Seite 491 - The Great Controversy (1911)

Das ist die SEO-Version von The Great Controversy (1911). Klicken Sie hier, um volle Version zu sehen

« Vorherige Seite Inhalt Nächste Seite »
Impending Conflict
487
talent and learning to cavil at the Scriptures and to spiritualize and
explain away their most important truths. Many ministers are teaching
their people, and many professors and teachers are instructing their
students, that the law of God has been changed or abrogated; and those
who regard its requirements as still valid, to be literally obeyed, are
thought to be deserving only of ridicule or contempt.
In rejecting the truth, men reject its Author. In trampling upon the
law of God, they deny the authority of the Law-giver. It is as easy
to make an idol of false doctrines and theories as to fashion an idol
of wood or stone. By misrepresenting the attributes of God, Satan
leads men to conceive of Him in a false character. With many, a philo-
sophical idol is enthroned in the place of Jehovah; while the living
God, as He is revealed in His word, in Christ, and in the works of
creation, is worshiped by but few. Thousands deify nature while they
deny the God of nature. Though in a different form, idolatry exists in
the Christian world today as verily as it existed among ancient Israel in
the days of Elijah. The God of many professedly wise men, of philoso-
phers, poets, politicians, journalists—the God of polished fashionable
circles, of many colleges and universities, even of some theological
institutions—is little better than Baal, the sun-god of Phoenicia.
[584]
No error accepted by the Christian world strikes more boldly
against the authority of Heaven, none is more directly opposed to
the dictates of reason, none is more pernicious in its results, than
the modern doctrine, so rapidly gaining ground, that God’s law is no
longer binding upon men. Every nation has its laws, which command
respect and obedience; no government could exist without them; and
can it be conceived that the Creator of the heavens and the earth has
no law to govern the beings He has made? Suppose that prominent
ministers were publicly to teach that the statutes which govern their
land and protect the rights of its citizens were not obligatory—that
they restricted the liberties of the people, and therefore ought not to
be obeyed; how long would such men be tolerated in the pulpit? But
is it a graver offense to disregard the laws of states and nations than
to trample upon those divine precepts which are the foundation of all
government?
It would be far more consistent for nations to abolish their statutes,
and permit the people to do as they please, than for the Ruler of the
universe to annul His law, and leave the world without a standard