You successfully added to your cart! You can either continue shopping, or checkout now if you'd like.

Note: If you'd like to continue shopping, you can always access your cart from the icon at the upper-right of every page.



From Chaos to Cosmos, Part 4

FFI Header

Issue #367February 2019

From Chaos to Cosmos, Part 4

During the 60’s revolution, it was often argued that government should not try to legislate morality. Those who were unschooled in the law of God had weak responses. The fact is that all laws legislate morality, if we use the term in its general sense. Laws set the standard of behavior for the nation, because sin is a moral crime.

On the other hand, if one means that laws have no power to change hearts, that is certainly true. Laws are weak in that they only regulate behavior. Paul makes it clear that the law has the same weakness (Rom. 8:3). Only the work of the Holy Spirit can actually change one’s heart and nature.

Having said that, there is value in the law, in that it can coerce people into changing their behavior and instilling habits that are conducive to a peaceful society. If those laws are repealed, however, we soon discover how many people are quick to revert back to their original behavior.

Heart change is evident when people remain lawful even when governments indulge their fleshly tendencies. It has been said that one’s true character is revealed when a person thinks no one else is watching. Such situations indicate that one’s moral standard is indeed from the heart, rather than merely imposed by fear upon a person against his will.

The argument that government should not legislate morality was used by immoral people as an excuse first to allow immorality, then to legalize it, and finally to make it illegal to criticize immorality. Hence, we have moved from a society where morality was considered to be a virtue to one where taking a moral stand in public is now a violation of the rights of immoral people. If this were to continue, as things always do, it would eventually be a crime to hold a contrary opinion in one’s own mind.

The church grumbled but grudgingly admitted that laws did not have the ability to change hearts, nor did Christians have the right to impose biblical standards upon non-believers. So they acknowledged the right to be immoral, not realizing that this was but the first step toward being censored for expressing their Christian viewpoints.

As a corollary, it was soon said that trying to convert a Jew to Christ was also wrong. They said that Jews believe in the same God and are already under God’s covenant. Hence, there is no need for Jews to accept Christ, for they are “chosen” by race, not by their acceptance of Christ.

Some are now being persecuted for discussing Christ with Muslims, as if it is a crime for a Muslim to convert to Christianity. Recently, in the Mall of America in my home town of Minneapolis, MN, some Muslim women were discussing Jesus Christ with a Christian. After some Muslim men walked by and heard snatches of the conversation, the Mall police came to arrest the Christian.

It is doubtful if any non-Christian would be arrested for sharing his beliefs. The big push is to ban Christianity by promoting other religions, and this is one of the reasons why unlimited immigration is so important to certain political leaders today.

Freedom of religion has turned into freedom from Christianity. The government model is being taken from that of first-century Greece, where Christian evangelism was limited to one’s private home or in a designated public forum such as Mars Hill (Acts 17:22). Of course, the ultimate goal of the current Babylonian empire is to eradicate Christianity completely and to replace it with Masonic Luciferianism.

Freedom of Religion

When the printing press gave small inexpensive Bibles to the public in Europe, men realized that the Roman Church was not really so Christian after all, at least not by biblical definition. This realization sparked the Protestant Reformation, and soon men found the biblical foundations of biblical government that could set men free of both sin’s tyranny and governmental tyranny.

Such freedom was hardly possible prior to the distribution of the Bible. The Bible was the first project of Gutenberg’s printing press in the mid-1400’s. This monumental event, prophesied in Rev. 10:2, where the “strong angel” (Peniel, I believe) gave us the “little book,” forever changed history. By 1517 the long Age of Thyatira came to an end (529-1517) and ushered us into the Age of Sardis (1517-1776).

Thyatira, or “New Tyre,” literally means “tyrant goddess.” Theo is the Greek word for “God.” Thya, or thea, is the feminine form of theos, and it means “goddess.” Tira, the last portion of Thyatira, is short for tyrannos, a “tyrant.” Prophetically speaking, when we relate the seven churches of the Old Testament to the seven churches of the book of Revelation, as John does, we see that Thyatira is the Jezebel church, that is, the church that is tyrannized and persecuted by Jezebel. Such was the Roman Church that dominated that age.

The Age of Sardis saw the rise of a precious stone (sardius), which John likens to those who finally overcame the power of Rome by declaring the authority of the Word. These precious stones (saints) found the principles of freedom in the word of God, and when they put those principles into practice (as best they knew how), the fruit of their labor was the American Republic.

In 1776, in the city of Philadelphia, the American forefathers drafted their Declaration of Independence, declaring boldly that all rights come from “the Creator” and not from governments. This was another seminal moment in world history, ushering in the Age of Philadelphia (1776-1914), which was a direct parallel to the Hezekiah Church of the Old Testament, the church with “a little strength” (Rev. 3:8). Hezekiah literally means “strength of Yah.”

The Roots of Slavery and Inequality

Unfortunately, the Philadelphia church was fatally flawed by its narrow application of the principles of freedom. One of the most important flaws was that too many did not understand the law of Impartiality nor the law of Jubilee. The great principles of freedom that the Reformers had discovered were applied to white Europeans while all others were classified as “savages” and therefore not “man” by legal definition.

Throughout the 19th century, treaties were broken as fast they were signed, because the wording applied only to “men,” and therefore these did not legally apply to Native Americans. Crafty men found ways of deceiving everyone using legalese.

Furthermore, the original 13 colonies were not all founded on the principles of the Protestant Reformation. Some were Anglican, which differed little from the Roman Catholic model and which promoted African slavery as a righteous norm for Christian society. In order for all of the colonies to agree to sign the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson had to delete a lengthy paragraph that denounced slavery.

Jefferson’s Declaration had included an indictment of King George III, which read:

“Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every Legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished dye, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us and purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he also obtruded* them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of our people with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.” (John A. Logan, The Great Conspiracy, pp. 2, 3)

*Obtrude: to force one’s view on another

Jefferson made it clear that the African slave traders were marketing “men” and not mere “savages,” and that “this execrable commerce” full of “horrors” was being forced upon them by King George III. Unfortunately, some of the southern states objected to this paragraph.

To the extent that Protestantism bore influence, slavery was looked upon as a sin. To the extent that Catholicism and Anglicanism bore influence, slavery was not only accepted but vigorously defended as well. This conflict remained an open wound on the American Republic from the start, and it has not been fully healed to this day.

The Philadelphia era (1776-1914) thus saw the apex of the Protestant Reformation understanding of freedom. The principles were sound but the application was yet limited. Toward the end of that church era, a new outpouring of the Holy Spirit occurred, which came to be known as the Pentecostal movement. This was the church’s arrival at Mount Sinai after leaving Egypt through the ministry of Martin Luther.

The purpose of Pentecost was to write the law upon our hearts through hearing the voice of God. On New Year’s Eve of 1900 A.D., the Spirit was poured out in Topeka, Kansas, at the Bible school of Charles Parham. This spread later to Los Angeles (Azusa Street) a few years later.

It is my opinion that God’s purpose for this Pentecost was to give the church the opportunity to learn the law of God, to understand its principles of justice and liberty for all, and to extend those principles to all mankind. If they had done so, I believe the captivity of the Laodicean era might have been avoided. This was God’s will, but it was not His plan, for the Laodicean era had already been prophesied in Rev. 3:14-22, and even earlier, the Old Testament precedent had already been set in Israel’s captivity to Assyria and Judah’s captivity to Babylon.

Nonetheless, opportunity was given to the church to avoid divine judgment. Unfortunately, the church largely repeated the mistakes of Israel at Mount Sinai, refusing to hear the voice of God directly. They preferred to send Moses up the Mount, so that they could hear God’s word indirectly through him (Exodus 20:18-21).

This problem is the root problem of denominations, which prefer to hear men tell them about God than to hear God for themselves. Once they replace God with men, those men invariably become children of Saul, Israel’s king, who was crowned on Pentecost (called “wheat harvest” in 1 Sam. 12:17).

Pentecost is the coronation day of a lesser kingdom, one where the people are not yet ready to hear God’s voice directly, one where the people yet prefer a man to rule them. So God told Samuel in 1 Sam. 8:7, “they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them.”

Even in Acts 2, when Pentecost was fulfilled as a feast day, the church soon reverted back to the Saul pattern of denominationalism. The Kingdom that lies ahead of us will be a Tabernacles Kingdom, not a Pentecostal Kingdom.

The coronation of the church in Acts 2 fulfilled the pattern of Saul’s coronation centuries earlier on the same day. The people did not realize that they were choosing a system of bondage to religious men. Likewise, in the early 1900’s, the Pentecostal movement had opportunity to reject the rule of men, but instead they formed new denominations from 1909-1912.

Thus, the judgment of God came upon America on December 23, 1913, when the Federal Reserve Act was passed. America was brought into captivity to Mystery Babylon through an economic captivity of debt-money. The end of the Philadelphia Age brought us into the Laodicean Age, the church of the captivity.

The End of the Captivity

Technically, that Laodicean Age began to end in 1993 when “Saul” died at the end of the 40-Jubilee Pentecostal Age. That is when God sent out His word to conduct the Jubilee Prayer Campaign, beginning in November of 1993. It was the start of a post-Pentecostal Age, as we began to transition into the Tabernacles Age.

The first item on God’s agenda was to establish precedents in the divine court for the coming Kingdom. Second, it was to begin the process of transferring authority to those who could be entrusted with the task of ruling that Kingdom—that is, the overcomers. The first transfer of authority was from Pentecost to Tabernacles, from Church to Overcomer, from Saul to David. This took place during a 7½ year period from May 30, 1993 to November 30, 2000, as patterned after 2 Sam. 5:4, 5.

The larger transfer took place from 2014-2017 when God’s contract with the beast empires came to an end after “seven times.”

Having received that authority fully, the world is changing to reflect the will of the overcomers, rather than the will of Saul or beast-men, because the overcomers (by definition) are those whose hearts are in agreement with God. These are not perfect yet, but instead of trying to change God’s mind to conform to man’s imperfections, they agree with God to the point of ruling against their own flesh.

Competing Views about Freedom

The Philadelphia Age, which began in 1776 with such promise, alarmed those with competing agendas. They soon brought forth their own views of “freedom,” primarily by the development of Socialism, which sought to address the lack of fairness in nature by usurping the rights of the Creator and placing government back under the dominion of men. In other words, they sought to return to the same state of affairs that existed prior to the discovery of biblical freedom.

First they came out with Deism, an attempt to bridge the gap between biblical Christianity and atheistic Socialism. Deism did not actually deny the existence of God but set forth an impersonal, indifferent god. By putting a distance between God and man, they replaced the intimate God with a god who remained aloof and indifferent. This was nothing new, of course. The “Majestic God” of Islam was, in practice, quite similar and yet stands in stark contrast to the warm, personal God of Love presented by Jesus Christ.

Deism largely failed in the 1800’s, because it did not meet the needs of men’s hearts. Only an intimate God can satisfy our innate need for love. Few seem to truly find this God of Love, and even fewer really come to grasp God’s love for all of His creation. They are hindered by the idea that God is powerless to reconcile the entire creation on the grounds that God cannot or will not overrule man’s “free will.” Thus, they do not truly grasp the promises of God, thinking that His promise is only a provision whereby man himself may choose his own eternal destiny.

But any sincere examination of the promises of God make it clear that the promises are not just good intentions. His promises are given by an oath, committing Himself to make it happen, made possible by His power, driven by His love, and implemented by His infinite wisdom.

Deism’s last gasp came with the theory that “God is dead,” first discussed by philosophers like Hegel and Mainlander, but popularized by Nietzsche in 1882. The philosophy of Nietzsche was so destructive that it drove him mad. He died in an insane asylum in 1900, the same year of Charles Parham’s Pentecostal outpouring.

Deism was replaced by atheistic Socialism. Yet whether we set forth an impersonal Creator who left the universe to its own devices, or deny Him altogether, the practical result is the same insofar as government is concerned. Either way, men are the only gods left to rule the creation, and therefore it is presumed that all rights are granted by men and their governments. There is no Creator to whom men are accountable, either in this life or the next, and if we destroy ourselves, so be it. Man’s “free will” reigns supreme.

Socialism united with Darwinism to form the social and political foundations of Mystery Babylon, which took control of the earth in 1913-1914. Man was reduced to the level of an animal, and it was said that his greater intelligence implied the right to rule. Man did indeed have authority over nature, as Gen. 1:26 tells us, but his right to rule was derived from the Creator, not from his own intelligence.

The assumption that man’s right to rule was derived from his intelligence also implied that those men and women who were most brilliant and educated had the right to rule other men. In truth, God did not establish such authority over other men and women until Gen. 3:16—and even that authority was derived from the Creator, not man’s greater intelligence.

Socialism has thus secured a foothold of bondage that was soon to replace the freedom brought to us by the open Bible and which brought us back under the rule of tyrants.

 This was inevitable, of course, because in 1776 we had not yet reached the end of the “seven times” allotted to the beasts to rule mankind on account of the misuse of the Judah’s Dominion Mandate in biblical times. Hence, the American experiment was doomed to fail, ending in captivity to Mystery Babylon.

The prime directive of Mystery Babylon has been to replace God with men (gods) and to enslave humanity under the tyranny of men who refuse to be accountable to God for their actions. The cosmos given to us by the open Bible has been replaced once again by Babylonian chaos.

America turned from being a light on a hill to a nation of privilege to whom all nations must bow or encounter its wrath. This idea of American “exceptionalism” set forth a double standard, one for the ruling nation and the other for other nations.

America was allowed to influence the elections of other world leaders, but it was a crime for others to try to influence our own elections. And if America failed to influence other nations’ elections, it reserved for itself the right to assassinate their leaders or even invade nations in the name of “regime change.”

Babylon is Dead

A few months after taking office in 2009, President Obama declared in a speech in Turkey that America was no longer a Christian nation. This was reported by the Huffington Post on May 7, 2009.

He meant that Christian (biblical) morality had been replaced by Babylonian “values.”

His declaration reminds me of the comment by Cardinal Pucci, who told the pope at the Fifth Lateran Church Council in 1517,

“The whole body of Christendom is now subject to one head, even to thee; no one now opposes, no one now objects” (Romanism and the Reformation, H. Gratton Guinness, p. 37).

The same year that Cardinal Pucci arrogantly made his statement, Martin Luther sparked the Protestant Reformation by posting his “Ninety-Five Theses” on the church door in Wittenberg. Likewise, many years earlier, when King Nebuchadnezzar thought in his pride that his own hands had built and secured his kingdom, God humbled him by making him act like an animal for seven years (Dan. 4:33).

Likewise, President Obama made his declaration a month after the launch of the Elisha Ministry (April 12, 2009). Men do not have the power to overrule God, but God uses their arrogant declarations as time markers to signal the apex of their delusions as well as the end of their God-given authority. The corrupt rule of the “Saul” church is indeed dead, for God has used Babylon to judge the church. But the Kingdom (“David”) is replacing it. Saul died in 1993.

I say: Babylon is dead.