Tree of Life Blog

Engaging Culture with the wisdom and power of Christ!

Category Archives: Endtimes

End Time Wars #1: War of Extermination

0

End Time Wars – #1 War of Extermination

David ReaganBy David Reagan

Every time a war breaks out in the Middle East, I receive a flurry of phone calls and email messages asking if it could be the War of Armageddon. This question is prompted by the fact that most people are familiar with only one end time war – the one that has been popularized in movies and novels as the “Battle of Armageddon.”

The concept comes from the book of Revelation where it says that armies will gather in the end times at a place “which in Hebrew is called Har-Magedon” (Revelation 16:16). This term literally means the Mount of Megiddo and refers to the ancient fortress of Megiddo that controlled the Valley of Jezreel. In English the word was transliterated as Armageddon, and the term came to be applied to the Valley of Jezreel which lies in front of Har-Magedon, running diagonally across Israel from Haifa to the Jordan River.

Most people are surprised to discover that there is no reference in the book of Revelation, or any other place in the Bible to the “Valley of Armageddon,” nor is there any reference to the “Battle of Armageddon” – but more about that later. People are even more surprised to learn that Bible prophecy reveals nine wars in the end times and that Armageddon relates to only one of these.

The Next Prophetic War

Most prophetic scholars have long believed that the next great end time war will be the War of Gog & Magog that is described in Ezekiel 38 and 39. This, for example is the stated position of Joel Rosenberg in his popular book, Epicenter. This war will start when Russia invades Israel with certain specified allies, all of whom are Muslim nations today.

But I seriously doubt that the conflict described in Ezekiel 38 and 39 will be the next war of end time Bible prophecy. There are two reasons why I feel this way.

First, there is a condition for the war of Ezekiel 38 and 39 that has not been met. Three times in Ezekiel 38 – in verses 8, 11, and 14 – it states that the war described in that chapter will not occur until the people of Israel are living “securely” in “unwalled villages.”

Israel is not living in security today. It is bombarded daily by missiles from Gaza, and it is constantly under the threat of missile attacks from Hezbollah in Lebanon. There is also the ever present threat of terrorist attacks, a threat that has forced Israel to construct a 400 mile long wall down the center of the country. In short, it is laughable today to even think of the Jewish people of Israel as living “securely” in “unwalled villages.”

The second reason I doubt that the war of Ezekiel 38 and 39 will be the next end time war of Bible prophecy is because the nations mentioned in Ezekiel 38:5-6 as the allies of Russia do not include a single Arab state with a border adjacent to Israel. The nations identified are Persia (Iran), Cush (most likely modern day Sudan), Put (Libya and possibly Algeria and Tunisia), and two regions that lie within modern day Turkey (Gomer and Bethtogarmah). There is no mention of the nations that share a common border with Israel – namely, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and Gaza.

Why are the nations located next to Israel not mentioned as allies of Russia? I believe the best explanation of this mystery is the one supplied by Bill Salus in his book, Isralestine. He proposes that the next end time prophetic war will be the one described in Psalm 83, a war between Israel and its neighbors. He believes this war will produce the conditions that are necessary for the war of Ezekiel 38 and 39, and I agree with that conclusion.

With that point clarified, let’s now take an overview of the end time prophetic wars in their likely chronological sequence, starting with the first in this series.

1) The War of Extermination – Psalm 83

The psalm states that the immediate neighbors of Israel will launch a war for the purpose of “wiping out Israel as a nation” (verse 4). The nations described as being a part of this nefarious effort are those with a common border with Israel today (verses 6-8). The rest of the psalm is a prayer for the victory of Israel (verses 9-18).

The outcome of the war is not stated, but we know from other scriptures that Israel will be victorious. For example, in Zechariah 12:6 we are told that in the end times Israel will be like “a firepot among pieces of wood and a flaming torch among sheaves, so they will consume on the right hand and on the left all the surrounding peoples…” Also, in Amos 9:15 we are told that once the Jews are re-established in their land, “they will not again be rooted out from their land.”

Bill Salus believes this war will result in an overwhelming victory for Israel, resulting in great territorial expansion and enhanced national resources. It will also produce the security spoken of in Ezekiel 38.

In the second installment of this “End Time Wars” series, we will look at the second war in the end times sequence – the First War of Gog & Magog.

Click Here to Read and Post Feedback

Send this page to a friend

Distributed by http://www.ChristianWorldviewNetwork.com

By Dr. David R. Reagan

Click here for bio and archived articles

Disclaimer: Worldview Weekend, Christian Worldview Network and its columnists do not necessarily endorse or agree with every opinion expressed in every article posted on this site. We do however, encourage a healthy and friendly debate on the issues of our day. Whether you agree or disagree, we encourage you to post your feedback by using the feedback button.

Last Days Mockers (Thomas Ice)

0

Know this first of all, that inthe last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their ownlusts, and saying, “Where is thepromise of His coming? For eversince the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginningof creation.” For when theymaintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavensexisted long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, throughwhich the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. But the present heavens and earth byHis word are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment anddestruction of ungodly men. -2 Peter 3:3-7

Peterwarns us in his second and final epistle that mockers would arise in the lastdays denying our Lord’s second advent. What is the Apostle Peter saying in this passage? Are we currently living in the “last days”of which he spoke? Who are themockers to which Peter is referring?

The LastDays

TheBible has almost three-dozen references to the last days, end of days, etc.[1] A majority of those passages refer tothe seven-year tribulation period, but Peter has in mind the last days of thechurch age, which is supported by the context. Peter wants the church to know “first of all” that therewill be a “time of trouble which will precede the close of the present age (2Tim. 3:1-5; 1 John 2:18-19).”[2] We are living in this time today.

Peter’swarning for our day is that “mockers will come with their mocking.” This phrase is also repeated in Jude 18without reporting to his readers an account of their mocking as we have here in2 Peter. Jude just says there willbe mockers in the last day. Lenskitells us, “Yes, the first thing they should know or realize is that ‘mockersshall come at the days’ end,” meaning that the second thing to realize is theParousia itself which shall come after these mockers have appeared.”[3] In the same vein Mayor notes, “Theexistence of these scoffers is a proof of that which they deny. It is one of the appointed signs of theapproach of the last day.”[4]

Sohere we are in the twenty-first century, it has been about 2,000 years sinceChrist left earth for heaven and we see last days mockers all around us. Certainly unbelievers and liberals denya future second coming and apply a uniformitarian rationale to this issue asdescribed in verse 4. However,there are others, even within Christendom, who deny that there will be a futuresecond coming of Christ. Chiefamong them are full preterists.[5] Also, partial preterists,[6]while still clinging to a future second coming, by and large scoff at those whobelieve the traditional understanding that Matthew 24 (see also Mark 13; Luke21), Revelation 1:7 and 19 teach a second return of Christ that is still futureto our time.

PreteristMocking of Future Return

GaryDeMar has become a partial preterist who seems to go out of his way to mockChristians who believe that Christ could come at any moment. Even though he admits that Christ willreturn in the distant future[7]the clear emphasis in his ministry is upon why Jesus cannot return in our dayand mocking those who believe He can. “We are not end-time scoffers,”[8]insists DeMar. Oh really?

Inhis book Last Days Madness, DeMar tells the story from Aesop’s fable of the shepherd boy whocried wolf and declares, “In the same way the people of God-the sheep-areharmed by continual shouts of ‘the end is near!'”[9] He continues, “By crying wolf and beingwrong each time, the church is perceived as unreliable.”[10] The fact of the matter is that Christ’sreturn is a one-time event. Justbecause some have been wrong in the past does not prove that He will not returnin the future. That is the pointPeter makes in 2 Peter 3 when he notes that such an assumption is undermined bywhat the mockers willingly ignore (3:5). They ignore God’s past intervention in history when He created the worldand judged it globally at the Flood (3:5-6). Just as in Aesop’s fable, the wolf did come, so also, Jesuswill return one day in the future. Just because Jesus has not returned in the past does not mean he willnot in the future.

TheDissolution of The Heavens and Earth

DeMardoes not think that last days mockers will ever come in the future since he believesthat the 2 Peter 3 passage was fulfilled by a.d.70. “But the day of the Lord willcome like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and theelements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works willbe burned up” (2 Pet. 3:10). Hesays, “the coming judgments were near for those who first read Peter’sletter. The scoffers were aliveand well in the first century. People have a right to mock and scoff when they read that Jesus was tocome within a generation and nearly 2000 year have passed.”[11] Are there no last days scoffers in ourday? How could there be last daysscoffers in our day if 2 Peter 3 was fulfilled 2,000 years ago? However, has 2 Peter 3 already beenfulfilled?

Afirst century fulfillment is so bizarre that even fellow partial preterists donot agree with DeMar on this point. Ken Gentry has given five reasons why 2 Peter 3 will be future and wasnot fulfilled in the first century. “First, the thrust of the book seems to promote a spiritual perseverance in anticipation of the historicallong run-a long run that ends up in the eternal new creation,”[12]notes Gentry. “Second, the mockersscoff at the promised second advent of Christ due to the long wait associatedwith it (2 Pet. 3:2-4, 9). Despitethe trials to come soon (2:9), Peter even suggests it may be thousands of yearsbefore Christ’s return, in that the delay is based on God’s time rather thanman’s . . . (3:8).”[13] When one realizes that 2 Peter waswritten within four to five years from the time that DeMar says it wasfulfilled, there would hardly be reasonable time for any fulfillment.

“Third,the longsuffering of the Lord is due to a process that is necessarily age-long. . . (2 Pet. 3:9) . . . (2 Pet. 3:15a). The process of calling the ‘all’ to ‘repentance’ unto salvation is onethat spans the entire inter-advental era and is still continuing today.”[14] So if DeMar’s view were true, thenthere was only a four to five year window of opportunity for salvation. Gentry further notes, “The way that we’hasten the coming of the day of God’ (3:12) is by evangelistic endeavor.”[15] DeMar’s first century fulfillment viewmakes no sense and is not workable at all in light of this passage. “Fourth, the reference to theunraveling and conflagration of the heavens and the earth is expressly tied tothe material creation. Hence, itseems clearly to refer to the consummation and not to a.d. 70.”[16] “Fifth, the strong detailed language ofthe destruction of the heavens and the earth seems to go beyond apocalypticimagery, referring to the actual consummation . . . (2 Pet. 3:10) . . .(3:12).”[17] This final point is such anunderstatement.

Conclusion

Clearlythere are last days mockers within the unbelieving world who deny the futurepossibility of Christ’s return due to an anti-supernatural bias. Those are obvious. It is also obvious that full preteristswithin Christendom do not ever believe that Jesus will return in the futurebecause they say He returned in a.d.70. The more subtle approachconcerning this matter is practiced by some like Gary DeMar who not onlyridicules those of us who believe that Christ could come at any moment but alsothink that the last day mockers have already come and gone. Such a view blinds one to the warningthat Peter issues in this passage since they do not believe it to be a possiblethreat to the church today. Iguess we will have to wait a little longer for Christ’s return to actually takeplace so that the mockers will become aware to the truth of Peter’s words. Maranatha!

ENDNOTES


[1] For a discussion of the different nuances ofthese phrases see Thomas Ice, “Are We Living in The Last Days?”www.pre-trib.org/article-view.php?id=36.

[2] D. Edmond Hiebert, Second Peter and Judge: AnExpositional Commentary(Greenville, SC: BJU Press, 1989), p. 142.

[3] R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of TheEpistles of St. Peter, St. John and St. Jude (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1966), p. 338.

[4] Joseph B. Mayor, The Epistle of St. Jude andThe Second Epistle of St. Peter(Minneapolis: Klock & Klock Christian Publishers [1907] 1978), p. 147.

[5] Preterism is from a Latin word meaning “past,” or”gone by.” A full preterist is onewho believes that Christ has already returned in a.d. 70 and He will not return in the future.

[6] Partial preterists believe that most of thepassages that the church has historically thought to refer to a future secondadvent were fulfilled in a.d. 70,but that a few passages still teach a future second advent.

[7] The only three passages I have ever seen DeMargive in reference to a return of Christ are Acts 1:9-11; 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17; 1 Corinthians 15:51-52.

[8] Gary DeMar, Meet theReal Last Days Scoffers
: A Response to Ed Hindson’s “The New Last DaysScoffers”-Part 2,www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/05-27-05.asp.

[9] Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness: Obsession ofthe Modern Church, (PowerSprings, GA: American Vision,1999), p. 29.

[10] DeMar, Last Days Madness, pp. 29-30.

[11] DeMar, Meet the Real Last DaysScoffers.

[12] Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., He Shall HaveDominion: A PostmillennialEschatology (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics,1992), p. 302.

[13] Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, p. 303.

[14] Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, p. 303.

[15] Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, p. 304.

[16] Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, p. 304.

[17] Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, pp. 304-05.

The Rise of Global Governance (part I) – Henry Lamb

0

The Rise of Global Governance Part I

The desire to rule the world has been a part of the human experience throughout recorded history. Alexander the Great led Greece to dominance of the known world, only to become the victim of Rome’s quest for world dominance. The Roman Empire, built on bloody battlefields across the land, was swallowed up by the Holy Roman Empire, built on the fear and hopes of helpless people. History is a record of the competition for global dominance. In every age, there has always been a force somewhere, conniving to conquer the world with ideas clothed in promises imposed by military might. The 20th century is no different from any other: Marx, Lenin, and Hitler reflect some of the ideas which competed for world dominance in the 1900s. The competition is still underway. The key players change from time to time, as do the words that describe the various battlefields, but the competing ideas remain the same.

One of the competitors is the idea that people are born free, “totally free and sovereign,” and choose to surrender specified freedoms to a limited government to achieve mutual benefits. The other competitor is the idea that government must be sovereign in order to distribute benefits equitably and to manage the activities of people to protect them from one another. The first idea, the idea of free people, is the idea that compelled the pilgrims to migrate to America. The U.S. Constitution represents humanity’s best effort to organize and codify the idea of free people sovereign over limited government. It is a relatively new idea in the historic competition for world dominance.

The other idea, the idea of sovereign government, is not new. Historically, the conqueror was the government. The Emperor, the King, the conqueror by whatever name, established his government by appointment and established laws by decree. Variations of this idea emerged over time to give the perception that the people had some say in the development of law. The Soviet Union, for example, held elections to choose its leaders; but the system assured the outcome of the elections as well as the ultimate sovereignty of the government. During the 1700s, the first idea was ascendant as evidenced by the creation of America. During the 1900s, the second idea has again become ascendant as evidenced by the emergence of global governance. This report identifies and traces some of the major forces, events, and personalities that are responsible for the rise of global governance in the 20th century.

The League of Nations (1900-1924)

Competition for world dominance was fierce in the first quarter of the 20th century. New, dynamic ideas emerged to fill the vacuum created by the crumbling British Empire and the end of the colonial era. At the turn of the century, America, though hardly a world leader, was expanding rapidly. Economic and technological advances attracted worldwide interest. Halfway around the world, another idea was taking hold. The oppression of Nicholas II in Russia, combined with the influence of Karl Marx, gave rise to the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (Bolsheviks) which became the Socialist Revolutionary Party. Under the leadership of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, the party platform called for the “establishment of nurseries for infants and children in all shops, factories, and other enterprises that employ women”1 and for the “nationalization and re- distribution of land.”2 What began as a rebellion against the oppression of government sovereignty as imposed by Czar Nicholas was hijacked by Lenin who, with his colleagues Stalin and Trotsky, promptly replaced the Czar’s oppression with their own. Within weeks after Nicholas’ assassination, Lenin nationalized all private, ecclesiastical and czarist land without compensation. He introduced press censorship, nationalized big industry, outlawed strikes, nationalized the banks, built up a police force and ordered the requisition of grain from the peasants to feed the Red Army.3 By the time Lenin died in 1924, Stalin had consolidated his power and organized his government to become the world’s most dominant example of the idea of government sovereignty.

Americans were far too busy earning a living to pay much attention to the tumult in Russia. While Lenin’s party was forging the Principles of Communism in 1903, Orville Wright made his historic flight. The first automobile trip across the United States was completed, and the U.S. government ratified the Panama Canal Treaty. Congress created the Federal Reserve System in 1913, and Ford Motor Company shocked the industrialized world by raising wages from $2.40 for a nine-hour day to $5 for an eight-hour day in 1914. Americans were divided about entering the First World War, but did in 1917, and had a million troops in Europe when the war ended in 1918 when the warring parties accepted Woodrow Wilson’s “Fourteen Points” which became the basis for the League of Nations.

Edward Mandell House was Wilson’s chief advisor. He persuaded Wilson to sign the Federal Reserve Act and he was the real architect of the League of Nations.4 House was no ordinary advisor. He was Wilson’s “alter ego,” and he was an “unabashed and unapologetic” socialist.5 House published a novel in 1912 entitled Philip Dru: Administrator. The story is a recitation of socialist thinking enacted by Dru, whose purpose was “to pursue Socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx,” and who, in the story, replaced Constitutional government with “omnicompetent” government in which “the property and lives of all were now in the keeping of one man.”6 In the story, Dru created a “League of Nations” much like the League of Nations he fashioned for Woodrow Wilson.

More importantly, House came to his position with Woodrow Wilson from an elite circle of friends known as the “Inquiry”: Paul Warburg, J. P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, John W. Davis, among others, all of whom had direct interest in the Federal Reserve System and great interest in the League of Nations. House was well on his way to transforming Woodrow Wilson into his fictional Philip Dru — until the Senate refused to ratify the League of Nations in 1920. Embarrassed and defeated, Wilson died four years later, ironically, the same year Lenin died.

The dream of world domination, however, did not die. House and his friends realized that public opinion in America had to be changed before any form of world government could succeed. While shuttling to Europe on post-war peace negotiations, House arranged an assembly of dignitaries from which was created the Institute of International Affairs which had two branches. In London, it was called the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA); in New York, it was called the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), formed officially July 29, 1921.

The founding President of the CFR was John W. Davis, personal attorney to J. P. Morgan. Paul Cravath and Russell Leffingwell, both Morgan associates, were also among the founding officers.7 Money for the new organizations was provided by J. P. Morgan, Bernard Baruch, Otto Kahn, Jacob Schiff, Paul Warburg, and John D. Rockefeller, the same people involved in the forming of the Federal Reserve.8 The purpose of the CFR was to create a stream of scholarly literature to promote the benefits of world government, and attract a membership of rich intellectuals who could influence the direction of foreign policy in America. The CFR, supported by the world’s wealthiest foundations and individuals, has been extremely successful. Its flagship publication, Foreign Affairs, is the port-of-entry for many ideas that become public policy. The U.S. delegation to the founding conference of the United Nations included 47 members of the CFR. The Secretary-General of the conference, Alger Hiss, was a member of the CFR. Hiss was later convicted of perjury for lying about having provided government documents to a Communist espionage ring.9

The first quarter of the 20th century forced America into a world war where the strength of its economy and effectiveness of its technology were displayed to the world. On the other side of the Atlantic, Russia gave birth to Stalin’s version of Communism. At the time, both nations were primarily concerned about domestic issues with little thought of dominating the world. The Soviet Union exemplified the idea of government sovereignty; America exemplified the idea of free people sovereign over its government. Sooner or later, the two ideas had to collide. Other competitors were also at work. The CFR began to rebuild its plans for a world government, and a new competitor arose on Russia’s eastern border.

The United Nations (1925 – 1950)

While Stalin reigned over “The Great Terror,” in which an estimated 20 million Russians were executed, and instituted the first of a series of “five-year plans,”10 America struggled through some of its hardest years. Prohibition brought organized crime, Federal Reserve policies brought a stock market crash, drought brought a dust bowl to the bread basket, and a nation-wide depression brought crushing poverty to most Americans.

Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected to the White House in 1932. The CFR was to Roosevelt what Edward House was to Woodrow Wilson. “The organization [CFR] essentially ran FDR’s State Department.”11 Henry Wallace, a committed Marxist, was FDR’s Secretary of Agriculture.12 The “New Deal” delivered by Roosevelt resembled the performance of Philip Dru in Edward House’s novel.

By 1941, Hitler had invaded Russia and Japan had bombed Pearl Harbor. For the next five years the world tried to commit suicide. Those not caught up in the war, the CFR, realized that the war provided an excellent reason for the nations of the world to try once again to create a global institution that could prevent war. Two weeks after Pearl Harbor, Secretary of State, Cordell Hull, recommended the creation of a Presidential Advisory Committee on Post War Foreign Policy. The committee was the planning commission for the United Nations. Ten of the committee’s 14 members were members of the CFR.13

The process of creating the United Nations lasted throughout the war. The first public step was the Atlantic Charter (August 14, 1941), signed by Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, which committed the two nations to a “permanent system of general security.” Because Stalin was under attack by Germany, Russia was forced to join the allies in the Moscow Declaration (October 30, 1943) which declared the necessity of establishing an international organization to maintain peace and security. The Dumbarton Oaks Conversations (August, 1944) which produced the World Bank, also settled political and legal issues that were drafted into the UN Charter. The Yalta Summit (February, 1945) produced a compromise which gave the Soviets three votes (USSR, Byelorussia, and the Ukraine) in exchange for voting procedures demanded by the U.S.14 Edward Stettinius made another extremely significant concession. He agreed that the UN official in charge of military affairs would be designated by the Russians. Fourteen individuals have held the position since the UN was created; all were Russians.15 The committee designed and FDR sold the United Nations to the 50 nations that came to the San Francisco conference in 1945. Among the 47 CFR members in the official U.S. delegation were: Edward Stettinius, the new Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, Adlai Stevenson, Nelson Rockefeller, and Alger Hiss. To ensure that the new organization would be located in America, John D. Rockefeller, Jr., donated the land for the UN headquarters.16

In his 1962 book, Why Not Victory, former Senator Barry Goldwater recalls that the UN was approved by the Senate largely because of the representations of the State Department which assured the Senate that:

” . . . it [UN] in no sense constituted a form of World Government and that neither the Senate nor the American people need be concerned that the United Nations or any of its agencies would interfere with the sovereignty of the United States or with the domestic affairs of the American People.”17

Five years later, in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, CFR member James Warburg said: “We shall have world government whether or not you like it –by conquest or consent.”18

The ink on the UN Charter had not yet dried when the Charter for UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization) was presented in London, November, 1945. UNESCO swallowed and expanded the Paris-based International Institute for Intellectual Cooperation which was a holdover from the League of Nations. Julian Huxley was the prime mover of UNESCO and served as its first Director-General. Huxley had served on Britain’s Population Investigation Commission before World War II and was vice president of the Eugenics Society from 1937 to 1944. In a 1947 document entitled UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy, Huxley wrote:

“Thus even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”19

UNESCO’s primary function is set forth in its Charter:

“Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defenses of peace must be constructed.”

UNESCO was created to construct a world-wide education program to prepare the world for global governance. UNESCO advisor, Bertrand Russell, writing for the UNESCO Journal, The Impact of Science on Society, said:

“Every government that has been in control of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen . . . .”20

The National Education Association was a major advocate for UNESCO. In a 1942 article in the NEA Journal, written by Joy Elmer Morgan, the NEA called for ” . . . certain world agencies of administration such as: a police force; a board of education . . . .”

A year later in London, the Conference of Allied Ministers of Education called for a United Nations Bureau of Education. UNESCO became the Board of Education for the world.

Huxley believed the world needed a single, global government. He saw UNESCO as an instrument to “help in the speedy and satisfactory realization of the process.” He described UNESCO’s philosophy as global, scientific humanism. He said: “Political unification in some sort of world government will be required for the definitive attainment” of the next stage of social development.21 From the beginning, UNESCO has designed programs to capture children at the earliest possible age to begin the educational process.

William Benton, Assistant U.S. Secretary of State, told a UNESCO meeting in 1946:

“As long as the child breathes the poisoned air of nationalism, education in world-mindedness can produce only precarious results. As we have pointed out, it is frequently the family that infects the child with extreme nationalism. The school should therefore use the means described earlier to combat family attitudes that favor jingoism . . . . We shall presently recognize in nationalism the major obstacle to development of world-mindedness. We are at the beginning of a long process of breaking down the walls of national sovereignty. UNESCO must be the pioneer.”22

The UN and UNESCO were created in the wake of the worst war carnage the world had ever witnessed. Conditioned by a constant stream of propaganda produced by the CFR in America, and by the Royal Institute of International Affairs in Europe, the move toward global governance was accepted and allowed to go forward. Julian Huxley realized, however, that to be successful over the long haul, a world-wide constituency would have to be developed. In 1948, Huxley and his long-time friend and colleague, Max Nicholson, both of whom were involved with the Royal Institute of International Affairs, created the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

The IUCN drew heavily from the 50-year-old British Fauna and Flora Preservation Society (FFPS) for its leadership, funding and its members. Sir Peter Scott, FFPS Chairman, drafted the IUCN Charter and headed one of its important Commissions. This important non-governmental organization (NGO) was instrumental in the formation of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) in 1961 and the World Resources Institute (WRI) in 1982. These three NGOs are to the United Nations System what the CFR was to Franklin Roosevelt, or what Edward House was to Woodrow Wilson. These three NGOs have become the driving force behind the rise of global governance.

The Cold War (1950-1970)

The dream of world dominance is not, nor has it ever been, the pursuit by an exclusive cadre of conspirators. The dream has been held by many different factions — often simultaneously — always in competition with one another. By 1950, at least three major forces — all competing for world dominance — were clearly identified. Each of the three major forces worked overtly and covertly to achieve their objectives.

The Soviet Union had clearly defined its Marx/Lenin/Stalin version of Communism. Its systematic program of expansionism — including an active organization in the United States — fully intended to bring all the world under its control. So confident were the Soviets of their eventual success that, on his 1959 tour of the U.S., Nikita Kruschchev pounded his shoe on a podium before the television cameras and declared to America: “We will bury you!”

America would have no part of a world under Communist rule. Senator Joseph McCarthy led a crusade against Communists in America. His campaign tarnished many non-communists but was successful in rooting out Alger Hiss, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, and Morton Sobell, all convicted of espionage-related crimes. (Because of the statute of limitations, Hiss could not be tried for espionage but was convicted of perjury for lying about his espionage activities.)23

More importantly, the televised McCarthy hearings awakened America to the “Communist threat,” and when U.S. troops entered Korea to fight the communists, support for the Communist Party USA diminished steadily from a high of more than 100,000 members to its current low of about 1000 members.24 American leaders did not pound their shoes, nor proclaim a program of world dominance. American foreign and economic policy, however, left no doubt that at the very least, America intended to prevent the Soviets from achieving world dominance.

The third force competing for world dominance was not the United Nations, but the people whose dreams of a world government were frustrated by what the United Nations turned out to be. The annihilation of the League of Nations by the U.S. Senate left the advocates of world government with a large dose of reality. They realized that the UN could exist only by the grace of the U.S. and the Soviets, and that the UN itself could have no authority or power over the major powers. But it was a real start toward global governance which provided an official, if impotent, mechanism for the incremental implementation of their global aspirations.

During the 1950s and 1960s, the UN was little more than a debating society that occasionally attempted to referee disputes among the major world powers. Public attention was riveted on domestic issues and the deepening cold war. Russia’s Sputnik launch was a catalyst for the launch of the U.S. space program. Fidel Castro’s embrace of Communism in Cuba stiffened America’s policy of “containment” — first articulated in the CFR Journal, Foreign Affairs.25

The 1954 Supreme Court desegregation decision pushed McCarthy, Communism, and the UN completely off the domestic radar screen. Rosa Park’s refusal to give up her seat on a Birmingham bus to a white man was the fuse that ignited an explosion of racial riots. Federal troops confronted Alabama National Guardsmen over Governor Orville Faubus’ refusal to let nine black children enter Little Rock Central High School. Dr. Martin Luther King delivered his “I have a dream” speech to a quarter-million people on the Mall in Washington, and tanks rolled on the streets of Chicago and Detroit.

Domestic events also obscured American awareness of the creation of the World Wildlife Fund. The same Julian Huxley who founded UNESCO and the IUCN, along with his friend, Max Nicholson, formed the organization primarily as a way to fund the work of the IUCN. Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, served as President. An auxiliary organization called the “1001 Club” charged an initiation fee of $10,000 which went into a trust fund to provide ongoing revenues to WWF. The WWF and the IUCN share an office building in Gland, Switzerland. (In 1987, the name was changed to the World Wide Fund for Nature, but the acronym remained the same).26

Behind the scenes, America developed and launched the Nautilus, the first of a new generation of atomic powered submarines. Both Russia and America tested nuclear devices with ever increasing payloads. Bomb shelters were the mainstay of civil defense, and school children were taught to “duck-and-cover.” The official defense policy was MAD — Mutually Assured Destruction.

Much, much further behind the scenes, plans were being developed to defuse the MAD policy. The UN had no authority or power in its own right to do anything about the spiraling arms race between the world’s two super-powers. It became the stage, however, on which the advocates of global governance performed their strategic play, using the U.S. and the Soviet Union in the starring roles. In 1961, newly elected President John F. Kennedy presented a disarmament plan: Freedom From War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World, also known as the Department of State Publication 7277. The plan called for three phases which would ultimately result in the gradual transfer of U.S. military power to the United Nations. The plan called for all nations to follow the U.S. lead and disarm themselves to “a point where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened UN Peace Force.”27 A new and improved version of the same idea was presented in May, 1962, called: Blueprint for the Peace Race: Outline of Basic Provisions of a Treaty on General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World released by the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (Publication 4, General Series 3, May 3, 1962) headed by John McCloy.

It is neither fair, nor accurate, to say that these documents were the product of the CFR. It is accurate, and instructive, to realize that these documents were developed by men who were members of the CFR. John McCloy and Robert Lovett were described as “distinguished individuals” in an article by John F. Kennedy which appeared in Foreign Affairs in 1957. Lovett was offered his choice of cabinet positions in the Kennedy administration but declined, choosing instead to make recommendations all of which were accepted by Kennedy. Lovett recommended Dean Rusk as Secretary of State. Rusk had been a member of the CFR since 1952 and had published an article in Foreign Affairs in 1960 on how the new President should conduct foreign policy. The New York Times reported that of the first 82 names submitted to Kennedy for State Department positions, 63 were members of the CFR.28 Like FDR and every President since, JFK filled his State Department and surrounded himself with individuals who were, perhaps coincidentally, members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Lovett, John McCloy, Dean Rusk, McGeorge Bundy, and Adlai Stevenson (JFK’s Ambassador to the UN), all members of the CFR, guided Kennedy through the disastrous “Bay of Pigs” operation and the Cuban missile crisis.

That members of the CFR have exercised extraordinary influence on foreign policy cannot be denied. Whether that influence is the result of organizational strategies, or the result of individuals who simply happen to be members of the same organization, is an endlessly debated question. Richard Harwood, of the Washington Post, observes that members of the Council on Foreign Relations

“. . . are the closest thing we have to a ruling Establishment in the United States. The President is a member. So is his Secretary of State, the Deputy Secretary of State, all five of the Undersecretaries, several of the Assistant Secretaries and the department’s legal adviser. The President’s National Security Adviser and his Deputy are members. The Director of Central Intelligence (like all previous directors) and the Chairman of the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board are members. The Secretary of Defense, three Undersecretaries and at least four Assistant Secretaries are members. The Secretaries of the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Health and Human Services and the Chief White House Public Relations man . . . along with the Speaker of the House [are members] . . . . This is not a retinue of people who ‘look like America,’ as the President once put it, but they very definitely look like the people who, for more than half a century, have managed our international affairs and our military-industrial complex.”29

Article 11 of the UN Charter gives the General Assembly authority to “consider” and “recommend” principles governing disarmament and the regulation of armaments, but virtually no authority to enforce disarmament. Kennedy’s proposal was a bold first step toward giving the UN the power which early, necessary compromises had stripped from the original vision of a world government.

The Kennedy plan has never been revoked. Though modified and delayed by political necessity, the essential principle of relinquishing arms, as well as control of the production and distribution of arms, to the UN has guided the disarmament policy of every American President since JFK. Prior to the Kennedy Disarmament Plan, the UN sponsored a Truce Supervision Operation in 1948, and a Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan in 1949. Since the Kennedy Disarmament Plan, the number of UN Peace-keeping operations has steadily increased.30

Still further behind the scenes, the fledgling United Nations was beginning to take shape. UNICEF (United Nations International Emergency Children’s Fund) was created in 1946 to provide emergency relief to the child victims of WWII. It was reauthorized in 1950 to shift its emphasis to programs of long-term benefit to children in underdeveloped countries. It became a permanent UN entity in 1953. UNESCO’s purpose was to “educate” the world. UNICEF was created to provide the mechanism through which that education could be delivered to children.

UN Article 55 provides for the UN to “promote higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development.” To fulfill this charge, the UN Expanded Program of Technical Assistance (UNEPTA) was created in 1949, and expanded with a Special Fund in 1957. By 1959, the program had been transformed into the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) (now headed by James Gustave Speth, former President of the World Resources Institute) which spends more than $1 trillion annually, mostly in developing countries.

The UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) was created in 1949. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) was created in 1951. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) brought together existing international food programs in 1946 and began its World Food Program in 1963. The UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was created in 1953. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) was created in 1947. The International Labor Organization (ILO) created in 1919 as an instrument of the failed League of Nations was reconstituted and folded into the United Nations in 1948. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) was authorized in 1947. Founded in 1863, the Universal Postal Union (UPU) became an entity of the UN in 1948. The World Health Organization (WHO) was created in 1948. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) which had existed since 1865 was folded into the UN system in 1949. The United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) was created in 1966. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) was established in 1967. These are only a few of the 130 UN agencies and organizations that proliferated during and since the Cold War.

While the UN organization was expanding exponentially, out of the media spotlight which was focused on race riots and the arms race, UNESCO plodded forward with its mission to educate the world. Robert Muller, long-time Secretary-General of the UN’s Economic and Social Council under which the UNESCO operates, delivered a speech at the University of Denver in 1995. His musings and recollections provide valuable insights into the kind of education UNESCO was preparing for the world. From Muller’s comments:

“I had written an essay which was circulated by UNESCO, and which earned me the title of ‘Father of Global Education.’ I was educated badly in France. I’ve come to the conclusion that the only correct education that I have received in my life was from the United Nations. We should replace the word politics by planetics. We need planetary management, planetary caretakers. We need global sciences. We need a science of a global psychology, a global sociology, a global anthropology. Then I made my proposal for a World Core Curriculum.”31

The first goal of Muller’s World Core Curriculum, is:

“Assisting the child in becoming an integrated individual who can deal with personal experience while seeing himself as a part of ‘the greater whole.’ In other words, promote growth of the group idea, so that group good, group understanding, group interrelations and group goodwill replace all limited, self-centered objectives, leading to group consciousness.”32

The World Core Curriculum Manual says:

“The underlying philosophy upon which the Robert Muller School is based will be found in the teachings set forth in the books of Alice A. Bailey, by the Tibetan teacher, Djwhal Khul (published by Lucis Publishing Company, 113 University Place, 11th floor, New York, NY 10083) and the teachings of M. Morya as given in the Agni Yoga Series books (published by Agni Yoga Society, Inc., 319 West 107th Street, New York, NY 10025).”33

Alice Bailey established the Lucifer Publishing Company, which was renamed Lucis Press in 1924, expressly to publish and distribute her own writings and those of Djwhal Khul, which consisted of some 20 books written by Bailey as the “channeling” agent for the disembodied Tibetan she called Djwhal Khu1.34 Until recently, the Lucis Trust, parent organization of the Lucis Press, was headquartered at the United Nations Plaza in New York.35 Bailey assumed the leadership of the Theosophical Society upon the death of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky. The Society’s 6,000 members include Robert McNamara, Donald Regan, Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller, Paul Volker, George Shultz, and the names that also appear on the membership roster of the CFR.36

Hindsight reveals that — while the United States was performing on the UN stage, sparring with the Soviet Union, keeping score with nuclear warheads — the forces which heavily influenced the official policies of both the United States and the United Nations were actually outside both governments: non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Three distinct NGO influences were clear by the end of the 1960s: the CFR and its assortment of affiliated spin-off organizations; the mystic, occult, or “new-age” spiritual movement; and the growing number of organizations affiliated with the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). In 1968, the IUCN led a lobbying effort with the United Nations Economic and Social Council (headed by Robert Muller) to adopt Resolution 1296 which grants “consultative” status to certain NGOs. This resolution paved the highway for global governance. The Lucis Trust was one of the first NGOs to be granted “consultative” status with the UN.


The Environmental Movement (1970s)

Not a single vote was cast against the Wilderness Act of 1964 when it finally reached the Senate. Congress thought it was setting aside nine million acres of wilderness so posterity could see a sample of what their forefathers had to conquer in order to create America. The new law was the crowning achievement of the Wilderness Society, to which its Director, Howard Zahniser had devoted five years of constant lobbying. Though unnoticed at the time, the new law signaled an end to the traditional “conservation” movement and the beginning of a new environmental “preservation” movement. The conservation movement might be characterized by the idea that private land owners should voluntarily conserve natural resources; the environmental preservation movement is characterized by the notion that the government should enforce conservation measures through extensive regulations. By this distinction, the Wilderness Society brought the environmental movement to Congress. Robert Marshall, Benton MacKaye, and Aldo Leopold – all avowed socialists – organized the Society in the early 1930s and proclaimed their socialist ideas loudly. Marshall’s 1933 book, The People’s Forests, says:

“Public ownership is the only basis on which we can hope to protect the incalculable values of the forests for wood resources, for soil and water conservation, and for recreation . . . . Regardless of whether it might be desirable, it is impossible under our existing form of government to confiscate the private forests into public ownership. We cannot afford to delay their nationalization until the form of government changes.”37

This significant event failed to register a blip on the radar screen of public awareness. Instead, public attention focused on the racial strife, the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago, and the Viet Nam War which tore apart the convention, the party, and the nation. The First “Earth Day” in 1970, which perhaps coincidentally was celebrated on Lenin’s birthday, April 22, was viewed as little more than a festival for flower children. The anti-war fervor, again, brought a quarter-million protesters to the Mall, and Watergate brought down the Nixon Presidency. The Clean Water Act of 1972 and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 served as beacons to attract the energies and idealism of a generation of young people who had successfully forced the world’s most powerful government to abandon a war they saw to be unjust. The 1970s witnessed an unprecedented explosion in the number of environmental organizations and in the number of people who joined and supported these organizations.

Among the more important but lesser known organizations formed during this period are the Club of Rome (COR – 1968) and the Trilateral Commission (TC – 1973). The COR is a small group of international industrialists educators, economists, national and international civil servants. Among them were various Rockefellers and approximately 25 CFR members. Maurice Strong was one of the “international” civil servants.38 Their first book, The Limits to Growth, published in 1972 unabashedly describes the world as they believe it should be:

“We believe in fact that the need will quickly become evident for social innovation to match technical change, for radical reform of the institutions and political processes at all levels, including the highest, that of world polity. And since intellectual enlightenment is without effect if it is not also political, The Club of Rome also will encourage the creation of a world forum where statesmen, policy-makers, and scientists can discuss the dangers and hopes for the future global system without the constraints of formal intergovernmental negotiation.”39

That “world forum” was authorized in 1972 by UN Resolution 2997 (XXVII) as the UN Conference on the Human Environment. Maurice Strong was designated Secretary-General of the Conference which, among other things, recommended the creation of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), which came into being January 1, 1973, with Maurice Strong as its first Executive Director.40 The Conference held in Stockholm produced 26 principles and 109 specific recommendations which parroted much of the language in the COR publications. The difference is, of course, that the Conference Report carries the weight of the United Nations and has profound policy implications for the entire world.41

Another COR publication, Mankind at the Turning Point, provides further insight into the thinking that underlies global governance:

“The solution of these crises can be developed only in a global context with full and explicit recognition of the emerging world system and on a long-term basis. This would necessitate, among other changes, a new world economic order and a global resources allocation system . . . . A ‘world consciousness’ must be developed through which every individual realizes his role as a member of the world community . . . . It must become part of the consciousness of every individual that the basic unit of human cooperation and hence survival is moving from the national to the global level.”42

A companion work by the same authors, Mihajlo Mesarovic and Eduard Pestel, entitled Regionalized and Adaptive Model of the Global World System, introduced and described a system of regionalization which divided the globe into 10 regions, each with its own hierarchical system of sub-regions.43

The Trilateral Commission published a book entitled Beyond Interdependence: The Meshing of the World’s Economy and the Earth’s Ecology, by Jim MacNeil. David Rockefeller wrote the foreword; Maurice Strong wrote the introduction. Strong said:

“This interlocking . . . is the new reality of the century, with profound implications for the shape of our institutions of governance, national and international. By the year 2012, these changes must be fully integrated into our economic and political life.”44

In retrospect, it is clear that the early work of the United Nations was an effort to achieve global consensus on the philosophy upon which its programmatic work would be built. It is also clear that, despite the disproportionate share of the cost borne by capitalist nations, the prevailing philosophy at the UN is essentially socialist. The fundamental idea upon which America was founded – that men are born totally free and choose to give up specified freedoms to a limited government – is not the prevailing philosophy at the UN, nor at the CFR, the COR, the TC, or the IUCN. Instead, the prevailing philosophy held by these organizations and institutions is that government is sovereign and may dispense or withhold freedoms and privileges, or impose restrictions and penalties, in order to manage its citizens to achieve peace and prosperity for all. In his book, Freedom at the Altar, William Grigg says it this way:

“Under the American concept of rights, the individual possesses God-given rights which the state must protect. However, the UN embraces a collectivist worldview in which ‘rights’ are highly conditional concessions made by an all-powerful government.”45

Another description of the difference between the two ideas is offered by Philip Bom, in The Coming Century of Commonism:

“In the western Constitutional concept, limited government is established to protect the fundamental natural human rights of the free individuals in a free society. In a radical socialist concept of the state, the citizen has a duty to the state to help the state promote the socialization or communization of the man.”46

These fundamentally different, conflicting ideas have been described differently by different people at different times. In 1842, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels preached their gospel through an organization known as the “Federation of the Just.” In 1845 it was the International Democratic Association of Brussels that promoted their ideas. By 1903 the organization that championed Marxism was the Russian Social Democratic Workers’ Party before Lenin transformed it into the Communist Party. The names used to describe the prevailing philosophy at the UN are confusing to Americans. Regardless of the name attached, the underlying philosophy has several common characteristics that readily identify it as different from the philosophy upon which America was founded. Chief among those characteristics is the abhorrence of private property. As Philip Bom points out:

“In the Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels identified communism with democracy. ‘The communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations . . . to win the battle of democracy’. They also pointed out that, ‘The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of communism . . . . The distinctive feature of communism is . . . abolition of private property.'”47

Another tell-tale characteristic of socialist/communist philosophy is the assumption of omnipotent government. Philip Bom addresses the semantics problems as well as the omnipotent government issue this way:

“The war of words and world views of democracy continues but with greater confusion of priorities. President Reagan professed that ‘freedom and democracy are the best guarantors for peace.’ President Gorbachev confessed that peace and maximum democracy are the guarantors of freedom. ‘Our aim is to grant maximum freedom to people, to the individual, to society.'”48

In the Gorbachev statement, it is assumed that ‘freedom’ is the government’s to give. The U.S. Constitution clearly views ‘freedom’ to be the natural condition of man and assigns the protection of freedom as government’s first responsibility. International equality, equity, social justice, security of the people, democratic society all are terms used in UN documents that have a completely different meaning in a socialist context from the meaning understood in America.

These differences become exceedingly important in the context of official UN documents. Consider the language in the UN’s Covenant on Human Rights, a document that bears approximately the same relationship to the UN Charter that the Bill of Rights bears to the U.S. Constitution.

Article 13 says:

“Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law . . . .”

By contrast, the Bill of Rights says:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . .”

Article 14 of the Covenant says:

“The right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas carries with it special duties and responsibilities and may therefore be subject to certain penalties, liabilities, and restrictions, but these shall be only such, as are provided by law.”

The Bill of Rights says:

“Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . . . ” Period.

The philosophy of omnipotent government permeates virtually all of the documents that have flowed from the UN since its inception. Consider the preamble to the report of the first World Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat I) held in 1976 under the auspices of Maurice Strong’s newly formed United Nations Environmental Programme: “Private land ownership is a principal instrument of accumulating wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable.” Their recommendation: “Public ownership of land is justified in favor of the common good, rather than to protect the interest of the already privileged.”49 Morris Udall and others tried unsuccessfully to implement the Federal Land Use Planning Act in the early 1970s influenced by those seeking to impose global governance.

In the early 1970s the UN created a Commission to Study the Organization of Peace. As if singing in the same choir, the U.S. created a Commission to Study the Organization of Peace. On May Day, 1974, a proposal was submitted to the UN General Assembly calling for a New International Economic Order (NIEO); it was adopted as a Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States on December 12, 1974. It called for the redistribution of wealth and political power, and the promotion of international justice based on the ‘duties’ of developed countries and the ‘rights’ of developing countries.

Throughout the 1970s, college students and others joined environmental organizations in droves. They protested, carried placards, picked up litter, preached recycling and organic gardening, mostly unaware that their leaders were attending conferences and promoting agendas based on the same philosophy that America had opposed in Viet Nam, Cuba, and the Soviet Union. Carefully crafted documents, magnified by a cooperative media, elevated the environment to a most noble cause. The object of near-worship for an army of energetic activists, “the environment” as an international issue was ripe for the picking by the advocates of global governance.


The Environmental Movement (1980s)

“Bait-and-switch” is a time-tested technique used by unscrupulous merchants to offer one thing and then provide another. The environmental movement of the 1970s was the unwitting victim of its leadership which offered a cleaner environment but, in the 1980s, delivered instead a massive program to achieve global governance. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) had already launched a Regional Seas Program (1973); conducted a UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD 1974); developed a Global Frame-work for Environmental Education (1975); established the International Environmental Education Program (IEEP); set up a Global Environmental Monitoring System (GEMS); set up a World Conservation Monitoring Center at Cambridge, England (1975 as a joint project with the IUCN and the WWF); implemented the Human Exposure Assessment Location Program (HEAL – 1976); conducted a UN Conference on Desertification (1977); organized the Designated Officials for Environmental Matters (DOEM); and in 1980, published World Conservation Strategy jointly with the IUCN and the WWF. The DOEM is an organizational structure that requires every UN agency and organization to designate an official to UNEP in order to coordinate all UN activity with the UNEP agenda. UNEP was well positioned to interject the environment into the argument for global governance.50 Recognizing that communications was the key to global education, UNESCO adopted in 1978 a “Declaration on Fundamental Principles Concerning the Contribution of the Mass Media to Strengthen Peace and International Understanding, to the Promotion of Human Rights and to Countering Racialism, Apartheid and Incitement of War.” To figure out what the declaration meant, UNESCO Director General, Dr. A. M. McBow, appointed Sean MacBride to chair the International Commission for the Study of Communication Problems. Their report was released in 1980 entitled Many Voices, One World: Towards a new more just and more efficient world information and communication order. The head of TASS, the official news agency of the Soviet Union, was one of fifteen chosen to serve on the Commission.

Not surprisingly, the report said that the “media should contribute to promoting the just cause of peoples struggling for freedom and independence and their right to live in peace and equality without foreign interference.” It expressed concern about independent news monopolies, such as the Associated Press and Reuters, but was not at all concerned about state controlled news monopolies such as TASS. It recommended a transnational political communication superstructure “within the framework of UNESCO,” an International Centre for the Study and Planning of Information and Communication.51 The Commission believed that a “new World Information Order” was prerequisite to a new world economic order. The report reflected the same “sovereign government” philosophy demonstrated in Article 14 of the Covenant on Human Rights: government, UNESCO in particular, should have the authority to regulate the flow of information to “promote” its agenda, and minimize public awareness of conflicting ideas. A proposal to require international journalists to be licensed brought swift and dramatic negative re-action which pushed this proposal to the back burner. The idea of controlling the media continues to simmer, even though an alternative plan was developed through NGOs.

The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) allocated funding to establish computer network services for NGOs and academics in Latin America. The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) linked together networks in Brazil, Russia, Canada, Australia, Sweden, England, Nicaragua, Ecuador, South Africa, Ukraine, Mexico, Siovenj, and then entered into a partnership with the Institute for Global Communications (IGC). Known simply as igc.apc.org, this gigantic computer network now boasts 17,000 users in 94 countries. It has exclusive contracts with several UN agencies to coordinate, facilitate, and disseminate information about and from UN conferences. This NGO has arrangements with at least the following UN agencies: UN Association International Service (UNAIS); UN Centre for Human Rights; UNICEF; UNDP; UN Division for the Advancement of Women (DAW); UNESCO; UNEP; UN Information Centre (UNIC); UN International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD); UN International Emergency Network (UNIENET); UN Non-Government Liaison Service (NGLS); UN Population Fund (UNFPA); UN Secretariat for the Fourth World Conference on Women (UNWCW); UN University (UNU); and UN Volunteers (UNV).52

West German Chancellor, Willy Brandt, was tapped to chair another International Commission in 1980: the Independent Commission on International Development. The Commission report, entitled North-South: A Program for Survival, stated:

“World development is not merely an economic process, [it] involves a profound transformation of the entire economic and social structure . . . not only the idea of economic betterment, but also of greater human dignity, security, justice and equity . . . . The Commission realizes that mankind has to develop a concept of a ‘single community’ to develop a global order.”

The report says that the choice is either development or destruction; either “a just and humane society” or a move towards [the world’s] own destruction.”53

For 50 years, Sweden was a socialist country. In 1976, the socialists were dumped and conservatives took over – until 1982. Olof Palme restored socialism to Sweden and was promptly rewarded with the chairmanship of the Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security (ICDST). In their report, entitled A Common Security: Blueprint For Survival, the Commission built on Kennedy’s 1962 Blueprint for the Peace Race, and on the 1974 Charter for a New International Economic Order, which linked disarmament with development.

The Charter’s Article 13 says:

“All States have the duty to promote the achievement of general and complete disarmament under effective international control and to utilize the resources released by effective disarmament measures for the economic and social development of countries, allocating a substantial portion of such resources as additional means for the development needs of developing countries.” (Emphasis added).

The Brandt Commission report had concluded that security meant not only the military defense of a nation, but also required solving the non-military problems – such as poverty – to improve the basic conditions necessary for peaceful relations among nations. Their conclusion was bolstered by the report of a UN advisor, Inga Thorsson, a Swedish Under-Secretary of State, who wrote:

“It is important that we do not content ourselves only with the actual disarmament efforts. World disarmament is needed for world development – but equally, world development is a prerequisite for world disarmament. Not until we have arrived at a situation of reasonable equity and economic balance in the world, will it be possible to develop conditions for a lasting disarmament.”54

The United States and the Soviet Union had hammered out a policy generally known as “peaceful coexistence,” to avoid MAD – Mutually Assured Destruction. The Palme Commission proposed a strategic shift from collective security, insured by the superpowers for the constellation of affiliated nations, to the concept of common security through the United Nations. The concept also linked the transfer of money saved by the disarming superpowers to the development of underdeveloped nations, transferred through and redistributed by the United Nations.55

A work that began in 1973 was completed in 1981 – the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The U.S. and the USSR wanted the Convention limited to navigational questions. But a group of 77 developing nations, known as G-77, hijacked the conference and the subsequent negotiations and wrote into the treaty the principles of the New International Economic Order (NIEO) – a UN taxing authority. The treaty created the International Seabed Authority (ISA) which would have jurisdiction over all non-territorial waters and the seabed. No seabed activity, mining, salvaging, and so forth, can occur without a permit from the ISA.

Application fees begin at $250,000 and a schedule of royalties is set forth in the Convention. The Convention is the first to give direct taxing authority to the UN. It is a legal mechanism for the redistribution of wealth from developed nations to developing nations. The U.S. had avoided the Convention until 1994 when President Clinton signed the Treaty. Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, has announced that ratification of the treaty will be a priority for the Clinton Administration in 1997.56

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) had grown dramatically by 1982, with organizations in several countries, including the United States. Russell Train, the President of WWF-usA, secured more than $25 million in grants from MacArthur Foundation, Andrew K. Mellon Foundation, and from “US and Foreign governments, international agencies, and individual gifts,” to launch a new NGO – the World Resources Institute (WRI) headquartered in Washington, D.C. James Gustave Speth was chosen as President. Speth, a Rhodes Scholar, turned to the environment after the Viet Nam war and co-founded the Natural Resources Defense Council. He became a Rockefeller protégé and is described as “one of the most effective environmentalists alive today.” He served as President of WRI for 11 years, then as a member of President Clinton’s transition team, then moved to the UNDP as its head.57 The WRI joined the WWF and the IUCN to become the three-cornered NGO foundation for the global environmental agenda.

A World Charter for Nature was the chief product of a 1982 World Conference on Environment and Development, at which Maurice Strong said:

“I believe we are seeing the convergence of the physical and social worlds with the moral and spiritual. The concepts of loving, caring and sharing . . . for a saner, more cooperative world . . . are the indispensable foundations on which the future security system for a small planet must now be based.”58

In 1984, there was a World Conference on environmental management. But a Conference in Vienna, Austria, in 1985 established UNEP as a major player in world affairs when it produced the Vienna Convention on Ozone Depleting Substances. The ascendancy of Mikhail Gorbachev to the Soviet throne received far more media attention than did the Ozone Treaty. Most Americans did not hear about the Treaty until the Montreal Protocol in 1987 which banned certain refrigerants and fire-fighting materials.

Another World Conference on Environment and Development was held in 1987. Gro Harlem Brundtland, Vice President of the World Socialist Party, was named as Chair. The Brundtland Commission Report, entitled Our Common Future, embraced most of the ideas contained in the UNEP/IUCN/WWF publication World Conservation Strategy, including the concept of “sustainable development.” It is the Brundtland Commission that links the environment to development and development to poverty. The Report says:

“Poverty is a major cause and effect of global environmental problems. It is therefore futile to attempt to deal with environmental problems without a broader perspective that encompasses the factors underlying world poverty and international inequality.”59

Brundtland was a member of the Brandt Commission. Maurice Strong (who chaired the first world Conference on Environment and Development in 1972) was a member of the Brundtland Commission. Shirdath Ramphal was a member of the Brandt, Palme, and Brundtland Commissions, and later co-chaired the UN-funded Commission of Global Governance. Ramphal is a past President of the IUCN. The Brundtland Commission succeeded in two break-through accomplishments: (1) it linked poverty, equity, and security to environmental issues and (2) it recognized that the environment was a popular issue around which individuals, NGOs, and governments could rally. The environment was firmly established as the battle-cry to mobilize the world to create the New Economic World Order.

While UNEP was convening the first Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1988, the UNDP was funding a Global Forum of Spiritual and Parliamentary Leaders for Human Survival, sponsored jointly by the UNDP’s Global Committee of Parliamentarians on Population and Development (created in 1982) and the Temple of Understanding. The Temple of Understanding is an NGO accredited to the UN, and one of several projects of the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York City. The featured speaker at the Forum was James Lovelock, author of The Ages of Gaia. Lovelock said: “On Earth, she [gaia] is the source of life, everlasting and is alive now, she gave birth to humankind and we are a part of her.”60 The Gaia Institute is also housed at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine, as is the Lindisfarne Association which published G-A-I-A, A Way of Knowing: Political Implications of the New Biology. Maurice Strong is a member of Lindisfarne and often speaks at the Cathedral, as do Robert Muller and Vice President Al Gore.61

The Forum produced what was called the “Joint Appeal” which grew into the National Religious Partnership for the Environment (NRPE). The project is endorsed by eleven major environmental organizations, has received grants of more than $5 million, and is currently engaged in mailing “education and action kits” to 53,000 congregations. Amy Fox, Associate Director of the NRPE, says:

“We are required by our religious principles to look for the links between equity and ecology. The fundamental emphasis is on issues of environmental justice, including air pollution and global warming; water, food and agriculture; population and consumption; hunger, trade and industrial policy; community economic development; toxic pollution and hazardous waste; and corporate responsibility.”62

The decade had begun with an eruption of Mt. St. Helens, and perhaps a more spectacular political eruption: arch-conservative Ronald Reagan captured the White House from arch-liberal, Jimmy Carter. Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), more popularly known as “star wars,” is cited as a major factor in the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union. The USSR, which Reagan dubbed “the evil empire,” did assume a new attitude about arms reduction and disarmament. Gorbachev announced “glasnost,” a new policy of openness, and “perestroika” a restructuring program which featured measured “free market” opportunities. Gorbachev, who was infinitely closer to the socialist dominated inner-circle of the UN-global-governance cabal than was the Reagan Administration, may well have been preparing to shift the seat of socialist leadership from the Soviet Union to the United Nations. The newly formulated strategy of common security, rather than collective security could not accommodate the notion of a single state, even the Soviet Union, as the seat of global authority. And it is now clear that, even though it appeared to the west that Gorbachev was moving his country toward capitalism, he never had any such intention.

Gorbachev told his Politburo in November, 1987:

“Gentlemen, comrades, do not be concerned about all you hear about Glasnost and Perestroika and democracy in the coming years. They are primarily for outward consumption. There will be no significant internal changes in the Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes. Our purpose is to disarm the Americans and let them fall asleep.”

He later wrote:

“Those who hope that we shall move away from the socialist path will be greatly disappointed. Every part of our program of perestroika – and the program as a whole, for that matter – is fully based on the principle of more socialism and more democracy . . . . We will proceed toward better socialism rather than away from it. We are saying this honestly, without trying to fool our own people or the world. Any hopes that we will begin to build a different, non-socialist society and go over to the other camp are unrealistic and futile. We, the Soviet people, are for socialism. We want more socialism and therefore more democracy.”63

By November 9, 1989, when the Berlin Wall collapsed, it became clear to the world that events had out-run Gorbachev’s intentions. The Soviet Union, along with 70 years of utopian-communist dreams, collapsed as thoroughly as did the wall. The vacuum thus created in the global political balance was seen as an invitation to usher in a new, permanent balancing force – global governance.

The role and capacity of NGOs was greatly enhanced in the mid 1980s when Donald Ross of the Rockefeller Family Fund – the same Rockefeller money pot that launched the Council on Foreign Relations – invited the leaders of five other Foundations to meet informally in Washington. From that meeting grew the Environmental Grantmakers Association, a nearly invisible group of more than 100 major Foundations and corporations. They meet annually to discuss projects and grant proposals and decide which NGOs will be funded.64

Having gained a measure of national prominence in his failed bid for the White House in 1988, then Senator Al Gore, as chair of the Senate Science and Technology Committee, assumed the responsibility of advancing the global environmental agenda in America. It was Gore, and then-Senator Timothy Wirth, who arranged special “prayer breakfasts” with selected congressmen for James Parks Morton, Dean of the Cathedral of St. John the Divine, to promote the National Religious Partnership for the Environment.65 It was Gore who led the Senate to approve the Montreal Protocol which banned refrigerants. It was Gore who brought James E. Hansen, head of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, to the Senate chambers to testify that he was “99% certain that greenhouse warming had begun.”66

The decade of the 1980s was a pivotal period for the advocates of global governance. The MacBride Commission had established the principle of information management as a legitimate responsibility of the United Nations, though only partially implemented through participating NGOs: IGC/APC. The Brandt Commission had linked development with peace, and the Palme Commission had linked development with peace and disarmament as a way to shift military power to the UN and money to the third world. The Brundtland Commission linked development to the environment and introduced the concept of “sustainability.” The NGOs, coordinated by the IUCN/WWF/WRI triumvirate, and funded by the Rockefeller-coordinated Environmental Grantmakers Association, launched a world-wide campaign to convince the world that the planet stood at the brink of environmental disaster. It could be averted only by a massive transformation of human societies which would require all people to accept their spiritual and moral responsibility to embrace their common global heritage and conform to a system of international law that integrates environmental, economic, and equity issues under the watchful, regulatory authority of a new system of global governance.
Click Here to Read and Post Feedback

Send this page to a friend

Distributed by http://www.ChristianWorldviewNetwork.com

By Henry Lamb

Click here for bio and archived articles

Disclaimer: Worldview Weekend, Christian Worldview Network and its columnists do not necessarily endorse or agree with every opinion expressed in every article posted on this site. We do however, encourage a healthy and friendly debate on the issues of our day. Whether you agree or disagree, we encourage you to post your feedback by using the feedback button.

Glory of the Latter House (Benny Hinn)

0

Glory of the Latter House

Proph PicBy Benny Hinn

I began my walk with the wonderful Lord Jesus on December 7, 1974. And I have discovered during the years since then, not only does God anoint you as you are faithful to Him, but as less of you remains, He begins to fill you more and more with His power and glory.

None of us can obey the Lord in total surrender without the help of the Holy Spirit. And I believe God is calling every believer into a deeper, more committed walk with Him.

The reason the Lord asks us to yield more of ourselves is so He can do more with us as He pours out His Almighty power through us!

That time quickly approaches. I believe with all my being that we are on the verge of the most awesome move of God in history, a move so great that “eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him” (1 Corinthians 2:9).

I believe the coming move of God will be greater than what we read about in the book of Acts! The Bible clearly states, “The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former, saith the LORD of hosts” (Haggai 2:9).

Yes, we have seen mighty demonstrations of power during past years and months, but we can only imagine the awesome things that are in store for us that we have not yet seen. Now, God wants do so much more with this ministry than He has ever done before. Grant it, Lord Jesus!

In this coming move, multiplied millions will be saved. Miracles will sweep the church in an unprecedented manner. And the blessings of God will overflow in the body of Christ, so much so that, as the psalmist David exclaimed, “My cup runneth over” (Psalm 23:5)!

When the Shekinah Glory filled the Temple with awesome power, the priests couldn’t even enter (2 Chronicles 7:1-2). And that day is coming again! The Lord is speaking through me prophetically as I tell you that the very glory of God is going to descend upon His church as never before.

It will be as Isaiah declared, “Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee…and the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising” (Isaiah 60:1, 3). Get ready!

How privileged we are to be called His people, and how privileged we also are to take His Gospel to the nations during these historic times.

We are facing a dangerous hour in this world, an hour of intense attacks against the work of God worldwide. Yet, at the same time, we are facing the most glorious hour in church history when we can win more souls for His name than ever before. And we know the outcome will be glorious victory, for the victory was won on the cross!

Some Glorious And Incomparable Promises Of The Bible (Thomas Ice)

0

This article is so important to us as Christians as it shows us the nature of God – God is reliable, consistent and can be trusted with our lives!  It also addresses the problem of Replacement Theology, which implies that God is not consistent or trust worthy and will help you know God more.

Enjoy!

Benjamin

During the firsthalf of World War II General Douglas MacArthur was forced to leave thePhilippines in the Pacific Theater by the Japanese. Upon his departure he made a promise to the Philippinopeople: “I will return.” GeneralMacArthur, through the strength and power of the American military was able tokeep his promise. If humanity canmake and keep promises of rescue and deliverance, how much more will our greatGod keep the glorious and incomparable promises He has made in His Word! Indeed, He has told us that He will oneday return and fulfill the great and many promises about the glorious future instore for those who know Him as their Savior.

Why are promisesimportant to God? Promises areimportant to God’s plan for history, because God keeps His word. History is a record of God’sfaithfulness to keep His promises. Thus, God delights in making seemingly impossible promises so that He,through the most difficult circumstances, demonstrates that He keeps Hispromises. Think of God’s record offaithfulness next time you are tempted by circumstances to go back on yourword. There are three greatpromises that God has made to His people that I want to examine in this article. These promises are Israel’s permanence,Christ’s second coming, and eternal life to all believers.

Promise of Israel’s Permanence

Scripture makesit clear that God’s integrity in history revolves around His chosen peopleIsrael. It is through Israel thatGod has chosen to leave His mark through out history. It is through Israel that God gave His Law, founded anation, caused His presence to dwell, mediated His Word, and sent the Savior ofthe world. It will be throughIsrael in the future that God will work to preach the gospel through out thewhole world, invoke the second coming, reign for a thousand years in Jerusalem,and place His eternal glory. Thus,God’s promise to Israel is that they have an eternal permanence in history andthroughout eternity (Jeremiah 31:35-36). Without Israel, the second coming cannot take place, since they must bethere for this glorious event to occur.

Replacement Theology

Most Americanevangelical Christians today have a high view of Jews and the modern state ofIsrael because of the positive influence of the dispensational premillennialview that national Israel has a future in the plan of God. Yet, there are those within Christendomwho deny that Israel has a permanent place in the plan of God. This view is known as replacementtheology.

What isreplacement theology? Replacementtheology is the view that the Church has permanently replaced Israel as theinstrument through which God works and that national Israel does not have afuture in the plan of God. This isalso known by the term “supersessionism.” Some replacement theologians may believe that individual Jews will beconverted and enter into the church (something that we all believe), but theydo not believe that God will literally fulfill the dozens of Old Testamentpromises to a converted national Israel in the future. Reconstructionist patriarch, R. J.Rushdoony uses the strongest language when he declares,

Thefall of Jerusalem, and the public rejection of physical Israel as the chosenpeople of God, meant also the deliverance of the true people of God, the churchof Christ, the elect, out of the bondage to Israel and Jerusalem, . . .[1]

Afurther heresy clouds premillennial interpretations of Scripture-theirexaltation of racism into a divine principle. Every attempt to bring the Jew back into prophecy as a Jewis to give race and works (for racial descent is a human work) a priorityover grace and Christ’swork and is nothing more or lessthan paganism. . . . There can be no compromise with this vicious heresy.[2]

Historical Development

As it should be,the nature of Israel’s future has become a watershed issue in biblicalinterpretation that has caused a polarization of positions that we findtoday. Today most Reformedinterpreters do not believe in a national future for Israel, even though manyhave held such a view over the last 400 years. Why? Early inthe systemization of any theological position the issues are undeveloped andless clear than later when the consistency of various positions are workedout. Thus it is natural for themature understanding of any theological issue to lead to polarization ofviewpoints as a result of interaction and debate between positions. The earlier Reformed position includeda blend of some Old Testament passages that were taken literally (i.e., thoseteaching a future conversion of Israel as a nation) and some that were not(i.e., details of Israel’s place of dominance during a future period ofhistory). On the one hand, as timepassed, those who stressed a literal understanding of Israel from the OldTestament became much more consistent in applying such an approach to allpassages relating to Israel’s destiny. On the other hand, those who thought literalism was taken too farretreated from whatever degree of literalness they did have and argued that thechurch fulfills Israel’s promises, thus there was no need for a national Israelin the future. Further,non-literal interpretation was viewed as the tool with which liberals deniedthe essentials of the faith. Thus,by World War II dispensationalism had come to virtually dominate evangelicalswho saw literal interpretation of the Bible as a primary support for orthodoxy.

After World WarII many of the battles between fundamentalism and liberalism began towane. Such an environment allowedfor less stigma attached to non literal interpretation within conservativecircles. However, today, as we seea decline in literal interpretation within Evangelicalism as a whole, we see anerosion among Evangelical scholars for support for modern Israel.

TheModern State of Israel

The fact that thelast 100 years has seen a world-wide regathering and reestablishment of thenation of Israel, which is now poised in just the setting required for therevealing of the Antichrist and the start of the tribulation, is God’s grandindicator that all of the other areas of world development are propheticallysignificant. Dr. Walvoord says,

Ofthe many peculiar phenomena which characterize the present generation,: fewevents can claim equal significance as far as Biblical prophecy is concernedwith that of the return of Israel to their land. It constitutes a preparation for the end of the age, thesetting for the coming of the Lord for His church, and the fulfillment ofIsrael’s prophetic destiny.[3]

What one believesabout the future of Israel is of utmost importance to one’s understanding ofthe Bible. I believe, without ashadow of doubt, that Old Testament promises made to national Israel willliterally be fulfilled in the future. This means the Bible teaches that God will return theJews to their land before the tribulation begins (Isaiah 11:11-12:6; Ezekiel20:33-44; 22:17-22; Zephaniah 2:1-3). This has been accomplished and the stage is set as a result of thecurrent existence of the modern state of Israel. The Bible also indicates that before Israel enters into hertime of national blessing she must first pass through the fire of thetribulation (Deuteronomy 4:30; Jeremiah. 30:5-9; Daniel 12:1; Zephaniah1:14-18). Even though the horrorsof the Holocaust under Hitler were of an unimaginable magnitude, the Bibleteaches that a time of even greater trial awaits Israel during thetribulation. Anti-Semitism willreach new heights, this time global in scope, in which two-thirds of worldJewry will be killed (Zechariah 13:7-9; Revelation 12). Through this time God will protect Hisremnant so that before His second advent “all Israel will be saved”(Romans 11:36). In fact, thesecond coming will include the purpose of God’s physical rescue of Israel fromworld persecution during Armageddon (Daniel 12:1; Zechariah 12-14; Matthew24:29-31; Revelation 19:11-21).

If nationalIsrael is a historical “has been,” then all of this is obviouslywrong. However, the Bible says shehas a future and world events will revolve around that tiny nation at thecenter of the earth. The world’sfocus already is upon Israel. Godhas preserved His people for a reason and it is not all bad. In spite of the fact that history isprogressing along the lines of God’s ordained pattern for Israel, we see therevival of replacement theology within conservative circles that will no doubtbe used in the future to fuel the fires of anti-Semitism, as it has in thepast. Your view of the future ofnational Israel is not just an academic exercise.

Promise of Christ’s Second Coming

Though many may not realize its significance, the return of Jesus Christ to planet Earth is themost important event that will occur in the future. But what do we know about the coming of Christ? Is it only a heart-felt hope andhistorical hype, or do we have a clear and certain word from God on this event?

The prophetic promise of the second coming of Jesus Christ to earth is the subject of manypassages in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. What are some of the more prominent texts? They include some of thefollowing: Deuteronomy 30:3; Psalm2; Isaiah 63:1-6; Daniel 2:44-45; 7:13-14; Zechariah 14:1-4; Matthew 24-25;Mark 13; Luke 21; Acts 1:9-11; Romans 11:26; 1 Thessalonians 3:13; 5:1-4; 2Thessalonians 1:6-2:12; 2 Peter 2:1-3:17; Jude 14-15; Revelation 1:7; 19:11-21.

The most graphicportrayal of Christ’s second coming is found in Revelation 19:11-21. In this extended passage Jesus Christis described as leading a procession of angels and saints or armies in heavento claim the earth, destroy the armies of the world, and defeat the Antichristand False Prophet.

This passage shows that Christ’s return will be one that entails great physicaldestruction and many deaths. Forthose who are not Christ’s own, it will be a terrifying and terribleevent. For those of us who knowHim as their Savior, it will be a time of great joy, vindication, andanticipation.

The Bible depicts the career of Christ as revolving around two major aspects. Titus 2:11-14 speaks of Christ’s twoappearances on earth. The firstphase is related to His coming in humiliation to die for the sins of mankind. The second phase is when He will comein power and glory to reign over all mankind. Hebrews 9:28 is a single verse that explains and contrastsChrist’s two comings. The writerof Hebrews says “so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sinsof many, shall appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, tothose who eagerly await Him.” Jesus is coming again. Thisis a glorious promise and hope for all believers.

Promise of EternalLife

Eternal life is the gift of God given to all who believe in Jesus Christ and have accepted Hisoffer of salvation based upon His death and resurrection (John 10:10; Ephesians2:8-9). In the Bible, eternal life emphasizes a quality of life, a quality that can only be imparted by GodHimself. This life does not, ofcourse, make us God, we are and will always remain creatures, however, it is aquality of life that comes from the God who has the quality of eternality. Therefore, eternal life should not beconfused with endless or eternal existence which everyone will experience. Eternal existence will be common to theredeemed and the unredeemed, but the destinies will be very different. Christians will enter into heaven andthe presence of God; unbelievers will be cast into the lake of fire (Revelation20:11-15).

For those of us who have trusted Jesus Christ as our Savior, we are given the promise ofeternal life the moment we believe. John says, “the witness is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He whohas the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have thelife” (1 John 5:11-13). If you havetrusted in Christ, then you have eternal life in the present that will continuethroughout eternity in heaven for the believer. Believers have the hope of eternal life in heave with ourLord for eternity.

Conclusion

Anyone familiar with God’s word knows that He has a wonderful plan for history and Hispeople. These are indeed gloriousand incomparable promises through which He implements His plan. What should the response of thebeliever be to God’s promises? ThePsalmist rightly advises, “What shall I render to the Lord for all His benefits toward me? I shall lift up the cup of salvation,and call upon the name of the Lord”(Psalm 116:12-13).

When we think about the significance of the glorious promises that our Lord has in store forus as His people we respond with a thankful heart. Let us remember that for the believer this present life ifthe worse things will ever be for us. But, for the unbeliever, this present life will be the best they willever experience. Let us claim theprecious promises that He has made to us in the present so that He will make usfit for eternity.

Necessity of an Interval between the Rapture and the 2nd Coming

8

Necessity of an Interval between the Rapture and the 2nd Coming

 

by: Thomas Ice

 

Building upon the article “The Rapture & The Second Coming: An Important Distinction” in our previous issue of Pre-Trib Perspectives, we now will see that a gap of time is needed between the rapture and the second coming in order to facilitate certain events spoken of in the Bible. Such a needed time interval provides strong support for pretribulationism.

 

A PRE-TRIB INTERVAL

Numerous items in the New Testament can easily be harmonized by a pre-trib time gap of at least seven years, while other views, especially postribulationists, are forced to postulate scenarios that would not realistically allow for normal passage of time. The following events are best temporally harmonized with an interval of time as put forth by pretribulationism.1

 

THE BEMA JUDGMENT

2 Corinthians 5:10 teaches that all believers of this age must appear before the judgment seat of Christ in heaven. This event, often known as the “bema judgment” (see also Rom. 14:10; 1 Cor. 3:10-15; 4:2-5) from the Greek word bema, is an event never mentioned in the detailed accounts connected with the second coming of Christ to the earth. Instead, the second coming brings with it God’s judgment of unbelievers, usually expressed by some form of the Greek word krinô. Thus, it can be established from the biblical text that the bema-judgment applies only to church age believers, while the krinô-judgment is for unbelievers.

The Bible indicates that each individual within the Body of Christ will appear before the bema in association with Christ’s return for the church (i.e., at the pretrib rapture). Dr. Robert Gromacki notes:

the judgment will occur immediately after the coming of Christ for believers. . . . Earlier, Paul wrote: “Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come . . . (I Cor. 4:5). Thus, this is not an ongoing judgment that each Christian experiences on earth or right after death. It is a once-for-all event that occurs right after the appearing of Christ (I Thess. 4:13-18).2

Since the normal transaction of such an evaluation would require some passage of time, the pre-trib gap of seven years nicely accounts for such a requirement.

 

CHRIST’S BRIDE IN HEAVEN

In conjunction with the bema judgment, Revelation 19:7-10 pictures the church as a bride who has been made ready for marriage (with “fine linen,” which represents “the righteous acts of the saints”) to her groom (Christ). The bride has already been clothed in preparation for her return at the second coming with Christ to the earth (Rev. 19:11-18). It follows that the church would already have to be complete and in heaven (because of the pre-trib rapture) in order to have been prepared in the way that Revelation 19 describes. This requires an interval of time which pretribulationism handles well.

Apparently the bride’s preparation and the bema judgment are different illustrations of the same event. The bema focuses on the process of judgment, while the bride pictures the results. Dr. Ed Hindson explains:

Whatever view one holds in regard to our Lord’s return, one thing is clear in prophetic Scripture, the marriage occurs in heaven (Rev. 19:7-9) before the triumphal return of Christ with His redeemed church at His side (Rev. 19:11-16).

Non-pretribulationists are at a virtual loss to explain how the church got to heaven prior to returning with Christ at the battle of Armageddon. At best, some suggest they are “caught up” after the Tribulation only to return immediately with the Lord. This arrangement, however, leaves little or no time for the wedding!3

 

THE 24 ELDERS IN HEAVEN

The 24 elders of Revelation 4:1-5:14 are best understood as representative of the church. Dr. Charles Ryrie explains:

In the New Testament, elders as the highest officials in the church do represent the whole church (cf. Acts 15:6; 20:28), and in the Old Testament, twenty-four elders were appointed by King David to represent the entire Levitical priesthood (I Chron. 24). When those twenty-four elders met together in the temple precincts in Jerusalem, the entire priestly house was represented. Thus it seems more likely that the elders represent redeemed human beings, . . . the church is included and is thus in heaven before the tribulation begins.4

If these elders refer to the church, then it would mean at least two things: 1) It would necessitate the rapture and reward of the church before the tribulation and would require a chronological gap for them to perform their heavenly duties during the seven-year tribulation. 2) It would also show that the completed church was already in heaven before events of the tribulation begin.

 

THE JUDGMENT OF GENTILES

It would be impossible for the judgment of the Gentiles to take place after the second coming if the rapture and second coming are not separated by a gap of time. How would both saved and unsaved, still in their natural bodies, be separated in judgment if all living believers are translated at the second coming? This would be impossible if the translation takes place at the second coming, but it is solved through a pretribulational gap.

Dr. John F. Walvoord points out that if “the translation took place in connection with the second coming to the earth, there would be no need of separating the sheep from the goats at a subsequent judgment, but the separation would have taken place in the very act of the translation of the believers before Christ actually sets up His throne on earth (Matt. 25:31).”5 Once again, such a “problem” is solved by taking a pretrib position with its gap of at least seven years.

 

POPULATING THE MILLENNIUM

At the second coming, non-martyred Believers who come to faith in Christ during the tribulation are not translated, but carry on ordinary occupations such as farming, building houses, and the bearing of children (Isa. 65:20-25) during the subsequent millennium. This would be impossible if all saints were translated at the second coming to the earth, as posttribulationists teach. Because pretribulationists have at least a seven-year interval between the removal of the church at the rapture and the return of Christ to the earth, this is not a problem because millions of people will be saved during the interval and thus be available to populate the millennium in their natural bodies in order to fulfill Scripture.

Dr. Steven McAvoy concludes:

The fact that the judgment of the nations occurs before the millennium and thus provides for the population of the millennial earth, constitutes a strong argument for pretribulationism. For a posttribulational rapture would leave no sheep for this judgment. If pretribulationalists are correct in placing this judgment before the millennium then posttribulationalism suffers a serious blow.6

 

ISRAEL’S FUTURE

A time interval is needed so that God’s program for the church, a time when Jew and Gentile are united in one body (cf. Eph. 2-3), will not become commingled in any way with His unfinished and future plan for Israel during the tribulation. Dr. Renald Showers notes:

All other views of the Rapture have the church going through at least part of the 70th week, meaning that all other views mix God’s 70-weeks program for Israel and Jerusalem together with His program for the church.7

A gap of time is needed after God completes His program with the church, so that He may conclude His plans for Israel. Only with an interval of seven years, as postulated by pretribulationists, can God’s program be harmonized in a non-conflicting manner.

 

CONCLUSION

The pretribulational rapture of the church not only fulfills a biblical need to see a distinction between the translation of church-age saints at the rapture, before the second coming, but it also handles without difficulty the necessity of a time-gap, which harmonizes a number of future biblical events. This requirement of a seven-year gap of time adds support to the likelihood that pretribulationism best reflects the biblical point of view.

 

ENDNOTES

1 Many of the points in this article are taken from John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question: Revised and Enlarged Edition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979), pp. 274-75.

2 Robert G. Gromacki, Stand Firm in the Faith: An Exposition of II Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978),pp. 84-85.

3 Edward E. Hindson, “The Rapture and the Return: Two Aspects of Christ’s Coming” in Thomas Ice and Timothy Demy, eds, When the Trumpet Sounds (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1995), p. 156.

4 Charles C. Ryrie, Revelation (Chicago: Moody Press, 1968), pp. 35-36.

5 Walvoord, The Rapture Question, p. 274.

6 Steven L. McAvoy, “A Critique of Robert Gundry’s Posttribulationalism” (Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1986), p. 203.

7 Renald Showers, Maranatha Our Lord, Come! A Definitive Study of the Rapture of the Church (Bellmawr, N.J.: The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, Inc., 1995), p. 243.

When Did J. N. Darby Discover the Rapture? (Thomas Ice)

0

When Did J. N. Darby Discover the Rapture?

Tom’s Perspectives

by Thomas Ice

 

      Did key elements of the doctrine of the pretribulational rapture originate with either Edward Irving (1792–1834) or the broader Irvingite movement and then stealthily incorporated into the theology of John Nelson Darby (1800–1882) and the Brethren?  Dave MacPherson is convinced “that the popular Pre-Trib Rapture teaching of today was really instigated by a teenager in Scotland who lived in the early 1800’s,”[i] who was connected with the broader Irvingite movement.  This is the general thesis put forth in dozens of books and articles for many years.  However, I do not believe that there is merit to such a position since Irving and his movement never taught pretribulationism and both come from very different eschatological systems.  In fact, I believe it can be established that Darby first came to believe in both dispensational truth and pretribulationism by December 1826 or January 1827, before these other alleged sources even surfaced.

 

Darby’s Convalescence

      Anyone who has seriously studied the life of Darby is aware of the pivotal nature of a riding accident that probably took place in October 1826 in Ireland.  Darby says, “An accident happened which laid me aside for a time; my horse was frightened and had thrown me against a door-post.”[ii]  Darby’s older sister Susan Pennefather, whose husband Edward eventually became Chief Justice of Ireland’s Supreme Court,[iii] took care of her injured brother in their Dublin home.[iv]  It was during this time of “convalescence” for Darby that he came to a great realization as a result of Bible study, prayer, and time alone with the Lord.  Darby tells us what happened in his own words:

 

During my solitude, conflicting thoughts increased; but much exercise of soul had the effect of causing the scriptures to gain complete ascendancy over me.  I had always owned them to be the word of God.

      When I came to understand that I was united to Christ in heaven, and that, consequently, my place before God was represented by His own, I was forced to the conclusion that it was no longer a question with God of this wretched “I” which had wearied me during six or seven years, in presence of the requirements of the law.  It then became clear to me that the church of God, as He considers it, was composed only of those who were so united to Christ, whereas Christendom, as seen externally, was really the world, and could not be considered as “the church,” save as regards the responsibility attaching to the position which it professed to occupy-a very important thing in its place.  At the same time, I saw that the Christian, having his place in Christ in heaven, has nothing to wait for save the coming of the Saviour, in order to be set, in fact, in the glory which is already his portion “in Christ.”

. . . In my retreat, the 32nd chapter of Isaiah taught me clearly, on God’s behalf, that there was still an economy to come, of His ordering; a state of things in no way established as yet.  The consciousness of my union with Christ had given me the present heavenly portion of the glory, whereas this chapter clearly sets forth the corresponding earthly part.  I was not able to put these things in their respective places or arrange them in order, as I can now; but the truths themselves were then revealed of God, through the action of His Spirit by reading His word.

      What was to be done?  I saw in that word the coming of Christ to take the church to Himself in glory.  I saw there the cross, the divine basis of salvation, which should impress its own character on the Christian and on the church in view of the Lord’s coming; and also that meanwhile the Holy Spirit was given to be the source of the unity of the church, as well as the spring of its activity, and indeed of all christian energy.[v]

 

      Darby also refers to his discovery of the rapture and other truths during his convalescence of December 1826 through January 1827 in a letter he wrote in 1879:

 

But these are the two truths brought out in these days, throwing light on the truth of the first coming.  They have been consciously my theme these fifty years and more.  They started me in my path of service; the assurance of salvation came with them, and the christian character as of the new creation, . . . When man entered into the glory of God consequent on accomplished redemption, the Holy Ghost came down, till He comes to take us up.  This connects the hope and the power of life and heavenly calling with accomplished redemption: Christ, Man at the right hand of God, is the central point.  What set me free in 1827 is still the theme on which my soul dwells, with, I trust, much deeper sense of its importance-something much nearer to me, but the same truths.  And blessed truths they are; and the hope, what a hope![vi]

 

What Does This Mean?

      Thus, in these two extended citations by Darby concerning what he discovered from his study of Scripture during his convalescence, we learn that he saw himself positionally seated with Christ at the Father’s right hand, that a Christian has nothing to wait for except the coming of Christ, and as a result of his study of Isaiah 32 he saw that after Christ’s second coming there would be a change in economy, in other words, a premillennial return of the Lord.

      It means that Darby’s view of Christ’s return without intervening events-the pre-trib rapture-came to him as a result of arriving at an understanding of the uniqueness of the church, as opposed to Israel.  As is true of pretribulationists today, their pretribulationism is built upon a view of the church (ecclesiology), which when applied to eschatology produces this view.  It means that from day one (December 1826 and January 1827) that Darby had the theological rationale, whose basics never changed, that further support the notion that pretribulationism, along with dispensationalism, were a product of his own thought based upon Bible study.

 

Darby Pre-dates Others

      The dates of December 1826 and January 1827 as the point in which Darby discovers these doctrines means that even if others developed a pre-trib rapture viewpoint, which they did not, but for the sake of argument we will consider their dates compared with Darby’s.  The earliest suggestion is that Darby was influenced by Manuel de Lacunza’s (1731–1801) book that was translated from Spanish into English by Edward Irving (1792–1834) and was published in the Spring of 1827.  First of all, no pre-trib rapture was taught in that book.[vii]  Thus, Darby would have already developed his views months before it would have been possible for him to have been influenced by de Lacunza’s writings.

      Along the same line, some have suggested that Darby was influenced by the 194-page introduction penned by Edward Irving that appeared in de Lacunza’s book.  The same point made above would be that it came out months after Darby’s discovery and could not be the source.  Further Irving never held to pretribulationism, instead, he believed a form of historicism that was similar to de Lacunza.  After all, Irving was so impressed with de Lacunza that he learned Spanish and translated his book.

      Dave MacPherson has made the claim “that the popular Pre-Trib Rapture teaching of today was really instigated by a teenager in Scotland who lived in the early 1800’s,”[viii]  April 1830 is when fifteen-year old Margaret Macdonald (1815–1840) is alleged to have come up with the idea in a prophecy she gave that was written down and circulated.[ix]  Once again the problem arises, how can a source that anti-dates by almost three and a half years Darby’s pretribulationism be his source?  Like the other suggestions, Macdonald’s prophecy does not come close to even teaching a pre-trib rapture.

      In 1864 Samuel P. Tregelles (1813–1875) said that Darby’s view of the rapture was “given forth as an “utterance” in Mr. Irving’s church.”  He also claimed that this occurred “about the year 1832.”[x]  This would be different than the Margaret Macdonald claim since Miss Macdonald was in Scotland and Irving’s church was in London.  Tregelles’ claim also falls short since it would have been a full five years after Darby became pretribulational from his own Bible study and meditation.

 

Conclusion

      Many people down through the years have believed these false claims from those who dislike Darby or the pre-trib rapture doctrine and have spread these myths far and wide.  These pseudo-sources of pretribulationism are intended to cast a cloud upon its origin as coming from occultic or demonic sources.  Instead, I have been able to show that in reality pretribulationism was a product of Darby’s own Holy Spirit guided Bible study.  Maranatha!

 

ENDNOTES

 

 


[i] Dave MacPherson, The Great Rapture Hoax (Fletcher, NC: New Puritan Library, 1983), p. 7.  MacPherson’s most recent offering is The Rapture Plot (Muskogee, OK: Artisan Publishers, 2007).

[ii] J. N. Darby, Letters of J. N. Darby, Volume Three 1879-1882 (Oak Park, IL: Bible Truth Publishers, 1971), p. 298.

[iii] Timothy C. F. Stunt, From Awakening to Secession: Radical Evangelicals in Switzerland and Britain 1815–35 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), p. 391.

[iv] Max S. Weremchuk, John Nelson Darby (Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1992), pp. 47–48.

[v] Darby, Letters of Darby, vol. 3, pp. 298–99.

[vi] J. N. Darby, Letters of J. N. Darby, Volume Two 1868-1879 (Oak Park, IL: Bible Truth Publishers, 1971), p. 499.

[vii] Juan Josafat Ben-Ezra, The Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty, 2 vols, translated by Edward Irving (London: L. B. Seeley and son, 1827). Juan Josafat Ben-Ezra was a pseudonym that Manuel de Lacunza published under.

[viii] MacPherson, Rapture Hoax, p. 7.

[ix] Robert Norton, who later married Miss Macdonald, provides her prophecy in two different books.  There are differences between the accounts.  Memoirs of James & George Macdonald, of Port Glasgow (London: John F. Shaw, 1840), pp. 171–76; The Restoration of Apostles and Prophets; In the Catholic Apostolic Church (London: Bosworth & Harrison, 1861), pp. 15–18.

[x] S. P. Tregelles, The Hope of Christ’s Second Coming: How is it Taught in Scripture? And Why? (Chelmsford, England: The Sovereign Grace Advent Testimony, 1886), p. 35.

%d bloggers like this: