All this means is that we should pray for pope Francis. Would it not be a coup for God to win over Francis? He has done it before with a king of old Babylon!

Yes, that's one thing in the great controversy that changes things: The Human Factor. While some thwart the scheme through their own greed, others are converted!

Separation of church and state works great when it is understood and practiced properly. So, what is properly?

In Zorach v. Clauson 1952, Justice William O. Douglas writing for the majority said this;

"We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being....When the state encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs."

This was the proper understanding until 1960. So much for stare decisis.

Indeed -- pray!!!
We need to pray most earnestly for we are facing very serious times!

Things are shaping up so fast I can't see how anyone can still doubt the accuracy of what was foretold would happen in the time of the end.

Fifty years ago, people still scoffed that it could happen. But it is happening NOW!

Pope condemns Religious Right

See article in US NEWS

[

"Marvelous in her shrewdness and cunning is the Romish Church. She can read what is to be. She bides her time,
seeing that the Protestant churches are paying her homage."

Yes, following the blue print set out by Jesuits in the book, "Unity of the churches", the first goal was to encourage the churches to set aside their doctrines and all work together -- ecumenicalism was a big focus. Not actually uniting, maintaining their individual structure, yet not worrying about doctrines that divide, working together.

But in that plan -- was always the goal that the papacy would end up on top!

So now the protestant world, largely divested of their fundamental doctrines, looking to the Catholic world as a bonafide member of the Christian community, and the pope as great world leader in Christian principles, are being told to back off from seeking political control. Why? Because Trump is calling on some fundamental Christian principles to change things that are not according to the Papal agenda!

Yet, the very acts of papal activities and pronouncements and politically active bishops who are VERY MUCH involved in political affairs is an outright lie to the seemingly "don't get involved in politics" message of the pope.

What is written between the lines here --

A shared desire for political influence between "evangelical fundamentalists" and Catholics inspires an "ecumenism of conflict"

Is a power that hates separation of church and state, pretending to be the champion of freedom, in order to prevent any other than their own agenda to prevail?

On the other side of the coin ---

There is quite a movement among Pentecostal groups, fueled by Jim Bakker's TV programs, and Jeremiah Johnson's prophecies.

They formed the "POTUS Shield", a network of Pentecostal leaders devoted to helping Trump bring about the reign of God in America and the world.

Guess the pope doesn't want them interfering with His agenda.

The hallmark of Romanism is the lack of religious freedom. Are we seeing elements of the same in the SDA church today?

Those who are enjoined to represent the attributes of the Lord's character, step from the Bible platform, and in their own human judgment devise rules and resolutions to force the will of others. The devisings for forcing men to follow the prescriptions of other men are instituting an order of things that overrides sympathy and tender compassion, that blinds the eyes to mercy, justice, and the love of God. Moral influence and personal responsibility are trodden underfoot. {TM 363.1}

The righteousness of Christ by faith has been ignored by some; for it is contrary to their spirit and their whole life experience. Rule, rule, has been their course of action. Satan has had an opportunity of representing himself. When one who professes to be a representative of Christ engages in sharp dealing and in pressing men into hard places, those who are thus oppressed will either break every fetter of restraint, or they will be led to regard God as a hard master. They cherish hard feelings against God, and the soul is alienated from Him, just as Satan planned it should be. {TM 363.2}

This hardheartedness on the part of men who claim to believe the truth Satan charges to the influence of the truth itself, and thus men become disgusted and turn from the truth. For this reason no man should have a responsible connection with our institutions who thinks it no important matter whether he has a heart of flesh or a heart of steel. {TM 363.3}

Men think they are representing the justice of God, but they do not represent His tenderness and the great love wherewith He has loved us. Their human invention originating with the specious devices of Satan, appears fair enough to the blinded eyes of men, because it is inherent in their nature. A lie, believed, practiced, becomes a truth to them. Thus the purpose of the satanic agencies is accomplished, that men should reach these conclusions through the working of their own inventive minds. {TM 363.4}

What does Christ tell us to do? To rule over our fellow church members? NO. All we are supposed to do is "abide in Him".

I like what HMS Richard's Sr. said about what the Adventist Message really is, it is: "Jesus Only".

Do you have proof that Adventists are entering politics to enforce religious principles?

DEDICATION - - The structure in the church is very political and there are those in the church trying to force their view even to the point of threatening others to take away their livelihood. It does not have to necessarily be outside the church to follow in the path of Romanism. Suppression of religious freedom can start at home.

I can agree that the structure in the church is very political, and has some problems of being more "policy orientated" than "truth in Christ" orientated.

However, this thread is about using the state, with civil penalties, to enforce religion on the population at large.


Right now, membership in a church is still volunteer. A person has different options if things shift in a direction within the church that they can't agree with. A pastor that no longer believes the core doctrines upheld by the church in which he is pastor, will most likely loose his job as a pastor of that church -- that is just the way things have always been done, or there would be mass confusion.

It's also the reason why there are so many denominations -- each one gathering together the people who have similar beliefs, but different from their former church.

But once church and state join hands -- everyone in the whole region, the whole country, must tow the line on whatever that singular "church/state" demands -- they have no other place to go.
It's no longer volunteer membership -- it's forced membership.


And that is what this thread is about --





It's a whole different thing.

The First Amendment's Establishment Clause reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"--meaning that not only no church but no "religion" could be made the official faith of the United States.

The Free Exercise Clause provides that Congress shall not make laws "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion.


It is this that is being highly debated and fought against.
Can congress make laws to establish A RELIGION and enforce it upon the nation?

Every church has the right to say what is expressed from the pulpit in their organization. As dedication said, a church is something people join because of holding the same beliefs. If anything goes inside a church, theologically speaking, how can anyone understand what the organization stands for? It becomes nothing more than Babel. It becomes mass confusion if every belief, every idea, every agenda, is tolerated. There has to be church discipline, church standards, and a common set of beliefs.

I've never understood the people who say the church is evil because it doesn't change to accept all their beliefs. Why do they think they have the right to force change on everyone else? Other's do not think the way they do and the church has never stood for what they push, so what gives them the sense of entitlement to think they are so important that the church must change fit their ideas? Why not start their own church? Then they will have a place in which they fit and that church can be organized to agree with their own understanding of things, and those who disagree with them can peaceably continue in what they believe.

So it can never happen in the SDA church? How many SDA church members support the state's policies? How many SDA church members support the current U.S. administration? Where to they learn this?

Could a large segment of the Adventist church join the political state enforced religion when it appears?

Yes, I believe a large number will give up the Adventist beliefs and bow to the demands of the "state religion" -- open their church doors on Sunday, and turn against the members that continue to stand for the "old paths" of Seventh-day Adventism.

In fact -- I believe that the movement saying that Adventist leadership should not stand up against people who seek to do away with our distinctly Adventist doctrines, are preparing the church to blend in to the coming "state-religion".

I agree with you on this, dedication. The reason I do is because the things being pushed come from, for the most part, the world's political agenda. To me that means those pushing these things have accepted political agendas over Biblical concepts.