Satan’s World Strategy
God gave mankind dominion over the earth and thereby established a theocracy as the world’s original form of government (Gen. 1:26–29). In a theocracy, God’s rule is administered by a representative. God appointed the first man, Adam, to be His representative, with the responsibility to administer God’s rule over the earthly province of God’s universal Kingdom.
Not long after this appointment, Satan induced Adam and Eve to join him in his revolt against God (Gen. 3:1–13). As a result, mankind fell away from God; and the theocracy vanished from the earth. In addition, through Adam’s defection, Satan usurped the rule of the world system away from God; and Satan and his forces have been ruling the world system ever since. Several factors reveal this tragic transition.
Denial of Divine Revelation. Satan had authority to offer the rule of the world system to whomever he wished, including Jesus Christ, because that authority had been handed to him by Adam (Lk. 4:5–6). For this reason, Jesus called Satan the “prince [literally, “ruler”] of this world” (Jn. 14:30). John said the whole world lies in wickedness (1 Jn. 5:19), and James declared that whoever is a friend of the present world system is the enemy of God (Jas. 4:4).
Thus far in history, Satan’s rule over the world system has been an invisible, spiritual dominion that instigates worldviews and philosophies contrary to ultimate reality. Scripture reveals that in the future, Satan will try to convert that invisible, spiritual dominion into a permanent, visible, political kingdom-rule of the whole world. To accomplish that goal, Satan must induce the world to move toward the unification of mankind under a one-world government. He must also condition the world to accept an ultimate political ruler who will possess unique powers and make great claims about himself.
Through the secular, humanistic emphasis of the southern phase of the Renaissance and some emphases of the Enlightenment, Satan undermined the biblical faith of significant parts of Protestantism and beliefs of Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy. As a result, by the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the world was being told that no divine revelation of truth had been given to mankind.
However, the only way the existence of God; His nature; thoughts; ways; actions; and relationship to the universe, Earth, and mankind can be known is through divine revelation of truth. Thus the denial of such revelation prompted many people of the 20th century to conclude that the personal, sovereign, creator God of the Bible does not exist; or, if He does exist, He is irrelevant to the world and mankind.
This denial of divine revelation of truth has prompted radical changes of great consequence for society and the world. First, it has thrown many people into despair. God created human beings to need a personal relationship with Him for ultimate meaning and purpose in life. The conclusion that God does not exist or is irrelevant has caused a spiritual void inside people. That void leads to despair concerning attaining ultimate meaning and purpose in life. Satan offers witchcraft, spiritism, Satan worship, other forms of the occult, astrology, oriental mysticism, New Age concepts, drugs, some forms of music, and other demonic substitutes to fill that void and bring people under his influence.
Denial of Moral Absolutes. The denial of divine revelation of truth has prompted the denial of moral absolutes. The argument goes like this: If moral absolutes were not revealed by a sovereign God who holds individuals responsible for their actions, then the traditional moral absolutes must have been developed by mankind. And since mankind was the source of those absolutes, mankind has the right to reject, change, or ignore them.
As a result of this faulty reasoning, society has experienced an incredible breakdown of morality. It rejects the idea that only heterosexual, marital relationships are moral; and it increasingly despises and threatens advocates of such a position. Movements are afloat to legally redefine the historic concept of marriage and force society to accept that redefinition, to abolish capital punishment for murderers, to abolish or redefine the family, and to protect the propagation of pornography.
The killing of unborn and partially born human beings already has been legalized. Some insist that no moral issues are involved with assisted suicide, human cloning, and the destruction of viable human embryos for the sake of stem cell research. Lying and cheating are condoned. This moral breakdown threatens the foundation of society.
Denial of Objective Truth and Standards. The denial of divine revelation of truth has prompted the conclusion that there is no objective truth that is binding on all mankind. Each individual determines what is truth for himself or herself. Consequently, what is truth for one person is not truth for another, and truth has been made subjective and relative.
This reasoning has prompted the further conclusion that there is no objective standard by which a person can evaluate whether something is right or wrong, and no person can legitimately tell another that what he or she has done is wrong. According to this reasoning, a person should never tell another that his or her lifestyle is wrong, even though that lifestyle may cause premature death. No one should ever tell teenagers they should abstain from sex until marriage. No one has the right to impose a concept of right or wrong on another.
This denial of objective truth and an objective standard of right and wrong is propagated through values clarification courses in grade schools, colleges and universities, the media, Internet, publications, some forms of music, and the entertainment industry. Some colleges and universities have adopted speech police to squelch any expression of objective right and wrong by faculty or students. Such action amounts to intolerant censorship.
The denial of objective truth and an objective standard of right and wrong has motivated some to advocate that parents be forbidden to spank their children for doing something the parents believe is wrong.
Redefinition of Tolerance. It also has prompted a movement to force society to accept a new concept of tolerance. The historic view of tolerance taught that people of differing opinions and practices were to live together peaceably. Individuals had the right to believe that a contrary opinion or practice was wrong and to express that belief openly; but they did not have the right to threaten, terrorize, or physically harm those with whom they disagreed.
But tolerance has been redefined. The new concept asserts that to believe or openly express that an opinion or practice of a person or group is wrong amounts to a hate crime and should be punished by law. Powerful groups are pressuring the U.S. Congress to make this new concept federal law by passing a proposed anti-hate law. Since laws against threatening, terrorizing, or physically harming people or groups holding differing opinions and exercising different practices already exist, it is obvious that the goal of this bill is to outlaw freedom of belief and speech. Passage of this bill will turn America into a police state comparable to those that adopted the Inquisition and Communism.
Because the world has been led to believe there is no objective truth binding on all mankind and no objective standard by which to evaluate whether something is right or wrong, it increasingly advocates that all gods, religions, and ways must be accepted as equal; that all attempts to convert people from one religion to another should be stopped; and that exclusive claims of only one true God, one true religion, and one way to heaven are a divisive form of bigotry. Religious pluralism is becoming the order of the day.
If there is no objective standard for determining right or wrong, then on what basis can a society or individual conclude that murder is wrong, including the murders of doctors who perform abortions or the mass murders at schools, businesses, or other public places? Perhaps some of those violent acts are the result of their perpetrators concluding that, since there is no objective standard of right and wrong, murder is right for them.
If Congress passes the anti-hate bill, will it be enforced on the proponents of that bill, since they want it passed because they believe and openly express that the opinions and practices of some other persons and groups are wrong? Will it be enforced on politicians who, in their campaigns for election and in sessions of Congress, openly express their beliefs that opinions and practices of their opponents are wrong?
The Drive for Unity. The denial of divine revelation of truth has prompted the growing conviction that the goal of mankind should be unity. The Humanist Manifesto II states,
We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural; it is either meaningless or irrelevant to the question of survival and fulfillment of the human race. As nontheists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity.1
It asserts further, “We can discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species. . . . Humans are responsible for what we are or will become. No deity will save us; we must save ourselves.”2
In light of this thought that salvation from total destruction depends on mankind itself, the Manifesto declares,
We deplore the division of humankind on nationalistic grounds. We have reached a turning point in human history where the best option is to transcend the limits of national sovereignty and to move toward the building of a world community in which all sectors of the human family can participate. Thus we look to the development of a system of world law and a world order based upon transnational federal government.3
Finally, it states,
Commitment to all humankind is the highest commitment of which we are capable; it transcends the narrow allegiances of church, state, party, class, or race in moving toward a wider vision of human potentiality. What more daring a goal for humankind than for each person to become, in ideal as well as practice, a citizen of a world community.4
The existence of international institutions, such as the World Court and the United Nations; the means for rapid travel and instantaneous communication; and the advancing internationalization of economics make the formation of a unified world community appear possible. The tremendous increase of violence, including the threat of worldwide terrorism, may drive civilization toward a unified world government for the sake of survival.
Deification of Mankind. The denial of divine revelation of truth has prompted a tendency to deify mankind. Thomas J. J. Altizer, one of the Protestant “God is dead” theologians of the 1960s, claimed that, since mankind has denied the existence of a personal God, it must as a race achieve human self-transcendence, which is “man-godhood.”5 Roman Catholic scholar Pierre Teilhard de Chardin taught that the god to be worshiped is the one who will arise out of the evolving human race.6
Through such changes prompted by the denial of divine revelation, Satan is seducing the world to move toward the unification of mankind under a one-world government and conditioning it to accept his ultimate political ruler, Antichrist, who will possess unique powers and claim to be God.
- Humanist Manifesto II, American Humanist Association, [www.americanhumanist.org/about/ manifesto2.html].
- John Charles Cooper, The Roots of the Radical Theology, Westminster, Philadelphia, 1967, p. 148.
- Ibid., p. 156.