"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

[Robert]

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."  John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, first Baron Acton 

 

Do you know why John Action stated the above?

 

In 1870, along with his mentor Döllinger, Acton opposed the moves to promulgate the doctrine of papal infallibility in the First Vatican Council, travelling to Rome to lobby against it, ultimately unsuccessfully. [Tonsor, Stephen J. (1959). "Lord Acton on Dollinger's Historical Theology,"Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 329–352.]

 

Why did Action oppose this heresy?  Because "power tends to corrupt".  Why?  Fallen human nature!!

[Ted Oplinger]

John Acton went to to Rome hoping to persuade the Pope against the doctrine. As noted in history, the Pope decided not to even enter into discourse with John.

 

That, in and of itself, is not corruption. Man has been endowed by God with the right to think and express thought through communication. Man has also been endowed with the free will to choose. Among those choices is the choice to receive another's communication, for whatever reason. God grants us the right to choose not give audience to any communication, as well as to express it. Just because someone has something to say does not obligate anyone to hear what has to be said. Refusal to listen does not equate to suppression of that right to communicate. This is something a great many Americans today need reminding of...continually.

 

Just because John wanted to discuss in the First Vatican Council did not obligate his prospective audience to hear what he wanted to say, even if John was arguably justified in his cause. Their turf, their rules. Even though John was 100% justified, that justification in and of itself does not include the obligation to be heard if the intended audience does not wish to hear it.

 

Likewise anywhere else - I may well want give to voice to a point that is justified (at least, to me). I am free to find those willing to give audience to my persuasion and arguments, but that does not obligate them to be forced to give audience on their turf should they decide not to.

 

That the RCC decided not to hear John Acton at the Council was not, in and of itself, corruption. It was an exercise in a God-given right not to hear something they did not wish to hear. God extends that to mankind and includes Himself in that - He does not force others to hear His enlightened perspective on anything, even though He is God and very much desires His Gospel to be heard by all. Man, and his institutions, are free to listen, or not. Consistently, God in both Testaments declares His messages are for those "with ears to hear". He does not obligate people to listen, although He is 100% justified in what He has to say, even though it is to eternal peril for those choosing not to hear.

 

As this thread is a spin-off of your other thread (with your current spat with Greg and Stan noted), it goes well to note that just because you have a point of view to express, and those moderating this site declare such manner of communication outside the boundaries of the image they wish to project, does not constitute an obligation on their part to entertain your discourse. Refusal does not constitute corruption, nor is it suppression of your right to voice your opinion.

 

Like me, your are a guest here. Like me, you are a very long-time guest here at ClubAdventist. Like any guest, if my deportment in communication consistently and/or flagrantly goes beyond the standards set here I would expect to be shown the door. I have no right to call that corruption or suppression, however justified I might be.

 

As for John's ending point - great men are not always bad men. John the Baptist (by Christ's declaration, the greatest of the prophets), Paul (arguably, the greatest of the Apostles), Enoch (pre-Flood great), Elijah (great prophet), and Moses were all great men. All were sinners made good by God, and in the same process were made great men.

 

Blessings,

[LifeHiscost]

 

As for John's ending point - great men are not always bad men. John the Baptist (by Christ's declaration, the greatest of the prophets), Paul (arguably, the greatest of the Apostles), Enoch (pre-Flood great), Elijah (great prophet), and Moses were all great men. All were sinners made good by God, and in the same process were made great men.

 

Blessings,

I would like to suggest that all men do not continue being bad as you have pointed out. Below is the human condition before being born again after having been washed in the blood of Jesus and being baptized.

 

9"The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it? 10"I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give to each man according to his ways, According to the results of his deeds.…Jeremiah 17

 

God is Love!  Jesus saves! 

[Ted Oplinger]

I understand, however, the gist of what John Acton was striving to make - most people this world has considered "great" imposed what the people thought was "good" through strength of will and superior force...making good corrupt through concentrated power. Look at kings Omri and Ahab in the Bible. Likewise, Saul is a good lesson there.

 

The populace of Israel thought both Omri and Ahab were great kings - they kept enemies foreign and domestic at bay, and by shrewd economic policy prospered the people much. Evidence - after 3.5 years of drought told through Elijah, Ahab still had the people's good will, and economically Israel was still doing very well. These kings were loved by the people. God, however, saw straight through to the corruption laying in the hearts of these kings. Great men in the eyes of the people...corrupted in the core in God's sight.

 

Blessings,

[Robert]

As for John's ending point - great men are not always bad men. John the Baptist (by Christ's declaration, the greatest of the prophets), Paul (arguably, the greatest of the Apostles), Enoch (pre-Flood great), Elijah (great prophet), and Moses were all great men. All were sinners made good by God, and in the same process were made great men.

 

 

I doubt very much that John was thinking of "great men" from God's perspective, but rather from "the world's".  

[Robert]

I doubt very much that John was thinking of "great men" from God's perspective, but rather from "the world's".  

 

Here's a good example:

 

Luke 22:24 A dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25 Jesus said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26 But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. 27 For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. 

 

The greatest in the eyes of the world is the one who reclines at the table being served.  But in God's eyes the one who lives to serve is the greatest of all.

 

Mark 10:42 "You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 43 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 44 and whoever wants to be the greatest must be slave of all. 45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

[Ted Oplinger]

True, Robert, and your examples out of Luke and Mark serve but to reinforcement what I opened my reply with: in this world, people view overlordship, strength of will, and use of force as great when used in a manner that they agree with. When used in manners the people disagree with, it is called tyranny, totalitarianism, and despotism, and is not so much deemed great. Evidence? Look at Putin in Russia. Right now, extremely popular with his people. With many other parts of the world...not so much.

 

Leadership by service has rarely been deemed "great" by the contemporaries of that leader. Evidence? Moses...Elijah...Christ. Christ said it best in Luke 16:8 - "So the master commended the unjust steward because he had dealt shrewdly. For the sons of this world are more shrewd in their generation than the sons of light."

 

In short - the peoples of this world relate to themselves better in their dealings with one another than do the people of God do. We still struggle with that basic concept, right down to the cliques and circles within each congregation of the SDA church.

 

Blessings,

[Aliensanctuary]

Politicians, bureaucrats, CEO's, and supervisors throughout the world tend to demonstrate the corruption principle, often resorting to bullying or picking the pockets of those who elected them or work for them.

[Robert]

Politicians, bureaucrats, CEO's, and supervisors throughout the world tend to demonstrate the corruption principle, often resorting to bullying or picking the pockets of those who elected them or work for them.

Yes, you are correct.

[Gail]

...I would like to ask a question that is related to the OP:

Is Lord Acton the originator of the term, "worldview"? I have his, "Essays on Freedom and Power," but have not have opportunity to read them yet.

Edited January 12, 2015 by Tom Wetmore
Edited for continuity of edited topic...

[Robert]

...I would like to ask a question that is related to the OP:

Is Lord Acton the originator of the term, "worldview"? I have his, "Essays on Freedom and Power," but have not have opportunity to read them yet.

 

Not sure that I follow, Gail?  What is "worldview"?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Is Lord Acton the originator of the term, "worldview"? I have his, "Essays on Freedom and Power," but have not have opportunity to read them yet.

 

Gail, I believe the term, "worldview," was first used by American philosopher and psychologist, William James, in 1868.  The English word was taken from the German "Weltanschuung."  I've always liked Sigmund Freud's comment on it:

 

"By Weltanschauung, then, I mean an intellectual construction which gives a unified solution of all the problems of our existence in virtue of a comprehensive hypothesis, a construction, therefore, in which no question is left open and in which everything in which we are interested finds a place....the possession of such a Weltanschauung is one of the ideal wishes of mankind.  When one believes in such a thing, one feels secure in life, one knows what one ought to strive after, and how one ought to organise one's emotions and interests to the best purpose."

[Robert]

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."  John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, first Baron Acton 

 

Do you know why John Action stated the above?

 

In 1870, along with his mentor Döllinger, Acton opposed the moves to promulgate the doctrine of papal infallibility in the First Vatican Council, travelling to Rome to lobby against it, ultimately unsuccessfully. [Tonsor, Stephen J. (1959). "Lord Acton on Dollinger's Historical Theology,"Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 329–352.]

 

Why did Action oppose this heresy?  Because "power tends to corrupt".  Why?  Fallen human nature!!

 

Through the two great errors, the immortality of the soul and Sunday sacredness, Satan will bring the people under his deceptions. While the former lays the foundation of spiritualism, the latter creates a bond of sympathy with Rome. The Protestants of the United States will be foremost in stretching their hands across the gulf to grasp the hand of spiritualism; they will reach over the abyss to clasp hands with the Roman power; and under the influence of this threefold union, this country will follow in the steps of Rome in trampling on the rights of conscience. ..

 

Papists, Protestants, and worldling will alike accept the form of godliness without the power, and they will see in this union a grand movement for the conversion of the world and the ushering in of the long-expected millennium.

 

When our nation [the United States] shall so abjure the principles of its government [our constitutional freedoms] as to enact a Sunday law, Protestantism will in this act join hands with popery; it will be nothing else than giving life to the tyranny which has long been eagerly watching its opportunity to spring again into active despotism. [Ellen White]

 

 

So what is the result of "absolute power"?

 

Tyranny:  "a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler".  In this case above that ruler would be the Pope.

 

How could this come into play?

 

Namely because of the doctrine of  the doctrine of Papal infallibility:

 

Papal infallibility is a dogma of the Catholic Church that states that, in virtue of the promise of Jesus to Peter, the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church. [Wikipedia]

[Robert]

Infallibility and the SDA church:

 

"There is no excuse for anyone in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible." 

 

Even Ellen White, writing of herself, said:  

 

"In regard to infallibility, I NEVER claimed it; God ALONE is Infallible."  

 

"The Bible and the Bible alone, is our creed, the sole bond of union; all who bow to this holy Word will be in harmony . . . Man is fallible, but God's Word (the Bible) is infallible."

 

“We are not to accept the opinion of commentators as the voice of God; they are erring mortals like ourselves.  God has given reasoning powers to us as well as to them.  We should make the Bible its own expositor. "

 

"The opinions of learned men, the deductions of science, the creeds or decisions of ecclesiastical councils, as numerous and discordant as are the churches which they represent, the voice of the majority-not one nor all of these should be regarded as evidence for or against any point of religious faith”

[Robert]

Papal infallibility is a dogma of the Catholic Church that states that, in virtue of the promise of Jesus to Peter, the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church. [Wikipedia]

 

 

Now, what about the gospel?  Does the Papal system preach "the everlasting gospel" or do they preach "another gospel"?

 

To see what gospel they preach we have to understand "the immaculate conception" dogma.  

 

First this:  "Catholic theologians agree that both Pope Pius IX's 1854 definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary and Pope Pius XII's 1950 definition of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary are instances of papal infallibility, a fact confirmed by the Church's magisterium." [Wikipedia]

 

So this teaching is an infallible dogma according to Catholic theologians.  

 

Now what is it?

 

"...the belief that Mary was sinless and conceived immaculate" [Wikipedia]

 

Mary, states the Pope, was conceived without "original sin", what they term a sinful nature.  You see they believe that because we are born with a sinful nature we stand guilty before God.  They really should call it "original guilt". 

 

More later....

[Robert]

What does Paul say on this subject of "original sin"?

 

Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned-- 13 For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come....

 

Notice the law not putting men in grave from Adam until Moses, where the law was given.  Why were men dying?  Because they inherited Adam's fallen life (nature).  They were never guilty of sin, rather they shared a condemned, mortal humanity with a grave in their future.  Why?  Because when Adam sinned our life substance was in him and therefore our humanity was polluted with iniquity (self-love).  The result?  Death...the first death.

 

The 2nd death is the curse of the law.  That's due to guilt for those who reject the gospel.

 

Now, was Mary conceived immaculately so that she had no sin nature?  No!  The Bible doesn't teach this.  Mary was a sinner in need of a Savior herself.

 

But the larger problem is if Mary didn't share Adam's fallen life then Christ, as the 2nd Adam, didn't assume our fallen, corporate life.  If Christ didn't assume Adam's life after the fall then Christ didn't legally answer the demands of His Father's law and therefore we must justify ourselves through a system of merit.  That is a false gospel and proves that the Pope is not infallible.  

[phkrause]

I'm definitely in agreement that the pope is not infallible

[Robert]

You see the law demands the sinners' death.  The law demands the 2nd death, which is goodbye to life forever because the source of life, God, has abandoned the sinner.

 

In order to legally save us from "the curse of the law" Christ had to assume our corporate, fallen life from Adam. Therefore, at the incarnation, Christ was made something He wasn't by native right. So Christ took our humanity in its fallen condition while remaining Himself, God.  However the human Christ handed the independent use of His Divinity over to His Father. In this way He became "the last Adam" (the 2nd Adam).

 

 For thirty something years Christ defeated our fallen nature, which He assumed by at the incarnation.  This answered the positive demands of the law, "obey & live".  But because our humanity belonged to a condemned race that humanity had to die the 2nd death. Thus Christ legally answered the justice of the law.  That's why Paul states that "you died to the law in body of Christ" (Rom 7:4)  Our old life from Adam was crucified "in Christ" (see Romans 6:6).  This is the everlasting gospel and not the one the Papacy preaches for it is an unethical gospel.