Tag Archives: authority

U. S. SUPREME COURT NOT SUPREME


U. S. SUPREME COURT NOT SUPREME
There are many levels of authority which, at some point in life, come to bear directly or indirectly on everyone. Authority is a good thing. Organized authority is an even better thing. Consider that there is parental authority (at least what is left of it). Also, there is the authority of school teachers and administrators. There is law enforcement authority. There is an ever encroaching bureaucratic authority. Then there is the authority of the courts of the land. These range from municipal courts to district, state, state supreme, federal district courts and finally the Supreme Court of the United States of America.By the time a case reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, it has been heard and appealed, perhaps several times by lower courts. Dissatisfaction with lower court rulings has allowed appeals all the way to the U. S. Supreme Court. When that court renders a ruling, it is said to be final. There is no higher court of appeal to which the case may be sent for examination and decision.However that is not always the case! As one surveys the preserved records of Holy Writ, he will be impressed that the courts of men have been wrong much of the time on truly important matters. Consider that folks in the antediluvian world ruled that they could live as they pleased, and since practically the entire world agreed with them, their ruling had to be right. However the Creator God over ruled their decision to the destruction of the entire earth, except the extreme minority who trusted in Him.Moreover, one need only look to the Tower of Babel to see a similar Divine overruling of the decision of men. Then what of the three Hebrew children and of Daniel all of whom defied the supreme ruler of the land, but God overruled him! The list could go on and on. But certainly there was a time when men ruled that Jesus the express image of the invisible God should be put to death on a Roman cross. But God overruled their decision in His resurrection and uses His sacrifice to be the source of eternal life to all who trust in Him.The U. S. Supreme Court has handed down what is thought to be a final decision regarding same sex marriage, but it is wrong, very wrong in ruling against nature and nature’s God. But one may rest assured that the decision of that court is not final. The courts of heaven are sovereign, and in the end will rule supremely to the hurt of all who defy heaven’s King and His eternal Word. It is to that court God’s people should be appealing, especially that its physical, inaugural rule on earth might begin soon by the certain coming of the Supreme Sovereign. (The idea for this article is taken from a message by my late, great friend and brother in Christ, Dr. R. T. Perritt)

Leave a comment

Filed under Commentary

James Wilson, founding father, died August 21, 1798


jameswilsonAmerican Minute with Bill Federer

He was one of six founding fathers to sign both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

President Washington appointed him to the Supreme Court.

Born in Scotland, he was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, speaking 168 times.

His name was James Wilson and he died AUGUST 21, 1798.

The first law professor of the University of Pennsylvania, James Wilson wrote in his Lectures on Law, 1789-91, that all law comes from God, being divided into four categories:

“law eternal,” “law celestial,” “laws of nature,”

and:

“Law…communicated to us by reason and conscience…has been called natural; as promulgated by the Holy Scriptures, it has been called revealed…

But it should always be remembered, that this law, natural or revealed…flows from the same divine source; it is the law of God.”

“Human law must rest its authority, ultimately, upon the authority of that law, which is divine.”

James Wilson continued:

“Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other.”

James Wilson stated:

“The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it.”

James Wilson remarked at Pennsylvania’s ratifying convention, November 26, 1787:

“Governments, in general, have been the result of force, of fraud, and accident.

After a period of 6,000 years has elapsed since the creation, the United States exhibit to the world the first instance, as far as we can learn, of a nation…assembling voluntarily…and deciding calmly concerning that system of government under which they would wish that they and their posterity should live.”

In expounding on the “Will of God,” James Wilson described it as the:

“…efficient cause of moral obligation – of the eminent distinction between right and wrong…(and therefore the) supreme law…

(It is revealed) by our conscience, by our reason, and by the Holy Scriptures.”

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania records in Updegraph v. Commonwealth, 1824:

“The late Judge James Wilson, of the Supreme Court of the United States, Professor of Law in the College in Philadelphia…

for our present form of government we are greatly indebted to his exertions…

In his Course of Lectures (3d Vol. of his Works, 122), he states that…

‘Christianity is part of the common-law.’”


Bill FedererThe Moral Liberal contributing editor, William J. Federer, is the bestselling author of “Backfired: A Nation Born for Religious Tolerance no Longer Tolerates Religion,” and numerous other books. A frequent radio and television guest, his daily American Minute is broadcast nationally via radio, television, and Internet. Check out all of Bill’s bookshere.

Leave a comment

Filed under Men of Faith

217 – August, 05 – This Day in Baptist History Past


 

How the wicked treated the godly Mr. Wickenden

The date of the paper entitled “Classis of Amsterdam” was signed by two clergymen of the Dutch Reformed Church on Long Island, New York on August 5, 1657.  The Dutch Reformed Church being the established order of that state. The report pictures religion on the Island in a sad condition and declares, “Last year a fomenter of evil came there. He was a cobbler from Rhode Island, in New England, and stated that he was commissioned by Christ. He began to preach at Flushing and then went with the people into the river and dipped them.

This becoming known here, the fiscal [i.e., a government official] proceeded thither and brought him along. He was banished from the province.” This was in reference to William Wickenden of Providence, Rhode Island. He was an elder of the second Providence church which was “vigorous…in propagating its notions.” Wickenden was one of the earliest settlers in Providence, having moved there in 1636.

He signed the first compact for R.I. in 1637 and served as a member of the legislature often from 1648 to 1664. In 1655 he visited N.Y. to preach the gospel. The following information has been provided by Armitage. “The Baptists at Flushing were the next to feel the wrath of the law. William Hallett, sheriff of that place, had dared to collect conventicles in his house, and to permit one William Wickenden to explain and comment on God’s Holy Word, and to administer sacraments, though not called thereto by any civil or clerical authority…” The sheriff was removed from office and banished. Wickenden was banished without paying a large fine imposed on him. He died in 1669.

Dr. Greg J. Dixon: From: This Day in Baptist History Vol. I: Cummins/Thompson, pp. 320-22.

The post 217 – August, 05 – This Day in Baptist History Past

 

 appeared first on The Trumpet Online

1 Comment

Filed under Church History

301 – Oct. 28 – This Day in Baptist History Past


 

The “apostle of Baptist church independence”

 

1856 – Francis Wayland finished the preface to his important book, Notes on the Principles and Practices of Baptist Churches. He wrote, “Baptists have always believed in the entire and absolute independence of the churches. By this we mean that every church is self governing and recognizes no authority higher than Christ. As he championed this biblical principle, Wayland became known as the “apostle of Baptist independence.” This important doctrine has served as a safeguard through the years and is as essential today as it has ever been. In 1954 the failure of the North Carolina Supreme Court to understand Baptist polity caused it to award church property of the North Rocky Mount Baptist Church to a liberal group that claimed the majority had no right to withdraw from the denomination (i.e., the Southern Baptist Convention). Thankfully the Colorado Supreme Court in 1955 saw the issues more clearly and upheld the ruling of a lower Colorado court in the case of the First Baptist Church of Ft. Collins in which the court said, “From the standpoint of this Court, we hold that this being an independent congregational type of government, having no allegiance to any higher authority than the Church itself, that the church by majority vote, had the right to… withdraw from the Northern Baptist Association. [Francis Wayland, Notes on the Principles of Baptist Churches (New York: Sheldon, Blakeman and Co., 1857), pp. 177-78.This Day in Baptist History II: Cummins and Thompson, BJU Press: Greenville, S.C. 2000 A.D. 589-90.]   Prepared by Dr. Greg J. Dixon

 

The post 301 – Oct. 28 – This Day in Baptist History Past appeared first on The Trumpet Online.

 

 

1 Comment

Filed under Church History

348 – Dec. 14 – THIS DAY IN BAPTIST HISTORY PAST


 They were beaten and imprisoned
December 14, 1662 – The State of Virginia, passed the following law: “Whereas many schismatical persons out of their averseness to the orthodox established religion, or out of new fangled conceits of their own heretical inventions, refused to have their children baptized. Be it therefore enacted by the authority aforesaid, that all persons that, in contempt of the divine sacrament of baptism, shall refuse when they carry their child to lawful the minister in that country to have them baptized shall be amesed two thousand pounds of tobacco, half to the publique.” Such statutes were directed at the Baptists, whose principles and convictions dictated that they baptize only believers on their confession of faith and who believed pedobaptism to be a Romish invention carried over into Protestantism by the Reformers. The Church of England increased her membership by pedobaptism, but the Baptists by evangelism and proselytizing. This difference of belief caused a head-on collision between the established religion, the Church of England, which tenaciously held to pedobaptism, and the lowly Baptists, who repudiated it and baptized all who believed and gave their testimony to their faith in Jesus Christ and His finished work on the cross for their salvation. Hawkes, the historian of the Episcopal Church of Virginia, said, “No dissenters in Virginia experienced for a time, harsher treatment than did the Baptists. They were beaten and imprisoned; and cruelly taxed by the authorities who devised new modes of punishment and annoyance.” The Charter of 1606 provided that the Church of England should be the only legal and official state church of Virginia. The bloody military code of 1611 required all adults of the colony to give account of their faith to the parish minister.
Dr. Greg J. Dixon from: This Day in Baptist History Vol. I: Cummins Thompson /, pp. 521-22.

Leave a comment

Filed under Church History

It’s final in Ireland: Kids, gov’t rule in home over parents


Friday, November 16, 2012

Pro-family groups are going on the offensive to stop an incoming barrage of internationalists’ treaties as voters approve ballot measures on “children’s rights.”

The results are in … and parents in Ireland voted for their own defeat — conceding that they are not fit to make decisions about raising their own children. They effectively handed over their parental rights to their own children and the government Saturday, as the final poll results show this week that 57 percent– versus 43 percent — of Irish voters believe that “children’s rights” should usurp their own when making crucial decisions on the upbringing of Irish youth.

In another stride toward global governance, the United Nations brought Ireland under compliance with its mandate that allows for the state’s seizure of children via an amendment that voters approved into the Irish constitution. Only one-third of Irish voters showed up to cast their ballot on the measure, which was not only supported by every political party, but surprisingly by all children’s charities, as well.

But pro-family groups in America are more than concerned that what goes down in Ireland doesn’t stay in Ireland.

“The election results are going to require us to engage in both offensive and defensive tactics to preserve parental rights,” saysParentalrights.org president Michael P. Farris. “There is absolutely no doubt that the internationalists are going to push extremely hard for ratification of a whole series of treaties that will dramatically reorder the relationship between parents and children.”

And Farris promises that he will not let America sit down and bow to the dictates of the government as parents blindly stand by to watch their parental rights stripped before their very eyes.

“The nanny state will gain much ground under these treaties,” Farris adds. “We must do everything we can to stop their ratification — and we will continue to work very hard to push theParental Rights Amendment. Getting a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate will be a significant challenge over the next two years, and we may have to hope for a turnaround in 2014.”

To see what the U.S. government is already doing
to invade parental rights in the home,
watch “Overruled: Government Invasion of Your Parental Rights“

Luck of the Irish won’t help here

Opponents in Ireland campaigning to defeat the referendum propagated by the government to champion and “strengthen children’s rights” will attest that Irish parents will need a lot more than the luck of the Irish when they want to exercise their rights to raise their children the way they see fit. After a hard-fought, but unfruitful battle against the government’s drive to pass the measure for the amendment, the Alliance of Parents against the State argue that the United Nations will reign supreme over Irish law.

For more on the referendum and the
U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child treaty,
read the OneNewsNow article
“Irish parents giving away wrong rights?”

According to APS, voters have given the Irish government virtually unchecked authority to seize the nation’s youth when acting in the “best interests of children” — a term which it defines itself. The pro-family group says parents will be faced with the following new challenges due to Saturday’s results:

Your child can be placed for adoption against your will.
The State can decide to give birth control to children of any age, even if they are below the age of consent.
The State can bring children to other countries for abortions without parental consent, even if the child disagrees.
The U.N. and the EU can make any laws for children without consent of the Irish government if it wishes.
The State can decide … to vaccinate every child in Ireland, and the parent — and even the child — have no say in the matter.

APS also maintains that the legal system’s judges upholding the new laws work hand in hand with the State when it comes to child seizures, noting that their true interest is in covering themselves. The pro-family group points out that when children die under the state’s care, no one is held responsible, yet when false charges are brought against parents — who are acquitted — family courts still punish them and remove their children from their homes.

Shotgun measure

Many parents in Ireland are up in arms, as it seems as though their parental rights were virtually stripped overnight, as the wording of the amendment was only unveiled a few weeks ago, giving them an inadequate amount of time effectively counter the government’s massive fly-by-night campaign. It is further reported that the government was ordered by the Supreme Court of Ireland to tear down and remove its website that campaigned for the referendum’s passage — an alleged illegal cover-up that opponents are using as their central argument to reverse the voters’ passage.

And challengers to the amendment claim that the State’s campaign to ratify it was corrupt and misleading from the get-go.

“It has been a YES campaign from the beginning,” former European Parliament member from Ireland, Kathy Sinnott, told LifeSiteNews. “Everyone believes that in voting YES, they are protecting children, but they are really giving up their rights over their children. The government thinks that people are ready to buy their propaganda that changing the Constitution is about protecting children. Of course this is nonsense, because our Constitution already very strongly protects children.”

In fact, it takes protection to a whole new meaning … literally.

“Not only does the State take over parental authority, but all a parent has to do is ‘likely to fail’ in their responsibilities, as defined by the State, for the State to take control of the children,” Sinnott continued. “Everything, of course, is for the ‘best interest of the child,’ which according to the U.N. treaty, is decided by the State.”

And Sinnott further shared why the government’s intrusion is so fundamentally wrong.

“The reason why the family should have prior rights over children is because of the family bond, which is nature’s strategy for protecting children. This is the mother-child bond, the father-child bond, the mother-father bond, and the brother-sister bond. This bond is the source of what is really in the ‘best interest’ of the child. The State can never have this bond. By injecting themselves as controlling shareholder of every family in this country, the State is reversing this natural order.”

Just as many parents in Ireland failed to see the dire consequences of letting such a measure pass, pro-family groups in the U.S. fear that Americans will let the government on their own shores invade upon the rights of parents within their own homes. In fact, President Barack Obama is giving his full-fledged support for the U.S. judicial system to adopt the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child — the very treaty that Ireland’s new “children’s rights” amendment is based upon.

Wake-up, Pastors! Wake-up, Christians!

Wake-Up Herald

Publisher, Dr. Robert McCurry

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized