• The Trinity Review
  • NEW
    Latest Review
  • NEW
    Review Archives
  • Updates
• Gospel Corner
  • What must I do to be saved?
• Intellectual Ammunition
  • Audiobooks
  • Books
  • CDs
  • DVDs
  • E-Books
  • Book and CD Packages
  • MP3 Download Lectures
  • Trinity Foundation Radio
  • Tracts
  • Mavrodes Attacks Clark's Scripturalism
  • Clark Refutes Mavrodes
  • Kinnaird Trial
  • Sale
  • Free Textbooks for Teachers
• What Can One Person Do?
  • Pray
  • Donations
  • Church Registry
• Trinity Foundation
  • Manifesto
  • Calendar of Events
  • The Reformation Day Statement, 1998
  • The Reformation Day Declaration, 2004
  • Midway Presbyterian Church
  • Horror Files
• Contact the Editor
  • Thomas W. Juodaitis
  • Who is John Robbins?
  • In Memoriam
• Newsletter
  • Subscribe / Unsubscribe

Antichrist's Illegal Alien Assault on America, Part 3

Steven T. Matthews

Download the PDF version of this review. If you do not have Adobe Acrobat installed on your system please click here on Adobe Acrobat Reader to download.

Editor’s Note: The following is Part 3 (final) of a slightly edited version of Steven Matthews’ 2023 Reformation Day Livestream presentation.

The Example of Moses

There is an example in the Bible of a mass exodus, which is found, oddly enough, in the book of Exodus. Of course, this is a reference to Israel’s leaving Egypt for the promised land of Canaan under Moses, an event that is recorded for us not in Exodus only, but in the following books of the Pentateuch.  

It may come as a surprise to some just how large the Biblical exodus was. Various numbers are given. According to Numbers 1:46, the total number of men aged 20 and above able to go to war was 603,550. This would put the total population of Israel who left Egypt at well over 1 million. This is a large number, even by today’s standards. Given the smaller world population at the time, it was proportionately much larger.

How Moses and the large number of Israelites conducted themselves while wandering in the wilderness is, I submit, a much better point to begin a discussion about the mass movement of people than the flight from Egypt found in Matthew 2. Not only is the scale much more comparable to what we see today, but the account of Israel’s journey provides us with important principles for judging whether Pius XII’s migration theory and the current presidential administration’s immigration practice pass Biblical muster. A brief examination of two key passages from Numbers, 20:14-21 and 21:21-24 shows the utter failure of Pope Pius XII and the current Roman Catholic American president to understand the mind of God concerning the theory and practice of immigration, migration, and refugee resettlement.

In Numbers 20:14-21, the Israelites under Moses came to the border of Edom, the land of the descendants of Esau, and sought passage through the Edomite territory:

Now Moses sent messengers from Kadesh to the king of Edom, “Thus says your brother Israel: You know all the hardship that has befallen us, how our fathers went down to Egypt, and we dwelt in Egypt a long time, and the Egyptians afflicted us and our fathers…now here we are in Kadesh, a city on the edge of your border. Please let us pass through your country. We will not pass through fields or vineyards, nor will we drink water from wells; we will go along the King’s Highway; we will not turn aside to the right hand or to the left until we have passed through your territory.” (Numbers 20:14-17)

Now if there is anyone in all of history, if there is any nation in all of history, who were in a position to rightfully make financial and material demands on other rulers and nations it was Moses and the Israelites. Was not Moses the greatest of the Old Testament prophets charged by God himself to lead his people out of Egypt? Were not the Israelites God’s chosen people? Who was the king of Edom and who were the Edomites that they should have any right to refuse anything Moses demanded? And yet we see none of the onerous and thieving demands out of Moses that are commonly issued by the popes and bishops of Rome about the “obligation” of nations to feed, clothe, and house illegal aliens, refugees, and other migrants. That sort of thing never so much as enters Moses’ mind. Unlike the popes of Rome who regularly lecture whole nations about their supposed Christian duty to take in migrants and foot the bill, Moses respects the territory of Edom by asking for passage through it and respects the property of the Edomites by promising not to take or damage their belongings.

The Edomites refused Moses’ offer, responding, “You shall not pass through my land, lest I come out against you with the sword” (Numbers 20:18).

The children of Israel counter-offered by saying, “We will go by the Highway, and if I or my livestock drink any of your water, then I will pay for it; let me only pass through on foot, nothing more” (Numbers 20:19). Note well, the painstaking emphasis in this verse concerning respect for the property of the Edomites. The popes of Rome love to tie up heavy immigration burdens on the backs of the American people, grievous to be born, but will not themselves so much as lift a finger to move them. But that is not the attitude at all of Moses and the children of Israel.

To this second offer, the king of Edom sent armed men out against Israel. And what did Israel do? Did they revile the king of Edom and armor up to do battle? No, not at all. The Scripture tells us, “Thus Edom refused to give Israel passage through his territory, so Israel turned away from him” (Numbers 20:21).

In Numbers 21, we see a similar situation when Israel comes to the border of the Amorites. Moses sends messengers to King Sihon with the same request as he made of Edom. But this time, Sihon, “gathered all his people together and went out against Israel” (Numbers 21:23). We read that Israel defeated Sihon and his men, and Israel “took possession of his [Sihon’s] land” and “dwelt in all the cites of the Amorites” (Numbers 21:24, 25).

Someone may argue, “See, the Israelites did too think they had the right to take others’ property.” But consider the important difference between the interactions of Moses and Edom and Moses and the Amorites. In the former case, the Edomites threatened Israel but did not attack. In the latter case, the Amorites reacted aggressively with deadly force to a peaceful offer asking for passage. By fighting back and defeating Sihon and his army, Israel was acting in self-defense. The account of Israel’s defeat of Sihon king of the Amorites in no way supports the immigration socialism of Pius XII in EFN or that of his successors.^[1]

There are a few items I’d like to address before wrapping up this treatment of Exsul Familia Nazarethana (EFN), the Apostolic Constitution that provides the theoretical framework for the Roman Church-State’s massive and ongoing illegal alien assault on the United States of America.^[2] The first of these is Rome’s “welcome the stranger” argument.

The Welcome the Stranger Argument

The Bible contains several statements and commands regarding hospitality, which the Vatican twists to bolster the case for its program of international migration socialism.^[3] A favorite passage of Pope Francis is Matthew 25:35, “I was a stranger and you welcomed me.”^[4] Another passage cited by Francis and other immigration socialists is Leviticus 19:34, “The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD you God.”^[5]

Now, no one would argue that these passages have no bearing on the issue of immigration. But there is a vast gulf between what the Bible means by these passages and what the Vatican means by them. The difference is between private charity – the Biblical model – and government welfare – the Roman Catholic socialist model.

To see an example of Biblical, private charity, consider the parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:30-36. There, we read that the Samaritan bandaged the man’s wounds, “pouring on oil and wine,” that he set the man “on his own animal,” that he “brought him to an inn, and took care of him,” and that when he departed, he gave the innkeeper two denarii to care for the injured man and promised to pay any additional expenses upon his return. The Samaritan gave of his own things, of his own time, and of his own money.[6]

This is a far cry from Rome’s petulant demands that the government force the American people to foot the enormous bill for the migrant flood Rome has unleashed on our nation. Government welfare is not Christian charity, it is theft, a violation of the Eighth Commandment. And not only is it theft, but Rome is also demanding that the government rob American people to pay for their own replacement, as millions upon millions of illegal aliens pour across our southwest border in numbers greater than the population of many states. The demands of Antichrist remind one of Jesus’ comment about the Pharisees, saying of them, “For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.” While the cost for the illegal alien invasion is laid on the shoulders of the American people, Rome reaps the benefits and adds more and more demands as time goes by.

The popes, cardinals, and bishops of Rome are generally too clever to ever directly mention who foots the bill for their immigration socialism. They prefer to make broad, pious-sounding statements that mask the enormous cost of the burdens they intend to impose on the American people. In “Strangers No Longer: Together on the Journey of Hope,”^[7] a 2003 pastoral letter by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Mexican Conference of Catholic Bishops, we read, “Pope John XXIII placed limits on immigration, however, when there are ‘just reasons for it.’ Nevertheless, he stressed the obligation of sovereign states to promote the universal good where possible, including an obligation to accommodate migration flows. For more powerful nations, a stronger obligation exists.” When the bishops talk about the “obligation of sovereign states,” what they mean is the government is to forcibly extract money from you and me to pay for Rome’s perverse, unconstitutional, and unbiblical illegal alien socialism. This is not Christian charity. It is theft.

In my research, the most honest statement I found from a Roman Catholic source on the cost of Rome’s immigration socialism came from Giulivo Tessarolo, a priest and editor of a 1962 English language edition of EFN. In the Editor’s Remarks section, Tessarolo made the following comment, “[D]ue to enormous financial implications, the phenomenon of emigration will find some relief only in English-speaking countries.”^[8]

The communistic nature of Rome’s immigration policy is made obvious in the 2003 pastoral letter “Strangers No Longer: Together on the Journey of Hope.” There, we read,

Pope John XII placed limits on immigration, however, when there are “just reasons for it.” Nevertheless, he stressed the obligation of sovereign states to promote the universal good where possible, including an obligation to accommodate migration flows. For more powerful nations, a stronger obligation exists.^[9]

“For more powerful nations, a stronger obligation exists,” is just a restatement of Marx’s dictum “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” applied to immigration.  Communism is not Christian charity. And welcoming the stranger is not a call for immigration socialism.

What About Legal Immigration?

While the focus of this paper has been on the damage illegal immigration is causing to America, America’s policies of legal immigration and refugee resettlement have been at least as damaging as the illegal variety, and for the same reasons. In the first place, the historic demographic shifts that they have caused in the nation’s population and, secondly, the enormous costs that they have imposed on the American people.

In his book Alien Nation, Peter Brimelow stated, “Today, U.S. government policy is literally dissolving the people and electing a new one.”^[10] By “U.S. government policy,” Brimelow mainly was referring to the 1965 Immigration Act, which overturned the Immigration Act of 1924. The Immigration Act of 1924 set up a system of limited immigration quotas based on national origin. Nations with large immigrant populations in the U.S. were allotted a larger number of immigration visas. Those with smaller populations were allotted fewer. The 1965 Immigration Act changed all that. “The current wave [current in 1995 when the book was written] – and therefore America’s shifting ethnic balance – is wholly and entirely the result of government policy. Specifically, it is the result of the Immigration Act of 1965, and the further legislation of 1986 and 1990.”^[11]

In a chapter titled “Immigration Has Consequences: The War Against the Nation State,” Brimelow noted, “But all over the world in the twentieth century, nations and nation-states have been under intense attack. And to the attackers, immigration is a potential ally.”^[12] Brimelow is right about immigration being a weapon in the hands of those opposed to the nation-state. As we have discussed in this paper and in my address last year, the Roman Catholic Church-State, as the ultimate globalist organization, is also the greatest enemy of the nation-state.^[13] This raises the question, did Rome have anything to do with the passing of the Immigration Act of 1965 that opened the immigration floodgates and brought about the astonishing demographic shift in the American population since that time? The answer, in my opinion, is overwhelmingly yes. Let us consider the evidence.

In EFN, Pius XII wrote, “Therefore, when Senators from the United States, who were members of a Committee on Immigration, visited Rome a few years ago, we again urged them to try to administer as liberally as possible the overly restrictive provisions of their immigration laws.”^[14]

Though he doesn’t say it directly, Pius must be directing his complaint against the Immigration Act of 1924.

Pius also noted in EFN that he had written to the American bishops on December 24, 1948. In his letter, Pius congratulated the bishops on their success in helping get a law passed “to allow many refugees to enter your land. Through your persistence, a provident law was enacted, a law that we hope will be followed by others of broader scope” (emphasis added).

Giulivo Tessarolo’s edition of EFN was mentioned above. Worth noting is that it was published by St. Charles Seminary on Staten Island in 1962, during the term of America’s first Roman Catholic president, John F. Kennedy, and just three years before the passing of the Immigration Act of 1965.

And speaking of John Kennedy, the future president published a book titled A Nation of Immigrants in 1959 in which he decried “isolationism” and called for liberalization of American immigration law, much like what Pius XII had called for a few years earlier in his 1952 Apostolic Constitution.

The 1965 Immigration Act was also known as the Hart-Celler Act after its principal sponsors in the Senate and the House of Representatives. So, who were Hart and Celler? According to his Wikipedia page, Senator Philip Hart (D-MI) graduated from West Philadelphia Catholic High School and studied at Jesuit Georgetown University. Emanuel Celler was a Democratic Congressman from New York of both Jewish and Catholic descent first elected to Congress as a Tammany Hall Democrat.^[15] Although Celler apparently was a practicing Jew, his Wikipedia biography notes the following interesting item.  “In July 1939, a strongly worded letter from Celler to U.S. Secretary of State Cordell Hull helped set in motion an extremely prolonged process of 45 years that finally led in 1984, three years after Celler’s death, to full, formal diplomatic relations between the United States and the Holy See.”^[16] So we see that both sponsors of the Hart-Celler Act had significant ties to the Roman Catholic Church.

One final Roman Catholic tie to the 1965 Immigration Act is that the bill’s floor manager and Senate Immigration Subcommittee chairman was Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA). Said Kennedy during a Senate debate on the bill, “The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.”^[17] As a general rule, Americans should understand that the truth is almost always the exact opposite of what their politicians tell them. The 1965 Immigration Act was no exception to this rule. The effects of this bill have been all the things that Kennedy said would not take place.

In conclusion, Antichrist’s and Mystery Babylon’s fingerprints are all over the 1965 Immigration Act. The Church-State managed to ram through Congress a weaponized immigration bill destructive of the American nation and beneficial to itself.

Closing Remarks

In his book Geese in Their Hoods, author Timothy F. Kauffman wrote of Charles Spurgeon,

Spurgeon was much like today’s ecumenists who lament the passing of a “God-fearing, westernized, culture” and charge Christians daily to take back what is being lost to the secular world. But Spurgeon was different than today’s ecumenists in one important way. He recognized that Rome was as much to blame for the cultural decay as were the ungodly desires of natural men. Where Rome prospered, there ignorance, technological backwardness and poverty flourished as well. Spurgeon – again, noting the exceptions where they were plain – never forgot that Rome was a cause of the cultural decay, and the Gospel alone was the cure.^[18]

While much ink has been spilled by those who see the danger that current American immigration policy – both legal and illegal – poses to the liberty and continuing prosperity of the American people, almost no one recognizes, or is willing to admit that he recognizes, the outsized role the Antichrist Roman Catholic Church-State has played in bringing about this immigration disaster.

The blame for this enormous blind spot lies not so much with the journalists who do their best to report on America’s ongoing immigration crisis, but on the American Protestant Church which has forgotten its first love and become like the salt Jesus spoke of that lost its savor. If we are to have any chance of reversing the awful destruction wrought by Antichrist’s immigration assault on America, American Christians must first repent of their sinful and inexcusable blindness as to the identity of Antichrist. 

I’ll close by quoting Spurgeon again.

It is the bounden duty of every Christian to pray against Antichrist, and as to what Antichrist is no sane man ought to raise a question. If it be not the popery in the Church of Rome there is nothing in the world that can be called by that name.

If there were to be issued a hue and cry for Antichrist, we should certainly take up this church on suspicion, and it would certainly not be let loose again, for it so exactly answers the description.^[19]

May the Lord grant his people eyes to see the work of Antichrist done right in front of their noses.

Nothing written here is to be construed as lobbying, or as endorsing or opposing any candidate for any office whatsoever. This is a religious commentary on the religious policies of the United States Government, and our commentary on them is protected by the Word of God and the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

New DVD Available

American Jesuits by Adullam Films, written, directed, and produced by Christian J. Pinto and featuring Dr. Ronald N. Cooke, Timothy F. Kauffman, Steven T. Matthews, and Christian J. Pinto is now available for $24.95 plus shipping.

Reformation Day Live Stream

Join the Trinity Foundation on our website or at out YouTube channel for our Reformation Day 2024 Live Stream on Saturday, October 26, 2024, at 2:00 PM Eastern Daylight Savings Time. Trinity Foundation Radio Host Steve Matthews will speak on Rome’s Infiltration by Illegal Immigration, and Foundation President Tom Juodaitis will speak on John Piper’s attack on Saving Faith in his book What Is Saving Faith.

New Edition of The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God

By Gordon H. Clark

A new edition of The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God by Gordon H. Clark will be available for purchase by the end of September 2024. The new edition features several articles from The Trinity Review as appendices: “Science and Truth” by Gordon H. Clark; “The Scientist as Evangelist,” “The Hoax of Scientific Creationism,” and “The Sagan of Science” by John W. Robbins; “The Biblical View of Science” by W. Gary Crampton; and “The Bible and the Idolatry of Science” by Ronald L. Cooper. The cost of this new edition is $16.95. Here is the Publisher’s Preface for this new edition:

Publisher’s Preface

Since the last edition of this monograph, the authority and tyranny of “science” has only grown as witnessed in the COVID-19 pandemic with the trope of “Trust the Science!” demanding everyone to “mask up, social distance, and get the vaccine,” none of which were rigorously, scientifically tested for efficaciousness and effectiveness. Science has been politicized and weaponized to keep the populace in line. As John Robbins noted in his Foreword to the 3^rd edition,

In the popular mind, “It has scientifically been proved” has replaced the Biblical formula “Thus says the Lord.”

The Bible and science represent conflicting authorities, and it is the purpose of The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God to show that the popular beliefs about science are false. Were the limits and proper uses of science understood, there would be no need for this book. But science has become an idol in the minds of many; its nature must be thoroughly discussed.

This new edition adds several articles in the Appendices taken from The Trinity Review that further elucidate this conflict between the Bible and “science,” or at least the modern, popular notion of what is science. They include “Science and Truth” by Gordon H. Clark, “The Scientist as Evangelist,” “The Hoax of Scientific Creationism,” and “The Sagan of Science” all by John W. Robbins, “The Biblical View of Science” by W. Gary Crampton, and “The Bible and the Idolatry of Science” by Ronald L. Cooper. Also included are two illustrations to depict the occult and pagan influence on modern 20^th and 21^st century science.

Science has improved our technology so that human beings can exercise dominion over the creation, but it does not and cannot furnish us with truth. Only the Lord God of truth can do that, and He has in His written revelation, the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments – the Bible. It is my prayer that this new edition will be useful in solidifying that in our minds.

Thomas W. Juodaitis

2024

And on the back cover the following:

For the past two centuries Christianity has been subjected to an unrelenting barrage of criticism from scientists who have argued that many historical statements in the Bible are wrong; that man, and the universe as well, evolved—they were not created; that the Bible’s view of the universe is primitive and mythological; and that the Christian view of God and man cannot be reconciled with our modern scientific discoveries.

In the popular mind, the modern statement, “it has been scientifically proved” has replaced the Biblical statement “thus says the Lord,” as the final court of appeal.

In The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God, Dr. Gordon H. Clark analyzes science from a Biblical and logical perspective. His conclusions are rather starling, perhaps not to scientists themselves, but to many laymen who have been deceived by the modern idolatry of science. Science, says Dr. Clark, can offer no objection to either God or the Bible, for science can never discover truth. It is “ever learning but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 3:7).

Dr. Gordon H. Clark was an eminent Christian philosopher and theologian, the author of 40 books, and the former Chairman of the Department of Philosophy at Butler University. He died in April 1985.