Barcroft: Difference between revisions

From PreparingYou
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 4: Line 4:
many people have used the title but Barcroft includes the comment "Until Now".
many people have used the title but Barcroft includes the comment "Until Now".


I have been trying to read it  but have wanted to stop several time.
I have been trying to read it  but have wanted to stop several times.


One line in particular that bothered me at the beginning was "I want what is mine and I want to be free."
One line in particular that bothered me at the beginning was "I want what is mine and I want to be free."
Line 10: Line 10:
I continued to the end so that I can comment on any major flaws in its conclusion or information so as to prevent undue injury or harm to others.
I continued to the end so that I can comment on any major flaws in its conclusion or information so as to prevent undue injury or harm to others.


Where there are many pieces of the puzzle in the text if one intrinsic element is missing the whole plan may be fallacious.
Where there are many pieces of the puzzle in the text, if one intrinsic element is missing then the whole plan may be fallacious.


When we are told to seek the kingdom of God and His righteousness there is a decidedly different spirit in that idea than just wanting to keep my stuff.
When we are told to seek the kingdom of God and His righteousness there is a decidedly different spirit in that idea than just wanting to keep my stuff.

Revision as of 07:00, 24 May 2016

I was recently asked to read The Greatest Story Never Told by Albert Lynn Barcroft

The Greatest Story Never Told is of course a play on the title of The Greatest Story Ever Told. many people have used the title but Barcroft includes the comment "Until Now".

I have been trying to read it but have wanted to stop several times.

One line in particular that bothered me at the beginning was "I want what is mine and I want to be free."

I continued to the end so that I can comment on any major flaws in its conclusion or information so as to prevent undue injury or harm to others.

Where there are many pieces of the puzzle in the text, if one intrinsic element is missing then the whole plan may be fallacious.

When we are told to seek the kingdom of God and His righteousness there is a decidedly different spirit in that idea than just wanting to keep my stuff. Most people think the kingdom of God is for those who die but in fact it is for the living. It is the right to be ruled by God of heaven rather than the "gods many"[1] of the world[2][3].

But a key part of those instructions is seeking His righteousness.

The only reason you should want something, is so you will have something to give away. Seeking to be ruled by God is seeking to be made and live in His image and according to His ways. He is a giver of life not a hoarder of it.

He gives so that others may live, which is why the family is the first institution of God.

Also he is incorrect when he says that the Constitution is a contract including the "state Citizens" [Page 16]. In fact they were "not a party to it".

Covenants, Constitutions, and Contracts Series.
1. The Party of the first part
http://www.hisholychurch.org/study/covenants/ccc1.php

Covenants Audio Series Part III
CCC Party of the first part
http://keysofthekingdom.info/CCC-03.mp3

On page 18 he says the foundation for America is the 1776 "Declaration of Independence". That is not true either. The foundation for liberty or freedom in America is the activity of many of its inhabitants for 150 years before 1776 which further allowed them to dissolve the band that had connected them with another because of "unwarranted usurpation".

Americans cannot make that claim today because they have not been seeking the righteousness of God.

They have been eating at the table of the socialist state.

When did they start doing that? Well at least with the advent of Public Schools if not before.

It is what Americans have been doing and not doing for the last 150 years that has brought them into bondage.

As soon as Americans deemed it okay to force their neighbors to contribute to their welfare or else they turned their back on the blessing of God.

Certainly desiring any benefit at the expense of your neighbor is coveting your neighbors goods.

Once you have accepted the premise that it is okay to force your neighbor to contribute to your welfare then your neighbor has a right to force you to contribute to his welfare.

But I digress.

Page 81 does finally get around to the concept of a "foreign state". The Church is a foreign state and has a prior claim to America. We deal with all that in the Free Church report although few comprehend the wholeness of this concept nor the exclusive nature and need for congregations, free assemblies and ministers supported not by tax but by free will offerings. Only in that foreign state of titular leaders can you have both freedom and standing as a true foreign state.

On page 82 he suggests that if you can trace your family back top the origination of the Constitution, that you fit the description of an organ which he thinks is “the people who organized and formed the organic law (Constitution) of the United States." The problem with this again is that the people were "not a Party".

Certainly the Church was not a party and why should it be because the Constitution was missing 4 of the 5 elements to a Biblical Constitution.

He does make a connection between the SS number and activities of commerce but it is important to understand how far this can reach. You can easily be excluded from every gas station, grocery store, public transportation or corporate business.

Where would you be as a sovereign then?

Those who say, “I want what is mine and I want to be free" fall far short of seeking the Kingdom of God and His righteousness and the love of neighbor, forgiveness and charity required for a free state. They will be ill prepared for the solemn day of exodus of the righteous and totally unprepared for the armies of the Pharaoh when they charge down upon you with blood in their hearts.

No! While many of the elements of the book "The Greatest Story Never Told" are true it falls dangerously short of the "The Greatest Story Ever Told".

He does talk about the church not incorporating and that it is "mandatorily" exempt (Audio: [4] Text:[5] he does not ever get into exactly what the Church should be doing and its key role in setting men free and keeping them secure in the liberty of Christ.

If the Modern Church would repent and began to tell the story of the government of God filled with the righteous, who keep the commandments, love their neighbor, forgive and give according to the character of Christ in an organic network of the faithful then the truth of the Greatest Story would be told again within their churches and they would become His Church.

It is time we repent and seek the Kingdom of God and His righteousness by seeking to serve and save others instead of merely saving our own stuff or being slothful in our responsibility to society.

We must value our neighbor's freedom as much as our own.

Footnotes


Law
Law | Natural Law | Legal title | Common Law |
Fiction of law | Stare decisis | Jury | Voir dire |
Consent | Contract | Parental contract | Government |
Civil law | Civil Rights | Civil Government | Governments |
No Kings | Canon law | Cities of refuge | Levites |
Citizen | Equity | The Ten Laws | Law of the Maat |
Bastiat's The Law and Two Trees | Trees |
The Occupy Refuge Movement | Clive Bundy | Hammond |
Barcroft | Benefactors | Gods | Jury | Sanhedrin |
Protection | Weightier matters | Social contract | Community Law |
Perfect law of liberty | Power to change | Covet | Rights |
Anarchist | Agorism | Live as if the state does not exist |