Phrase - Religious Intolerance ( 9 )
Quotations from the writings of Ellen G. White with the phrase . . .
| Heretofore those who presented the truths of the third angel's message have often been regarded as mere alarmists. Their predictions that religious intolerance would gain control in the United States, that church and state would unite to persecute those who keep the commandments of God, have been pronounced groundless and absurd. It has been confidently declared that this land could never become other than what it has been -- the defender of religious freedom. But as the question of enforcing Sunday observance is widely agitated, the event so long doubted and disbelieved is seen to be approaching, and the third message will produce an effect which it could not have had before. Great Controversy, page 605.3 |
| |
| Our Saviour himself was a victim of religious intolerance. "He came unto his own; but his own received him not." Had he praised and exalted men, had he called corruption purity, and given license to human creeds by teaching for doctrines the commandments of men, they would have received him gladly. But his zeal for God, the righteous fervor with which he denounced every abomination that was done in the land, and, above all, the sinless purity of his own character, aroused the bitter hatred of the "whited sepulchers" who deceived the people by the appearance of great sanctity. Satan and evil angels united with evil men to destroy from the earth the champion of truth. There was a bruising of the heel of the seed of the woman, when Christ was scorned as a deceiver, and was hunted down and put to death as a criminal; but could Satan have induced him to commit one sin, there would have been a bruising of the head, and the world would have been abandoned to the power of the prince of darkness. {ST, December 23, 1886 par. 12} |
| |
| Heretofore those who presented the truths of the third angel's message have often been regarded as mere alarmists. Their predictions that religious intolerance would gain control in the United States, that church and state would unite to persecute those who keep the commandments of God, have been pronounced groundless and absurd. . . . But as the question of enforcing Sunday observance is widely agitated, the event so long doubted and disbelieved is seen to be approaching, and the third message will produce an effect which it could not have had before. . . . {Mar 172.1} |
| |
| Francis I had gloried in being a leader in the great movement for the revival of learning which marked the opening of the sixteenth century. He had delighted to gather at his court men of letters from every country. To his love of learning and his contempt for the ignorance and superstition of the monks was due, in part at least, the degree of toleration that had been granted to the reform. But, inspired with zeal to stamp out heresy, this patron of learning issued an edict declaring printing abolished all over France! Francis I presents one among the many examples on record showing that intellectual culture is not a safeguard against religious intolerance and persecution. {GC 227.2} |
| |
| witness against religious intolerance |
| "The principles contained in this celebrated Protest . . . constitute the very essence of Protestantism. Now this Protest opposes two abuses of man in matters of faith: the first is the intrusion of the civil magistrate, and the second the arbitrary authority of the church. Instead of these abuses, Protestantism sets the power of conscience above the magistrate, and the authority of the word of God above the visible church. In the first place, it rejects the civil power in divine things, and says with the prophets and apostles, 'We must obey God rather than man.' In presence of the crown of Charles the Fifth, it uplifts the crown of Jesus Christ. But it goes farther: it lays down the principle that all human teaching should be subordinate to the oracles of God."--Ibid., b. 13, ch. 6. The protesters had moreover affirmed their right to utter freely their convictions of truth. They would not only believe and obey, but teach what the word of God presents, and they denied the right of priest or magistrate to interfere. The Protest of Spires was a solemn witness against religious intolerance, and an assertion of the right of all men to worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences. {GC 203.4} |
| |
| The Protest denied the right of civil rulers to legislate in matters between the soul and God, and declared with prophets and apostles, "We ought to obey God rather than men." It rejected also the arbitrary power of the church, and set forth the unerring principle that all human teaching should be in subjection to the oracles of God. The protesters had thrown off the yoke of man's supremacy, and had exalted Christ as supreme in the church, and his word in the pulpit. The power of conscience was set above the State, and the authority of the Holy Scriptures above the visible church. The crown of Christ was uplifted above the pope's tiara and the emperor's diadem. The protesters had moreover affirmed their right to freely utter their convictions of truth. They would not only believe and obey, but teach what the word of God presents, and they denied the right of priest or magistrate to interfere. The Protest of Spires was a solemn witness against religious intolerance, and an assertion of the right of all men to worship according to the dictates of their own consciences. {4SP 162.2} |