s U.N. ambassador at the time, famously denounced. Yair Lapid, another opposition leader, accused the E.U. of “capitulating to the worst elements of jihad”; labelling “is a direct continuation of the boycott movement against Israel, which is anti-Semitic and misguided,” he said.

The near unison reflects growing dread of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (B.D.S.) movement targeting Israel, which is separate from any E.U. measures, but is often considered part of a mounting threat of isolation. Formally, the B.D.S. movement began with a 2005 Palestinian campaign—endorsed by more than a hundred and seventy Palestinian civil-society organizations—to encourage public condemnation in the West of the occupation, the settlements, and, arguably, their ideological roots. Leaders of the B.D.S. movement have also called for “full equality” for Palestinian citizens in Israel proper and endorsed the demand for a Palestinian right of return. Omar Barghouti, a founder of the movement, insists that B.D.S. does not threaten Israel’s survival but rather its “unjust order.” Given the ambiguity of the movement’s demands, this is a reassurance that few Israelis can take comfort in.

Last year the EU strongly condemned an announcement of new settlements as the Palestinians called for sanctions against Israel:

EU blasts settlement homes announcement as Palestinians call for sanctions

State Department refrains from criticizing fresh West Bank building, says Israel taking Trump’s ‘concerns into consideration’

The European Union slammed Israel Thursday over its advancement of plans for more than 1,000 new homes in the West Bank, saying they threaten the establishment of a “contiguous and viable” Palestinian state.

On Wednesday, the Defense Ministry committee responsible for approving settlement construction gave final authorization to build 382 homes, while it also cleared another 620 for a planning stage known as a “deposit.”

“If implemented, these plans would further jeopardize the prospect of a contiguous and viable future Palestinian state,” the EU’s diplomatic arm said in a statement.

The bloc also reiterated its opposition to settlement construction, which it said is “illegal under international law and an obstacle to peace.”

“The European Union will continue to engage with both parties and with its international and regional partners to support a resumption of a meaningful process towards a negotiated two-state solution, the only realistic and viable way to fulfill the legitimate aspirations of both parties,” it said.

The comments came as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited Lithuania with the purpose of courting support within the eastern parts of the European Union.

Before taking off from Tel Aviv, Netanyahu said he wanted “to achieve a balance in the European Union’s not always friendly relations with Israel.”

DANIEL 11:45 PREDICTS THAT ROME WILL HAVE THE LAST WORD

Eretz Yisrael is far from a fait accompli, and in watching for the fulfillment of Dan. 11:45 it makes sense to pay close attention to the roles of Europe and BDS as well as the United Nations and other international bodies, upon all of which the Vatican exercises influence.

The Pope and the Vatican appeared to be passive about the US Embassy move to Jerusalem. It is now clear that while Rome is careful not to offend the Jewish and Christian Zionists, she reveals her true reaction through her proxy, the European Union.