California's 'cap-and-trade' escapade

Amplify’d from www.washingtontimes.com

EDITORIAL: California's 'cap-and-trade' escapade

Golden State pushes climate change over business climate

The Washington Times

The fact that the lame-duck Congress balked at endorsing "cap-and-trade" legislation didn't deter California from approving its own version of the extreme green scheme for restricting industrial emissions. The move bolsters the state's reputation as the left coast's home for ideas out of left field. Soon Americans will witness what happens when global-warming hysteria worsens an already sick economy.

California's Air Resources Board approved a cap-and-trade system on Dec. 16 that covers 360 businesses at 600 locations statewide. In its first phase, starting in 2012, electric utilities and other large manufacturers will receive free permits allowing emissions at their current levels. In the second phase, taking effect in 2015, refiners and distributors of gasoline, diesel, natural gas and other fuels will be required to buy emissions permits at auctions or purchase them from other companies. Gradually, the state will reduce the number of permits available, making them more expensive. To avoid exceeding their emissions limits, companies will be forced to develop dubious new methods of doing business.

Two inconvenient truths are getting in the way of the liberals' energy-free utopia. First, cap-and-trade is a solution in need of a problem; it's intended to remedy global warming while the earth is getting cooler. Second, the scheme is transparently a means of wealth redistribution that allows the political class to punish producers and reward the unsuccessful - a sure recipe for social dysfunction.

Global warming was recently rebranded as "climate disruption" to downplay the dearth of evidence correlating purportedly rising temperatures and increases in industrial emissions. In the West, California residents of the Sierras can be excused for joining the ranks of skeptics as they are buried beneath snow measured in yards rather than inches. In the East, Americans as far south as normally balmy Georgia have been shoveling the white stuff. Countless anecdotes back up global temperature readings that reveal a distinct cooling trend since 1998.

Even environmentalists in surfer land admit the economic impact of cap-and-trade is uncertain. The estimated cost of permits purchased by California businesses ranges between $3 billion and $58 billion by 2020. Job "leakage" predictably will result when any new green jobs are offset by existing jobs disappearing as businesses flee the state to escape onerous climate regulations. Enterprises that stay put will incur higher business costs, which will be passed along to consumers, making life in California more expensive than it already is.

Ultimately, families - rich and poor alike - will pay that bill in the form of higher prices at the cash register. Accordingly, the Air Resources Board authorized the creation of a Community Benefits Fund to funnel money back into impoverished communities, or as President Obama would say, "spread the wealth around." This policy reflects classic liberal dogma that encourages dependency rather than independence, all while undermining the American way.

The limping global economy has many nations reconsidering bureaucratic fads concocted when times were good and economic growth allowed for expensive social experiments. Times have changed. With U.S. unemployment around 10 percent and rising, it's time for America's anti-growth ideas to melt away. Read more at www.washingtontimes.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/jql6

Furious Donor Says Jesuits Rolled Him

Amplify’d from www.courthousenews.com

Furious Donor Says Jesuits Rolled Him

HOUSTON (CN) - An alumnus claims he was pressured into giving $40,000 to Strake Jesuit College Preparatory school to ensure his son's admission, and the school took the money but didn't admit his son. He wants his money back, and punitive damages.      The school is the only named defendant, though the complaint refers by names throughout to its officers and volunteers.      Michael Bardwill claims he was introduced to Strake's president, Fr. Daniel Lahart, and to N.J. Santarcangelo, its development director, by Strake Jesuit "parents and supporters," Lisa and Victor Miranda.      "The Mirandas knew that plaintiff was an alumnus of Strake Jesuit and had a son, T.B., who was expected to attend Strake Jesuit," according to the complaint in Harris County Court.      Bardwill met Lahart and Santarcangelo at a fund raiser, where school officials showed their plans to expand their campus. "Both Lisa Miranda and Santarcangelo remarked that the improvements for which funds were being raised would be there for T.B. when he attended Jesuit," the complaint states.      Bardwill says Lisa Miranda, a member of a Strake fund-raising committee, called him and told him he would get a call from Santarcangelo to set up another meeting. "She told plaintiff that Santarcangelo planned to solicit a contribution for the school's expansion project. Ms. Miranda told plaintiff that Jesuit had 'gotten harder to get into,' and that if plaintiff intended for his son to attend Jesuit that it was very important that he make a contribution to ensure that his son's acceptance into the school," [sic] the complaint states.      Santarcangelo did call, and Bardwill met him for lunch. "Santarcangelo told plaintiff that Jesuit expected him to make a sizable contribution, and that their motto was, 'Give until it hurts.' The school was encouraging people to give more than they were comfortable giving," according to the complaint.      The complaint continues: "Plaintiff asked Santarcangelo how much he was asking for. Santarcangelo wrote down '$100,000' on a piece of paper. Plaintiff told him that he would discuss the matter with his accountant as this was a sizable request. Plaintiff then told Santarcangelo that if a large contribution was made that he expected that his son would be admitted to Jesuit and benefit from it. Santarcangelo smiled and said, 'Of course,' indicating that he understood that this was the condition upon which plaintiff would be willing to contribute."      Lisa Miranda called him "a day or two" later, and "reiterated that Jesuit was now more difficult to get into and this if he intended for his son to go to Jesuit, that as an insider that she was strongly advising that plaintiff needed to make a significant contribution in order to ensure a place at Jesuit for T.B.," the complaint states.      Bardwill claims Miranda told him that she and her husband were giving the school $30,000, and that he could "make a pledge and pay it over 5 years."      Bardwill says he agreed to pay $50,000 over 5 years. He adds, "Lisa Miranda called the next day to say that Fr. Lahart was very happily surprised with the amount and was very appreciative. He asked if that was enough. Miranda assured plaintiff that T.B. would have no problem getting into Jesuit - that his contribution would ensure that T.B. was admitted."      Bardwill says he ponied up $40,000 in four installments, from 2006-2009, always in December. He says he attended numerous events with Lahart and Santarcangelo during this time and that "At no time did Lahart or Santarcangelo even imply that T.B. might not be admitted to Jesuit."      But it didn't happen. Bardwill says his son scored poorly on the admissions test, took the test again, and then was told that his son would not be admitted to Strake.      He says he got a letter telling him that his son had been rejected "because 'he wouldn't be happy' there."      Bardwill says he complained to Lahart, and that Lahart told him that Richard Nevele, apparently a Strake admissions officer, had made the decision not to accept his son. "Fr. Lahart then said, for the first time since the contributions were solicited, that the admission committee made admissions decisions 'without knowledge of' contributions."      Bardwill says, "This was a contradiction to express and implicit promises made by Santarcangelo at the time the contribution was solicited."      Bardwill says he said as much to Lahart, and that "Fr. Lahart responded that he would not return the money, but that he could understand if plaintiff did not complete his pledge."      You bet I won't, Bardwill says, and he wants the $40,000 back too.      He also seeks punitive damages for fraud and negligent misrepresentation.      He is represented by Kristen Capps of Spring. Read more at www.courthousenews.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/jql0

Holy Ghosts: Vatican Approves Wisconsin Marian Apparition

Amplify’d from www.newsmax.com

Vatican Approves Wisconsin Marian Apparition

A small Wisconsin church has joined the short list of approved Roman Catholic sites where the Virgin Mary is believed to have appeared, The New York Times reports. The shrine designation this month for Our Lady of Good Help in Champion, Wis., followed a two-year investigation by theologians of a case history dating to 1859. Bishop David L. Ricken of the Green Bay Diocese declared “with moral certainty” that the Virgin Mary visited a Belgian immigrant, Adele Brise, on the site in 1859, when she began teaching Catholicism to children. The Vatican gives local bishops authority to judge the credibility of Marian apparition claims. “This is a gift to the believers,” the Rev. Johann Roten, an Ohio theologian, said of Ricken’s finding. “It would be devious to say that this was somehow pulled out of the attic to exorcise the problems of the church today. But hopefully this will have a beneficial impact on the people, showing them that there are ways of living with faith that are very pure.” Roten’s reference to problems was to clergy sexual abuse cases that have continued to bedevil the church, including in the Green Bay Diocese. © Newsmax. All rights reserved. Read more at www.newsmax.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/jqks

Pope Benedict concerned about the limitations imposed on the freedom of religion and conscience of the Catholics in China.



What about the freedom of conscience of the Protestants worldwide???

Amplify’d from blogs.forbes.com

Beijing Takes On the Vatican

Image via Wikipedia

“May the birth of the Savior strengthen the spirit of faith, patience and courage of the faithful of the Church in mainland China, that they may not lose heart through the limitations imposed on their freedom of religion and conscience,” Pope Benedict said at the end of his traditional Urbi et Orbi—to the city and to the world—message on Christmas.  After years of accommodation, Beijing in recent months decided to attack the Roman Catholic Church, and the pontiff, who had the world stage to himself on Saturday, used the opportunity to strike back. Beijing forced a confrontation with Benedict last month by first ordaining a bishop in the state-controlled Catholic Patriotic Association without the Pope’s approval.  Then, this month Chinese authorities, without sanction from the Holy See, both engineered the election of an illegally ordained bishop to head the bishops’ conference and selected a bishop recognized by the Vatican to lead the patriotic association. Rome was livid, maintaining that these actions had “unilaterally damaged the dialogue and the climate of trust.”  It praised those faithful who refused to participate in the “illicit ceremonies,” as the Catholic News Agency termed them, and asked China’s Catholics to support those who had to take part against their will.  The Vatican condemned the forced participation as a “grave violation of their human rights, particularly their freedom of religion and of conscience.” There is, as a practical matter, no freedom of religion or conscience in China.  There is, however, an officially recognized Catholic patriotic association, which does not recognize the authority of the Pope, but most Chinese Catholics choose to pray in illegal “house churches.”  That’s also true for Protestants, who largely shun the Communist Party’s organization for them.  Beijing claims that 23 million Chinese worship in the official Christian organizations, but they are vastly outnumbered by as many as 107 million house-church participants. However many Christians there may be, the atheistic Party is playing a losing hand.  Unsanctioned, illegal churches have spread across the Chinese heartland, some of which even operate openly under the eyes of nervous officials.  The world’s largest security services, surprisingly, seem unable to deal with this affront to authority.  “It’s no problem if the government doesn’t like Christians or house churches,” said Zhang Fei to London’s Telegraph.  “God is in charge of us, not the government.” Miss Zhang’s government, however, thinks that is precisely the problem.  And indeed she and the 1,000 other members of her congregation in Beijing pose a challenge to Chinese officials.  The fact that the 25-year-old manager can continue to pray in the center of Communist power—instead of toiling away in some labor camp in a remote province—highlights the inability of officialdom to deal with religion.  The Beijing Municipal Civil Affairs Bureau can close down the Association on Music in Korean Dialect and the Beijing Association on Roast Duck Technology, but it is having trouble coercing Miss Zhang and her co-religionists. That inability would seem anomalous for what has been called the world’s most successful authoritarian regime.  But the reason is simple: by now, religion has spread far too widely across China.  These days, it is no longer confined to poor backwaters; it has taken hold in the country’s great cities.  Beijing simply cannot incarcerate 100 million fervent Christians—as well as untold numbers of devout Buddhists, Muslims, Daoists, and others.  China’s people do not believe in communism any more, and in its place they are taking up religion. I know that as a fact.  Two years ago my neighbor went to China, but not exactly for a sightseeing vacation.  He and a dozen members of his northern New Jersey congregation went to an inland Chinese province—so that they could smuggle in Bibles and pray with house-church Protestants in five-hour Sunday services.  One of my mother-in-law’s students, who became a priest in Hong Kong, devoted his life to going to neighboring Guangdong Province to surreptitiously tend to the Catholic faithful there. China’s Christians, whether they go to official services or the unsanctioned ones, do not see themselves as enemies of the state.  Yet deeply insecure Chinese officials view them as such.  The cadres, therefore, are creating enemies for the Communist Party, just as they did with, among others, Falun Gong practitioners, Buddhist Tibetans, and Muslim Uighurs. And that gets us back to the Pope.  China’s Communists devoted years of effort to understanding why the Soviet party failed.  Among other reasons, they focused on the role of the charismatic Pope John II.  Now, Beijing’s rulers think they can antagonize his steely successor with impunity. Historical trends, many believe, point to the Chinese owning this century.  I think that’s a gross misreading of events, but, in any case, Beijing rulers will certainly fail if, while enjoying their moment of hubris, they create more adversaries than they can deal with. Read more at blogs.forbes.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/jqkl

A woman begs for money during heavy snowfall in central Moscow, Russia

Amplify’d from www.boston.com

22 A woman begs for money during heavy snowfall in central Moscow, Russia on December 21, 2010. (REUTERS/Nikolay Korchekov) # Read more at www.boston.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/jkyp

2010-12-18 - Paul Godfrey - DS - Enough About Saturday, What about the rest

URL:  http://vimeo.com/17956039

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/jkxx

These Are They 144,000: Saturday Vs Sabbath Keepers

http://thesearethey.blogspot.com/2010/12/saturday-vs-sabbath-k...

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/jkxq

THE DISCOURSE OF LORENZO VALLA ON THE FORGERY OF THE ALLEGED DONATION OF CONSTANTINE Part I

Amplify’d from thevaticanlobby.blogspot.com

Lorenzo Valla: Part I

Below I have posted the first part of Lorenzo Valla's Discourse on the Forgery of the Donation of Constantine (1440).  I will be posting the rest of the discourse piecemeal over the next few days and perhaps weeks.   Valla's work is an extremely enlightening one. See my original post on the subject for the background information. This document comes from the Hanover Historical Texts Project. -------------------------------------- THE DISCOURSE OF LORENZO VALLA ON THE FORGERY OF THE ALLEGED DONATION OF CONSTANTINE I have published many books, a great many, in almost every branch of learning. Inasmuch as there are those who are shocked that in these I disagree with certain great writers already approved by long usage, and charge me with rashness and sacrilege, what must we suppose some of them will do now! How they will rage against me, and if opportunity is afforded how eagerly and how quickly they will drag me to punishment! For I am writing against not only the dead, but the living also, not this man or that, but a host, not merely private individuals, but the authorities. And what authorities! Even the supreme pontiff, armed not only with the temporal sword as are kings and princes, but with the spiritual also, so that even under the very shield, so to speak, of any prince, you cannot protect yourself from him; from being struck down by excommunication, anathema, curse. So if he was thought to have both spoken and acted prudently who said "I will not write against those who can write 'Proscribed,'" how much more would it seem that I ought to follow the same course toward him who goes far beyond proscription, who would pursue me with the invisible darts of his authority, so that I could rightly say, "Whither shall I go from thy spirit, or whither shall I flee from thy presence?" Unless perhaps we think the supreme pontiff would bear these attacks more patiently than would others. Far from it; for Ananias, the high priest, in the presence of the tribune who sat as judge, ordered Paul when he said he lived in good conscience to be smitten on the mouth; and Pashur, holding the same rank, threw Jeremiah into prison for the boldness of his speech. The tribune and the governor, indeed, were able and willing to protect the former, and the king the latter, from priestly violence. But what tribune, what governor, what king, even if he wanted to, could snatch me from the hands of the chief priest if he should seize me? But there is no reason why this awful, twofold peril should trouble me and turn me from my purpose; for the supreme pontiff may not bind nor loose any one contrary to law and justice. And to give one's life in defense of truth and justice is the path of the highest virtue, the highest honor, the highest reward. Have not many undergone the hazard of death for the defense of their terrestrial fatherland? In the attainment of the celestial fatherland (they attain it who please God, not men), shall I be deterred by the hazard of death? Away then with trepidation, let fears far remove, let doubts pass away. With a brave soul, with utter fidelity, with good hope, the cause of truth must be defended, the cause of justice, the cause of God. Nor is he to be esteemed a true orator who knows how to speak well, unless he also has the courage to speak. So let us have the courage to accuse him, whoever he is, that commits crimes calling for accusation. And let him who sins against all be called to account by the voice of one speaking for all. Yet perhaps I ought not to reprove my brother in public, but by himself. Rather, "Them that sin" and do not accept private admonition "rebuke before all, that others also may fear."  Or did not Paul, whose words I have just used, reprove Peter to his face in the presence of the church because he needed reproof? And he left this written for our instruction. But perhaps I am not a Paul that I should reprove a Peter. Yea, I am a Paul because I imitate Paul. Just as, and this is far greater, I become one in spirit with God when I diligently observe his commandments. Nor is any one made immune from chiding by an eminence which did not make Peter immune, and many others possessed of the same rank; for instance, Marcellus, who offered a libation to the gods, and Celestine [I] who entertained the Nestorian heresy, and certain even within our own memory whom we know were reproved, to say nothing of those condemned, by their inferiors, for who is not inferior to the Pope? It is not my aim to inveigh against any one and write so-called Philippics against him-be that villainy far from me -- but to root out error from men's minds, to free them from vices and crimes by either admonition or reproof. I would not dare to say [that my aim is] that others, taught by me, should prune with steel the papal see, which is Christ's vineyard, rank with overabundant shoots, and compel it to bear rich grapes instead of meager wildings. When I do that, is there any one who will want to close either my mouth or his own ears, much less propose punishment and death? If one should do so, even if it were the Pope, what should I call him, a good shepherd, or a deaf viper which would not choose to heed the voice of the charmer, but to strike his limbs with its poisonous bite? I know that for a long time now men's ears are waiting to hear the offense with which I charge the Roman pontiffs. It is, indeed, an enormous one, due either to supine ignorance, or to gross avarice which is the slave of idols, or to pride of empire of which cruelty is ever the companion. For during some centuries now, either they have not known that the Donation of Constantine is spurious and forged, or else they themselves forged it, and their successors walking in the same way of deceit as their eldershave defended as true what they knew to be false, dishonoring the majesty of the pontificate, dishonoring the memory of ancient pontiffs, dishonoring the Christian religion, confounding everything with murders, disasters and crimes. They say the city of Rome is theirs, theirs the kingdom of Sicily and of Naples, the whole of Italy, the Gauls, the Spains, the Germans, the Britons, indeed the whole West; for all these are contained in the instrument of the Donation itself. So all these are yours, supreme pontiff? And it is your purpose to recover them all? To despoil all kings and princes of the West of their cities or compel them to pay you a yearly tribute, is that your plan? I, on the contrary, think it fairer to let the princes despoil you of all the empire you hold. For, as I shall show, that Donation whence the supreme pontiffs will have their right derived was unknown equally to Sylvester and to Constantine. But before I come to the refutation of the instrument of the Donation, which is their one defense, not only false but even stupid, the right order demands that I go further back. And first, I shall show that Constantine and Sylvester were not such men that the former would choose to give, would have the legal right to give, or would have it in his power to give those lands to another, or that the latter would be willing to accept them or could legally have done so. In the second place, if this were not so, though it is absolutely true and obvious, [I shall show that in fact] the latter did not receive nor the former give possession of what is said to have been granted, but that it always remained under the sway and empire of the Caesars. In the third place, [I shall show that] nothing was given to Sylvester by Constantine, but to an earlier Pope (and Constantine had received baptism even before that pontificate), and that the grants were inconsiderable, for the mere subsistence of the Pope. Fourth, that it is not true either that a copy of the Donation is found in the Decretum [of Gratian], or that it was taken from the History of Sylvester; for it is not found in it or in any history, and it is comprised of contradictions, impossibilities, stupidities, barbarisms and absurdities. Further I shall speak of the pretended or mock donation of certain other Caesars. Then by way of redundance I shall add that even had Sylvester taken possession, nevertheless, he or some other pontiff having been dispossessed, possession could not be resumed after such a long interval under either divine or human law. Last [I shall show] that the possessions which are now held by the supreme pontiff could not in any length of time, be validated by prescription. And so to take up the first point, let us speak first of Constantine, then of Sylvester. It would not do to argue a public and quasi imperial case without more dignity of utterance than is usual in private cases. And so speaking as in an assembly of kings and princes, as I assuredly do, for this oration of mine will come into their hands, I choose to address an audience, as it were, face to face. I call upon you, kings and princes, for it is difficult for a private person to form a picture of a royal mind; I seek your thought, I search your heart, I ask your testimony. Is there any one of you who, had he been in Constantine's place, would have thought that he must set about giving to another out of pure generosity the city of Rome, his fatherland, the head of the world, the queen of states, the most powerful, the noblest and the most opulent of peoples, the victor of the nations, whose very form is sacred, and betaking himself thence to an humble little town, Byzantium; giving with Rome Italy, not a province but the mistress of provinces; giving the three Gauls; giving the two Spains; the Germans; the Britons; the whole West; depriving himself of one of the two eyes of his empire? That any one in possession of his senses would do this, I cannot be brought to believe. What ordinarily befalls you that is more looked forward to, more pleasing, more grateful, than for you to increase your empires and kingdoms, and to extend your authority as far and wide as possible? In this, as it seems to me, all your care, all your thought, all your labor, night and day is expended. From this comes your chief hope of glory, for this you renounce pleasures; for this you subject yourselves to a thousand dangers; for this your dearest pledges, for this your own flesh you sacrifice with serenity. Indeed, I have neither heard nor read of any of you having been deterred from an attempt to extend his empire by loss of an eye, a hand, a leg, or any other member. Nay, this very ardor and this thirst for wide dominion is such that whoever is most powerful, him it thus torments and stirs the most. Alexander, not content to have traversed on foot the deserts of Libya, to have conquered the Orient to the farthest ocean, to have mastered the North, amid so much bloodshed, so many perils, his soldiers already mutinous and crying out against such long, such hard campaigns, seemed to himself to have accomplished nothing unless either by force or by the power of his name he should have made the West also, and all nations, tributary to him. I put it too mildly; he had already determined to cross the ocean, and if there was any other world, to explore it and subject it to his will. He would have tried, I think, last of all to ascend the heavens. Some such wish all kings have, even though not all are so bold. I pass over the thought how many crimes, how many horrors have been committed to attain and extend power, for brothers do not restrain their wicked hands from the stain of brothers' blood, nor sons from the blood of parents, nor parents from the blood of sons. Indeed, nowhere is man's recklessness apt to run riot further nor more viciously. And to your astonishment, you see the minds of old men no less eager in this than the minds of young men, childless men no less eager than parents, kings than usurpers. But if domination is usually sought with such great resolution, how much greater must be the resolution to preserve it! For it is by no means so discreditable not to increase an empire as to impair it, nor is it so shameful not to annex another's kingdom to your own as for your own to be annexed to another's. And whenwe read of men being put in charge of a kingdom or of cities by some king or by the people, this is not done in the case of the chief or the greatest portion of the empire, but in the case of the last and least, as it were, and that with the understanding that the recipient should always recognize the donor as his sovereign and himself as an agent. Now I ask, do they not seem of a base and most ignoble mind who suppose that Constantine gave away the better part of his empire? I say nothing of Rome, Italy, and the rest, but the Gauls where he had waged war in person, where for a long time he had been sole master, where he had laid the foundations of his glory and his empire! A man who through thirst for dominion had waged war against nations, and attacking friends and relatives in civil strife had taken the government from them, who had to deal with remnants of an opposing faction not yet completely mastered and overthrown; who waged war with many nations not only by inclination and in the hope of fame and empire but by very necessity, for he was harassed every day by the barbarians; who had many sons, relatives and associates; who knew that the Senate and the Roman people would oppose this act; who had experienced the instability of conquered nations and their rebellions at nearly every change of ruler at Rome; who remembered that after the manner of other Caesars he had come into power, not by the choice of the Senate and the consent of the populace, but by armed warfare; what incentive could there be so strong and urgent that he would ignore all this and choose to display such prodigality? They say, it was because he had become a Christian. Would he therefore renounce the best part of his empire? I suppose it was a crime, an outrage, a felony, to reign after that, and that a kingdom was incompatible with the Christian religion! Those who live in adultery, those who have grown rich by usury, those who possess goods which belong to another, they after baptism are wont to restore the stolen wife, the stolen money, the stolen goods. If this be your idea, Constantine, you must restore your cities to liberty, not change their master. But that did not enter into the case; you were led to do as you did solely for the glory of your religion. As though it were more religious to lay down a kingdom than to administer it for the maintenance of religion! For so far as it concerns the recipients, that Donation will be neither honorable nor useful to them. But if you want to show yourself a Christian, to display your piety, to further the cause, I do not say of the Roman church, but of the Church of God, now of all times act the prince, so that you may fight for those who cannot and ought not to fight, so that by your authority you may safeguard those who are exposed to plots and injuries. To Nebuchadnezzar, to Cyrus, to Ahasuerus, and to many other princes, by the will of God, the mystery of the truth was revealed; but of none of them did God demand that he should resign his government, that he should give away part of his kingdom, but only that he should give the Hebrews their liberty and protect them from their aggressive neighbors. This was enough for the Jews; it will be enough for the Christians also. You have become a Christian, Constantine? Then it is most unseemly for you now as a Christian emperor to have less sovereignty than you had as an infidel. For sovereignty is an especial gift of God, to which even the gentile sovereigns are supposed to be chosen by God. But he was cured of leprosy! Probably, therefore, he would have wished to show his gratitude and give back a larger measure than he had received. Indeed! Naaman the Syrian, cured by Elisha, wished merely to present gifts, not the half of his goods, and would Constantine have presented the half of his empire? I regret to reply to this shameless story as though it were undoubted and historical, for it is a reflection of the story of Naaman and Elisha; just as that other story about the dragon is a reflection of the fabulous dragon of Bel. But yielding this point, is there in this story any mention made of a "donation"? Not at all. But of this, more later. He was cured of leprosy? He took on therefore a Christian spirit; he was imbued with the fear of God, with the love of God; he wished to honor him. Nevertheless I cannot be persuaded that he wished to give away so much; for, so far as I see, no one, either pagan, in honor of the gods, or believer, in honor of the living God, has resigned his empire and given it to priests. In sooth, of the kings of Israel none could be brought to permit his people to go, according to the former custom, to sacrifice at the temple in Jerusalem; for fear lest, moved by that solemn religious ceremony and by the majesty of the temple, they should return to the king of Judah from whom they had revolted. And how much more is Constantine represented to have done! And that you may not flatter yourself with the cure of leprosy, [let me say that] Jeroboam was the first one chosen by God to be king of Israel and indeed from a very low estate, which to my mind is more than being healed of leprosy; nevertheless he did not presume to entrust his kingdom to God. And will you have Constantine give to God a kingdom which he had not received from him, and that, too, when he would offend his sons (which was not the case with Jeroboam), humiliate his friends, ignore his relatives, injure his country, plunge everybody into grief, and forget his own interests! But if, having been such a man as he was, he had been transformed as it were into another man, there would certainly not have been lacking those who would warn him, most of all his sons, his relatives, and his friends. Who does not think that they would have gone at once to the emperor? Picture them to yourself, when the purpose of Constantine had become known, trembling, hastening to fall with groans and tears at the feet of the prince, and saying: "Is it thus that you, a father hitherto most affectionate toward your sons, despoil your sons, disinherit them, disown them? We do not complain of the fact that you choose to divest yourself of the best and largest part of the empire so much as we wonder at it. But we do complain that you give it to others to our loss and shame. Why do you defraud your children of their expected succession to the empire, you who yourself reigned in partnership with your father? What have we done to you? By what disloyalty to you, to our country, to the Roman name or the majesty of the empire, are we deemed to deserve to be deprived of the chiefest and best part of our principality; that we should be banished from our paternal home, from the sight of our native land, from the air we are used to, from our ancient ties! Shall we leave our household gods, our shrines, our tombs, exiles, to live we know not where, nor in what part of the earth? "And we, your kindred, your friends, who have stood so often with you in line of battle, who have seen brothers, fathers, sons, pierced and writhing under hostile sword, and have not been dismayed at the death of others, but were ourselves ready to seek death for your sake, why are we now deserted one and all by you! We who hold the public offices of Rome, who govern or are destined to govern the cities of Italy, the Gauls, the Spains, and the other provinces, are all of us to be deposed? Are all of us to be ordered into private life? Or will you compensate us elsewhere for this loss? And how can you, when such a large part of the world has been given to another? Will your majesty put the man who had charge of a hundred peoples over one? How could you have conceived such a plan? How is it that you have suddenly become oblivious of your subjects, so that you have no consideration for your friends, nor your kindred, nor your sons? Would that it had been our lot, your Majesty, while your honor and your victory were unimpaired, to fall in battle rather than to see this! "You have the power, indeed, to do with your empire what you will, and even with us, one thing however excepted, which we will resist to the death; we will not give up the worship of the immortal gods,-just for the sake of a conspicuous example to others, that you may know how much that bounty of yours will be worth to the Christian religion. For if you do not give your empire to Sylvester, we are willing to be Christians with you, and many will imitate us. But if you do give it, not only will we not endure to become Christians, but you will make the name hateful, detestable, excretable to us, and you will put us in such a position that at last you will pity our life and our death, nor will you accuse us, but only yourself, of obstinacy." [TO BE CONTINUED] Read more at thevaticanlobby.blogspot.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/jkxh

Amplify’d from sabbathsermons.com

The Consummation of the Everlasting Covenant Part 4

by Sabbath Sermons

PRIMITIVE GODLINESS By Paul Godfrey Audio: Primitive Godliness It is said in the Bible that the dragon was wrath with the woman. Revelation 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. Here is the description of the people living just before Jesus comes. What comes after the remnant? Nothing. The remnant is the end but the remnant is part of something that has been. If you had a garment or some cloth and you had sold all the cloth and you have a bit left, the last bit at the end, what is that called? The remnant. The remnant is exactly the same as what the original was. These people aren’t like the apostolic church. These people are the apostolic church. The dragon was wrath with such a people and he went to make war with this remnant living right at the end. Hasn’t Satan always been at war with Gods people? Indeed he has but at the end there is something that is going to be far more aggressive than in the past. This is what we want to consider. Of these people it says; Revelation 14:1 And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty [and] four thousand, having his Father’s name written in their foreheads. 15:2 And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, [and] over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God. This dragon was wrath with these people and went to make war with them but they overcame. We want to consider what they had to overcome as we understood they overcame by the blood of the lamb and the word of their testimony. This victory that overcomes the world is what? Their faith and the faith that begot them as it says; 1 John 5:4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, [even] our faith. We consider the stone that smote this image. Daniel 2:44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, [but] it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. 2:34 Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet [that were] of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces. Where did the stone hit the image? In the feet. Where do we live today? In the feet. What is to happen today? The image must be destroyed today. It is our privilege in the days in which we live to be in this time where God has prophesied that this image would be destroyed. 2:35 Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth. When were the feet of iron and clay broken? When the stone hit it. When were the legs broken? At the same time. When was the gold and silver broken? All at the same time? That can’t be right because in 538 didn’t Medo Persia take over Babylon? In 331BC didn’t Greece take over Medo Persia? In 168BC didn’t Rome take over Greece? Why is it in the days of these kings when the rock or kingdom shall be set up that then it is that the gold, silver, brass and iron is broken? Why? Daniel 7:11 I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld [even] till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame. Where did John look down to? He looked down to the end and he observed this beast till it was totally destroyed. The scripture says it wasn’t found anymore. 7:12 As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time. This is the destruction of the beast, the iron and clay mingled together, the ten horns or toes are is totally abolished. No residue of it left. It is gone and finished but the way the other kingdoms were replaced, their dominion was taken away yet Babylon’s life was prolonged. So it is with Medo Persia. The Medo Persian kingdom was taken away but the life was prolonged. It is the same with Greece, it is prolonged until today. Today Babylon must be destroyed. That there is no residue of that place ever again. Moreover Medo Persia must be destroyed. Greece must be destroyed today. Will you do it? Will you overcome these nations? We understand that the 144,000 have gotten the victory over the kingdoms of this earth. Babylon is known to have astrologers. Is that still around today? Astrologers? The king went to the astrologers, soothsayers but no one was as wise as Daniel. Is spiritualism alive today? Babylon exists today. Who had a babylonish garment? Achan. That was 1200 years before Babylon ruled the world. Can you have a babylonish garment when Babylon doesn’t rule the world now? The practises of that city have been prolonged and carried on. So it is also with Medo Persia. Medo Persia is in an interesting nation. Under Medo Persia King Darius helped business by making taxation uniform and systematic. This is what Persia did. Darius also standardized weight and units of money. Does that happen today? A one world situation to make it all even. There was also a great highway built under Darius. It was called the Persian Royal Road. It extended 2500kms across the Middle East. This highway was of good quality. It opened up a postal service similar to what the Americans had, the Pony Express. The Persians had the same system. As this road was made, it was 1600 miles long and it made the Middle East one big market place. Thanks to Darius the entire Middle East became one big market place or a common market. Has that happened today? Economy, wealth, trade, this all happened under the Persian Empire. The covetousness of this world, the desire to trade with other people must be overcome. Is it wrong to trade? The way of the world is. They trade in stocks and things that don’t exist. This must be overcome. Primitive trading is okay but todays complicated trading is not what we need to be involved in. Greece Does Greece still exist today? As the passover and the feast of tabernacles called the Hebrew race together, and promoted unity and a love of God, so the Greek games gathered that people together, promoting one common language, religion, and law. God’s people met for spiritual worship; the Greeks for physical or intellectual enjoyment. p. 207, The history of Greece is the history of physical and intellectual culture. The people admired grace and beauty, and her literary minds worshiped the intellect. Plato, the greatest of Greek philosophers, lived about four hundred years before Christ,. p. 207, DANIEL THE PROPHET BY STEPHEN HASKELL What has permeated the world since then? Philosophy.. …and his teachings have led the thoughts of writers in every age since then. The Jews mingled the teachings of the Bible with the philosophy of Plato, and that formed the traditions of men, against which Christ so often warned His followers. The false philosophy, and the “science falsely so called: of Paul’s time, was Greek teaching, which breathed the spirit of Plato and his students. P 207. DANIEL THE PROPHET BY STEPHEN HASKELL Isn’t it lovely to think about all sorts of good things even the truth of God? To get your mind to run all the veins of the Bible and to enjoy the mind exercise. When it comes to the practical things of life, nothing changes. This is the kingdom of Greece. The whole Jewish teaching was Hellenised. When John the Baptist was born his mother and father were commanded to leave the city of Jerusalem. Christ himself never entered the school of his day because of the mixture of the truth of God with heathen philosophy. Did Christ overcome the world? He overcame Greece along with all the others. But what Greece would not gain in territory she did gain as a teacher of nations, and although she finally lost all territorial supremacy, though, like the kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar, the tree was cut down, yet the roots remain unto this day. More than once, as an intellectual power, has Greece arisen. Throughout the intellectual world she has votaries bowing before her shrine — the mind of man. Her philosophy is to-day studied under the guise of modern writers; her ideas are instilled into the minds of children, from the kindergarten to the university, and students are graduated from the schools of the land knowing much more of the mythology of Greece than they do of the religion of Jesus Christ; better acquainted with Greek heroes than with the man of Calvary. Greek learning still rules the world, and it will until the setting up of the everlasting kingdom of God — till the stone cut out without hands shall fill the earth. p. 224, DANIEL THE PROPHET BY STEPHEN HASKELL The Philosophy of the Greeks was to have universities. To have mind culture and it is always connected with sport, isn’t that what the Greeks did? They came out with the Olympic games and so the education of the mind was connected with sport. They were two bundles together and we have it living very well today. Rome What is the description of such a beast that came out of the sea that represented Rome? It was represented as iron. It ruled and crushed everyone under it. So it is that Rome was the dictator of the world. Rome was the most perfected governments of them all. When Rome came in it was diverse from the rest. How? Did it have a king when it took the world over? It was a republic. They had a system of voting. This form of government was diverse from all the rest and it was the oppression of the world through the iron. Controlled government and dictatorship is represented in Rome. Does that live today? How are we going to control the masses? We have the fashions of this world, spiritualism, commerce, money making, education, sports and we want to control the masses. This is what we live in today. If you consider we shouldn’t get involved in fashion or spiritualism or money making in a negative way, philosophy or education, what on earth do we do? It is like going back to the Stone Age. What would you do? Well that’s the precise thing of the message. It is primitive Godliness that is represented in the 144,000. They are the remnant, the left overs. They have not been defiled with women. They have not yielded to this world. They have gained the victory of the mark of the beast, over his image and the mark of his name. They have overcome it. Will you strive to be among such a people? 1 John 2:13 I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him [that is] from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father. 2:14 I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him [that is] from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one. 2:15 Love not the world, neither the things [that are] in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 2:16 For all that [is] in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. 2:17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever. How long did the kingdom of heaven last? Forever. The systems of this world, the lifestyles that have been passed down through all four kingdoms will pass away. If we engage ourselves in these lifestyles represented in these kingdoms we will also pass away but he that does the will of God will abide forever. Before the final visitation of God’s judgments upon the earth, there will be, among the people of the Lord, such a revival of primitive Godliness as has not been witnessed since apostolic times. The Spirit and power of God will be poured out upon His children. . . {FLB 326.2} What does the latter rain produce? Primitive Godliness, nothing like this world. It will not produce new fashions or desire this world or intellectual refinement through intellectual philosophy and it will not pursue dictatorship. That is primitive of Godliness, the spirit of God, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit will produce this. At that time many will separate themselves from those churches in which the love of this world has supplanted love for God and His Word. {FLB 326.2} Do you love any of those kingdoms? Any of them? Maybe you’re not greedy for money, but do you love your Babylonish garment? Or do you love philosophy and thinking of thinks and not doing them? It’s lovely to dream. It is beautiful but unless it wrought out practical fruits, they’re all in vain. Do we love these things? Do we love dictatorship? Controlling other people and telling other people what to do? Do we get a power trip? This is the love of the world. All that is in the world, the pride of life. Many, both of ministers and people, will gladly accept those great truths which God has caused to be proclaimed at this time, {FLB 326.2} That is her day. …to prepare a people for the Lord’s second coming.. . . {FLB 326.2} Do you strive to be among these people? To have primitive Godliness and go back to the stone age of religion and to the foundations of Eden. Do you like that? If we do then we need to be prepared for his coming by putting these things off. It is only as the law of God is restored to its rightful position that there can be a revival of primitive faith and Godliness among His professed people. “Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls.” Jeremiah 6:16. {FLB 326.5} The victory will be yours if you look back to the history of Gods church and its purity. In the apostolic times, did the apostles oppose spiritualism? Do we know? John 15:18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before [it hated] you. 15:19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. Here is the apostolic church and God says I have called you out of the world. As he called them out he said you will be hated of the world. War is the epitome of hatred. The dragon was wrath with the woman and went to make war with the remnant of her seed that live in a primitive way against the kingdoms of this world. But you are not of the world. We know according to the words of Jesus Christ that the apostolic church at the beginning was primitive Godliness. That is the bench mark. Did these apostles oppose spiritualism? Apostle Paul had gone through the Isles of Paphos and they found a false prophet Acts 13:6 And when they had gone through the isle unto Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, whose name was Barjesus: 13:9 Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him, 13:10 And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord? He was a Jew claiming to be a prophet and he was what? A sorcerer. Are there movements in Christendom today that claim to be prophets and engage in things that are spiritualistic and spiritualism? That comes from Babylon. It is written that Babylon is confusion. Its babble, it happens today, people babble. Did the apostles oppose the greed for wealth? You know the story of Ananias and Saphirra. They pledged a certain amount to the church. It was an option. They swore an oath that when they sold their land they would give the entire proceedings to God. What happened to these people? They were struck down dead and great fear came upon all the church and so it needs to be today. To rip someone of is to do with Persia always wanting to get a good deal and they ripped God of. Withholding tithe that belongs to God or the church using tithes to invest in stocks, does that happen today? To buy shares in NAB. The Seventh Day Adventist Australian Union in Australia lost millions of dollars in investments of tithe in the stock market because Persia exists today in the church. The church is run by accountants more interested in the money bag than the spreading of the gospel. Is Greek philosophy, is that in the church? Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. How did the traditions of men come about? Interweaving the philosophy of the world into the truth. There was truth in them yet the philosophy was mingled with them. A bit like white and black mingled together. A bit like a leopard. Isn’t a leopard spotted? A bit of truth and error mingled together. 2 Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or [if] ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with [him]. There are so many Jesus’s preached today. There are so many gospels preached today. If we desire to be among this people, we must be primitive. The simple facts of the Bible, apostolic teaching which is righteousness by faith which leads to the fruits of the spirit. The apostolic church opposed Rome. Did it hold out Rome from its teachings and mentality? Matthew 20:25 But Jesus called them [unto him], and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. Who is Jesus speaking about? The princes of the gentiles. Who was ruling in the days of Jesus Christ? Rome. Herod, Pilate and you know all these kings and this is what they do. This is Rome. They exercise dominion over their subjects. They are patrons and the others proteges. Matthew 20:26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; 20:27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. It is well for leaders to study the life of Christ how he dealt with his people and the way he dealt with his people is how we are to deal. The apostolic church opposed Rome. It opposed Babylon, Medo Persia, Greece and Rome. 1 Peter 5:1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: 5:2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight [thereof], not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; 5:3 Neither as being Lords over [God's] heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. How do you have influence over the church? By an example of your life. Jesus declared the scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses seat. Everything they say do, but don’t do after their works as they say and do not. The Influence of Rome As professed reformers and professed followers of the Bible, we understand we shouldn’t be involved in spiritualism and fashions of this world and greed for money. This issue of Rome being in the church is the canker of today. As the setting of this kingdom is taking place, when was the kingdom is to be set up? When the judgment began. The judgement began after the persecution the wearing out of the saints. In 1844 there was the beginning of the sealing of the 144,000. Those in the Philadelphian period that would be pillars in the temple of God having the name of God on their forehead. These people were included in the 144,000. These people must have been holding primitive Godliness. It was that a lot of worldliness was given up under the judgement hour message. Did people leave their farms? They really believed Jesus was coming, they left it all. They got rid of the fashions of the world. They got down to basic Bible study not the philosophy of the theologians. These people gave the judgement hour message. As it developed these people set up an organisation. How was it set up? James White declared the following in 1881. He desired something as the system it was set up on was apostolic. “Organization was designed to secure unity of action, and as a protection from imposture. It was never intended as a scourge to compel obedience, but, rather, for the protection of the people of God. Christ does not drive his people. He calls them. “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.” Our living Head leads the way, and calls His people to follow. Human creeds cannot produce unity. Church force cannot press the church into one body. Christ never designed that human minds should be molded for Heaven by the influence merely of other human minds. “The head of every man is Christ.” His part is to lead, and to mold, and to stamp his own image upon the heirs of eternal glory. However important organization may be for the protection of the church, and to secure harmony of action, it must not come in to take the disciple from the hands of the Master.” James White, Review and Herald. Organisation is very important. The nearer we come to the end the more essential it is to be organised. But organisation must never take the person out of the hands of the master. Never. You can write a creed of what you believe and put it in front. That sort of creed will never do anything for the church. A church creed cannot produce unity. To tell people to get along doesn’t work. You can’t force people to get along. “But here we wish it distinctly understood that officers were not ordained-in the Christian church to order or to command the church, or to “Lord it over God’s heritage.” James White, Review and Herald. This is what the primitive people in the Advent movement laid out. It needs to be distinctly understood. Get that right in your head. That the ordination of ministers or people of leadership were never to become Lords over the flock. Never was it ever intended to be like that. “In the case of difference of opinion that arose in some of the primitive churches relative to circumcision and the keeping of the law of Moses, recorded in the fifteenth chapter of Acts, the apostles and elders at Jerusalem acted as counsellors in a manner to give room for the Holy Ghost to sit as Judge.” James White, Review and Herald. Is there a difference between a counsellor and a director? There is a big difference. This is what we need to understand. They’re just counsellors. Who is the king? Christ is the head of every man. He is the king of this kingdom but people say we don’t want him to rule over us, we want our own king. That’s what they say. It must not be amongst us. They should act as counsellors. “Between the two extremes, of church force, and unsanctified independence, we find the grand secret of unity and efficiency in the ministry and in the church of God.” James White, Review and Herald. Between the two extremes, there are people that want to be independent do and say what I like, go where they like and I have no one to answer accept just preach my own thing. Unsanctified independents. So we say we don’t want to do that and we have church force which is worse. What is worse the left or right side of the bridge? You end up in the same place. There is a fine line between the two extremes. Primitive Godliness will find the right balance. “The General Conference takes the general supervision of the work in all its branches, including the State Conferences, The State Conference takes the supervision of all branches of the work in the State, including the churches in that State. And the church is a body of Christians associated together with the simple covenant to keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. The officers of a local church are servants of that church, and not Lords to rule over it with church force. “He that is greatest among you shall be your servant.” Matt. 23:11.” Ibid. James White, Review and Herald. We should be coming in the opposite relationship that Rome has. We are to become servants to one another, to help each other in the duties of life. There needs to be a service given to the people of God. “These officers should met examples of patience, watchfulness, prayer, kindness, and liberality, to the members of the church, and should manifest a good degree of that love to those they serve exhibited in the life and teachings of our Lord.” Ibid. James White, Review and Herald. The servant of God is to watch. What is going on? How does he correct if he can’t Lord it? The scripture says I charge you before God preach the word. What happens when there is a problem in the church? I go to the brother and say you must do this and that or do I preach the principle that is contained in the situation from the bible? When the Bible is speaking? Who is speaking? God, because it is his word. Then who is doing the correcting? God. If it is not in the Bible or Spirit of Prophecy, be careful not to tell anyone anything. Be careful that you don’t Lord it. “In the fulfillment of the duties of their office, in taking the general supervision of the entire work, their strength is in so counseling with their brethren in the spirit of tenderness and love as to bind the hearts, of all the laborers to their hearts, and give room for the voice of the Holy Ghost. As was manifested in the days of the apostles. They should ever bear in mind that the head of every man is Christ. They may counsel with the State Conference Committees in reference to ministers laboring here or there, but should never direct. “The head of every man [every minister], is Christ.” The minister who throws himself on any Conference Committee for direction, takes himself out of the hands of Christ.” James White, Review and Herald. If there is a good idea talk about it but should never direct. “And that Committee that takes into its own hands the work of directing the ambassadors for Christ, takes a fearful responsibility: “One is your Master [Leader], even Christ, and all ye are brethren.” Matt. 23:8. May God preserve to us our organization and form of church discipline in its original simplicity and efficiency.” James White, Review and Herald. That was written in 1881. A number of years later Ellen White wrote; There is coming in among us a spirit which God will not suffer to rule. Never should Christians feel that they are Lords over God’s heritage. There should not be among Christians a spirit which makes some patrons and some proteges. The commandments of God forbid this. “All ye are brethren” (Matthew 23:8). No man is to think that he is the owner of the minds and capabilities of his brethren. {TDG 192.3} If the standard of the commandments in their correct place as the standard of righteousness was given, then it is says; It is only as the law of God is restored to its rightful position that there can be a revival of primitive faith and godliness among his professed people. {GENERAL CONFERENCE88 478.3} If we are to have righteousness by faith what must we need? We must need a big standard, a high standard nothing short of it. When we fail, may the Lord lead us to Christ and faith takes root. Righteousness by faith comes because of a high standard. If right by faith was the fourth angel mustn’t the commandments of God to be held in hits height in order to have the primitive faith? He is not to think that others must submit to his dictation. He is liable to err, liable to make mistakes, as every man is. He is not to try to control matters in accordance with his ideas. {TDG 192.3} How hard is that to do? It is the pride of life. Rome lives in each one of us. In the 1800′s in Adventism something was taking place. That original simplicity established in 1864 was becoming changed. They had at the beginning a president simply a presiding person in the meetings but as time went on the name president took on a different meaning. The name president took on a different meaning. As history went on, read the history of Butler. He introduced the power of the president and its committee. Then there was warning. James White wrote that the Lord would preserve this type of simple type of organisation and then he died. Then in 1900 a spirit came in that would make some proteges and patrons. What happened in 1901 before the General Conference started there was a meeting in the library hall of Battle Creek and the Ellen White wanted to speak to the leaders. The leaders of the regular lines, they must have and entire change, an entire new organization, and to have a committee that shall take in not merely half a dozen, that is to be a ruling and controlling power, but it is to have representatives of those that are placed in responsibility in our educational interests, in our Sanitariums. {SpM 163.1} …then there should be a renovation without any delay. To have this conference pass on and close up as the conferences have done, with the same manipulating, with the very same tone, and the same order,–God forbid! (Voices, “Amen”) God forbid, brethren. And until this shall come we might just as well close up the conference today as any other day. {SpM 163.2} This thing has been continuing for the last fifteen years or more, 1901. Fifteen years began in 1886. It started coming in. James White was seeing it he wrote his article in the 1800′s and by the time Minneapolis came the General Conference already had its power and that power stopped righteousness by faith is it not? She writes something has to change. Now God wants a change, and it is high time, it is high time that here was ability that should connect with the conference, with the General Conference, right here in this city; not wait until it is done, and then find, – not wait till it is all done and over with, and then gather up the forces and see what can be done. We want to know what can be done right here; {SpM 164.3} Now from the light that I have, as it was presented to me in figures: There was a narrow compass here; there within that narrow is a king-like, kingly ruling power. {SpM 163.1} God means what he says, he says, I want change here. That is what God says, I want change here. There was a compass, a kingly power. Someone may say if we have a committee is that kingly power? Is that kingly power just one man? Anytime there is one person that arises with some influences chop him down as that is kingly power. It doesn’t matter how many men make the power, it is how it relates itself. You know in the scriptures that the beast that the woman sat on was seven hills and the seven hills were seven kings. What city has seven hills? Rome. The seven kings, five are fallen one is and one is to come. Rome had seven different types of leadership? 753BC Rome was a kingdom and a kingdom has what? They had a king and it made them no different to any other kingdom in the world but the Bible says when they took supremacy over the world they were diverse form the rest. Why were they diverse? In 508 Rome became a republic. They had an election. They elected a president or a dictator. One person they elected. No longer by royal line anymore it was by election they did this. They had a king and then they had a dictatorship, a president and then Rome decided to change the way it ran and it had a decemvirate which means they had ten men ruling Rome. That was one of the heads of Rome of this beast. The seven mountains, the seven kings. How many men? Ten. They also then had a change as it didn’t work. Then they had two men called consular and each had the power of veto so if they didn’t agree it couldn’t get done. Isn’t that a good way of doing it. This was Rome, it wasn’t a good way of doing it. Two men were ruling that nation. Was it good enough? No. Then they had three men. One of those men was Julius Caesar. In 27BC he kicked off the other three and Rome ceased to be an Empire. Then they had the king and then they had one man and then how many men? Two men, three men, and ten men. It is still Rome. Doesn’t matter how many man. Dictatorship was dictatorship. In the days of John who was ruling? Rome. Now the sixth is ruling. One is and one is to come. Who is that? Our friend the pope. He is to rule. A king in the Bible doesn’t mean one person. It can mean one, ten or fifteen people. If they dictate that is a king. That is what the Bible states. From the light that I have had for some time, and has been expressed, has been expressed over and over again, not to all there are here, but has been expressed to individuals, and the plans that God would have all to work from, that never should one mind or two minds or three minds nor four minds, or a few minds I should say, be considered of sufficient wisdom and power to control and mark out plans and let it rest upon the minds of one or two or three in regard to this broad, broad field that we have; {SpM 162.4} The Lord had shown her that the number of men didn’t make it any better. A T Jones is writing to A G Daniels. Don’t’ we love A G Daniels? Don’t people protest against A G Daniels and what he did? Was that a kingly power? Absolutely. This is the root of it. It took years to come to fruition. In the General Conference of 1901 the general conference was started toward the call for reorganisation. All understand that the call was away from centralised order of things in which one man or two men or a few men, had been ruling and dictating power to an organisation in which all the people as individuals should have a part with God in Christ by the Holy Spirit as the unifying and directing power. A T JONES 1906. That was to happen in 1901 when Ellen White spoke so plainly to the General Conference there was a turn to the original way of organisation. Notice what happened in 1901, you might be surprised. “In this understanding an entire new constitution was adopted”. A T Jones. They reorganised in 1901 under the direction of the spirit of God through the prophet. “In this understanding an entire constitution was adopted. Such was an understanding in adopting this constitution is plainly shown in the discussions. Under this constitution the General Conference committee was composed by a large number of men with power to organise itself by choosing a chairman. No president of the General Conference was chosen nor was provided for.” A T Jones 1906 “The presidency of the General Conference was eliminated to escape a centralised power and one man power, a kingship or monarchy, the constitution was framed and adopted at the end in accordance with the whole guiding through the conference from the beginning in that room in the college building.” A T Jones 1906 In 1901 under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and they did not have a president. It was gone, no more. There was some primitive Godliness. But it didn’t last. A T Jones was quite upset with A G Daniels because of what happened after. After all this it was not long before the whole spirit and principle General Conference organisation and affairs began to be reversed again. “The spirit of reaction became so strife and so rank that sometime before the General Conference of 1903, at Oakland California, two men or three men or a few men I should say, being together in Battle Creek or somewhere else and without any kind of authority but against the words of the constitution took it absolutely upon themselves to elect you president. Brother Prescott vice president of the General Conference and then there was in the universe a clear piece of usurpation of position power and authority, you two were then of right just as much president and vice president of Timbuktu of the Seventh Day Adventist General Conference.” A T Jones 1906 Go and rule Timbuktu because it was not in order. A G Daniels AG Daniels and Prescott and also Dr Kellogg and others, Kellogg didn’t just invent pantheism, he invented dictatorship also. We speak of kingly power against Kellogg, he was part of that, but it was more than just pantheism. In 1903 they had this meeting; “I stated that the general present order of the general conference in 1906 affairs is thoroughly bureaucratic government.” A T Jones. What is bureaucratic? Dictators, bureaucrats, red tape, sound familiar? Don’t we have that today? That before you do anything you have to lay your plans at the General Conference and they must approve it and if you speak against the General Conference you are in trouble for speaking against them. This is bureaucratic govt. is it a simple form of government? Absolutely not. It is so complicated. they have so many board meetings you never get anything done. A ship could be going down and you would have to have a board meeting to see what to do about it. that is bureaucracy. You would never get anything done. That is the definition of bureaucracy. A bureaucracy is sure to think that its duty is to augment official power, business, rather than to leave free the energies of mankind. 1903 In 1901 they had no president. The had a large number of people and they were counsellors. Ellen White writes in 1903. We have heard this statement a few times but in the light of the dates of when it was written and the meeting held in Battle Creek, secret meeting where A G Daniels and Prescott were elected president and vice president which has its sure results in the war issue. After I received word in regard to the excellent meeting of confession and unity that had been held in Battle Creek I was writing in my diary and was about to record the thankfulness I felt because a change had come, when my hand was arrested, and there came to me the words: “Write it not. No change for the better has taken place. Teachings that are turning souls from the truth are being presented as of great worth. {8T 231.2} That was pantheism. Doctrines are being taught that lead into bypaths and forbidden paths; doctrines that lead men to act in harmony with their own inclinations and to work out their unsanctified purposes; doctrines that, if received, would destroy the dignity and power of God’s people, obscuring the light that would otherwise come to them through God’s appointed agencies.” {8T 231.2} See what they were stopping? They were stopping the holy spirit. Pantheism was being taught. Is org a doctrine? Absolutely it is a teaching of Jesus Christ. There was a doctrine that was going to weaken the people of God. The leaders in our medical work at Battle Creek have endeavored to bind our medical institutions fast, in accordance with their plans. Notwithstanding the many warnings given them that this should not be done, they have desired to bind up these institutions in some way so that all our medical work shall be under their control. {8T 231.3} “In establishing and developing medical institutions, our brethren must not be asked to work in accordance with the plans of a kingly, ruling power. A change must be brought about. The plan to fasten every medical institution to the central organization at Battle Creek must be relinquished. This plan God forbids. {8T 232.3} “For years I have been instructed that there is danger, constant danger, that our brethren will look to their fellow men for permission to do this or that, instead of looking to God. Thus they become weaklings, and permit themselves to be bound with man-made restrictions disapproved by God. The Lord can impress minds and consciences to do His work under bonds to Him, and in a spirit of fraternity that is in accordance with the principles of His law. . . . {8T 232.4} The church becomes weak, the ministers become weak ad then it is really up to the General Conference to hold everything together. They are the only strong ones. They make themselves fat upon the cost of the sheep of the flock. “The division of the General Conference into District Union Conferences was God’s arrangement. In the work of the Lord for these last days there should be no Jerusalem centers, no kingly power. And the work in the different countries is not to be bound by contracts to the work centering in Battle Creek, for this is not God’s plan. {8T 232.6} For example the General Conference cannot tell another country to form a union and can’t enforce that as it is not written in the law of God that it must be. Brethren are to counsel together, for we are just as much under the control of God in one part of His vineyard as in another. Brethren are to be one in heart and soul, even as Christ and the Father are one. Teach this, practice this, that we may be one with Christ in God, all working to build up one another. {8T 232.6} “The kingly power formerly revealed in the General Conference at Battle Creek is not to be perpetuated. {8T 233.1} If we desire to be among these people will we come out of Rome? Will we organise ourselves according to primitive Godliness? According to eth remnant of her seed? The same as the apostolic days? Yes there is counsel together and working together but no one is the ruler. Yes there are shepherds of the flock, sin has to be reproved, preach the word. Make a stand that we protect this primitive way of organisation and not get involved in the world of Rome. Amen. Read more at sabbathsermons.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/jkx5