(There were SO many to choose from.)
Posted on 08/04/2021 2:19:35 PM PDT by MurphsLaw
The promotion of Biblical interpretations serving secular, liberal political agendas of sex and race is only the latest manifestation of a centuries-old trend.
The Bible makes no explicit condemnations of transgenderism. It makes no claims as to the morality of abortion. It encourages racial reparations. Such claims can be found virtually everywhere in corporate media like the Washington Post, New York Times, or CNN, which seek to promote the various political objectives of the Democratic Party.
During his campaign for president, Episcopalian Pete Buttigieg argued that Jesus never mentioned abortion and that Bible verses censuring homosexuality were culturally conditioned, not eternal truths. The Washington Post, in turn, cites secular academics, who offer Biblical exegesis of a progressivist, feminist, and racial identitarian variety.
Of course, the Bible has always been a political document. The Old Testament was not only a religious and liturgical text but one that had much to say about the governance of the ancient kingdom of Israel. Jesus told his followers to respect and pay taxes to the Roman Empire. St. Paul described the temporal ruler as “God’s servant for your good.” (Romans 13:3-4)
For most of ecclesial history, the primary interpreters of Holy Scripture were not journalists, politicians, or secular academics, but the Catholic Church herself. Most early Church Fathers were priests or bishops. Ecumenical councils like Nicea, Chalcedon, or Lyon made determinations on theology, morality, and the meaning of the Bible.
But beginning in the fourteenth century, scholars like Marsilius of Padua and William of Ockham began questioning the hierarchy’s hold on biblical interpretation. Instead, they proposed, the Bible should be under the authority of scholarly experts supported by secular political authorities. Though it would take several centuries for their ideas to proliferate, this thinking came to fruition in the Reformation and Enlightenment, and inspire trends in scriptural exegesis to this day.
This story is the focus of Scott Hahn’s and Benjamin Wiker’s book, The Decline and Fall of Sacred Scripture: How the Bible Became a Secular Book. Less than three-hundred pages, the book summarizes the central arguments of the authors’ 2012 Politicizing the Bible: The Roots of Historical Criticism and the Secularization of Scripture 1300-1700, which is more than twice the size. This is a welcome development; it makes their important contributions accessible to a larger audience.
While the story begins with Marsilius and Ockham and their Erastian belief in the supremacy of the state over the Church, the reader will encounter many familiar faces. John Wycliffe, esteemed by Protestants as the “Morning Star” of the Reformation, argued that “the pope ought, as he formerly was, to be subject to Caesar.” The monarch would then employ “doctors and worshipers of the divine law” to interpret the Bible. Martin Luther also called for the German princes to wrest ecclesial power away from corrupt bishops and the Roman pontiff, and grant him unequaled interpretive authority. Indeed, Luther asked the prince of Saxony to expel fellow reformer Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt because of the latter’s radical teachings. Around the same time, Machiavelli viewed the biblical text as material for furthering secular political ends.
All of these men influenced the court of English King Henry VIII, who recognized that the Reformation offered an opportunity to consolidate his political power. Thus, he pursued the Act of Supremacy in 1534 to grant him “supreme” headship over the Church of England, followed by the dissolution of monasteries, closure of shrines, and seizure of Church wealth. His King’s Book then declared that individuals must be subject to the “particular church” of the region in which they live, and obey the “Christian kings and princes” to whom they are subject.
Other Englishmen would further endorse this thinking. In Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes asserts that there is only “one chief Pastor” who is “according to the law of Nature. . .the civil sovereign.” Hobbes also rejected many of the supernatural elements of Scripture, as well as Heaven and Hell. John Locke, dismayed by the violence and distemper caused by the English Civil War, endorsed a state-controlled church whose most important feature would be “toleration,” since religious sentiments were private matters “of the mind.” For Locke, Jesus was ultimately a political messiah whose teachings focused on the perpetuation of a “civil morality.”
There are many other actors in this torrid tale – Baruch Spinoza, J. Richard Simon, John Toland – but enough is clear from the above to appreciate the consequences of these religio-political trends. Proto-Reformers called for dethroning the Catholic hierarchy’s supremacy over biblical interpretation. The Reformers, relying on princes and kings, put that wish into practice. And political philosophers and state-sanctioned scholars normalized it. Wherever the Catholic Church ceased to exert ecclesial authority, the state took up the reins.
There has always been this tension between Church and state. St. Ambrose excommunicated the emperor Theodosius because of his execution of 7,000 citizens of Thessalonica. Pope Gregory VII excommunicated the Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV because of a dispute over investiture. And Thomas Becket’s resistance to English King Henry II’s attempts to control the Church resulted in his murder at Canterbury Cathedral.
There is actually something healthy about this tension: when the state and the Church both operate strong spheres of power and influence, they serve as checks upon one another. Kings and governments cannot pursue any policy without risking moral condemnation from ecclesial leadership that will undermine their popular support. And Church corruption and nepotism can be used by secular authorities eager to usurp power.
Hahn’s and Wiker’s history tracks the growing imbalance in favor of the state, a disparity whose roots can be traced back to the late Medieval period. The ubiquitous promotion of Biblical interpretations that serve secular, liberal political agendas related to sex and race is only the latest manifestation of this centuries-old trend. To reverse it requires a return to a more ancient understanding that the Bible is, before all else, the book of the Church, rather than the state or its acolytes in the media or the academy. Catholics need to support and celebrate churchmen who appreciate and seek to realize that essential mission.
I've always been able to get a job - as a BEFORE picture.
Luke 12:53
The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
1. Call no man father...
2. Call n...
3. YAda, yada, yada...
.
.
.
.
.
Well, at least a Prot's friend...
"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
(Matthew 18:15-18 RSV)
Yeah, sure...
Call no man father.
You’d better watch it!
I can see a, “Why do you hate Mary?” statement coming your way soon!
(There were SO many to choose from.)
Alright already!!!
I'll fix it...
(There were SO many from which to choose.)
Danged English teachers - EVERYWHERE!!
----------------------------------------------------------
Cannot sin. Or, “is not able to go on sinning,” or “is not able to go on habitually sinning.” This does not mean that the Christian is incapable of committing a wrong act. If he were unable to sin, there would be no virtue in his being without sin, and there would be no true development of character. John has already implied that he will make occasional mistakes (see on ch. 2:1). The passage means that, having been born of God, and having God’s life-giving power dwelling in him, he cannot continue his old pattern of habitual sin. He now follows the sinless ideals that have been implanted in his soul by the new birth.
SDA bible commentary
Then you'd know something that the WEB doesn't.
Are you saying that a person who is born again in Christ is incapable of sinning?
................
Yes, they are saying that.
NO ONE I know who is born again says such a thing!
I already showed you an example typifying every “born againer” on this forum that I’ve dealt with on this subject. THEY ALL SAY IT. Here’s another one:
To: Philsworld; MHGinTN
The born again spirit of a person cannot sin.
The soul can continue to choose sin, however.
mhgintn is quite correct that the new born again spirit in a person is sinless.
185 posted on 3/2/2021, 5:23:01 PM by metmom
KR, do you see the utter absurdity of their reasoning? Their “flesh/soul” can sin, but their “spirit” can’t. Absolute nonsense. And guess what? NO MATTER WHAT HORRIBLE SINS ONE MAY COMMIT, THEY STILL GET TO GO TO HEAVEN. Nothing can keep a “born againer” from going to heaven.
Crazy, right?
HA! You can't know the redemptive plan until you know that NO one will follow those stone tablets. It took all those pages, all those people, all those examples just to remind us of that simple fact. And still we don't believe it, thinking we can live a good life.
1 Corinthians 10:6 Now these things happened as examples for us, so that we would not crave evil things as they indeed craved them.
He cannot sin
SDA translation: He can sin with some limitations.
I posted this question on that other thread.
Rape sure does sound like a sin. But Ravi gets a pass, because it wasn’t his spirit that was sinning, right?
191 posted on 3/2/2021, 5:39:12 PM by Philsworld.
Here’s what Jesus says about it:
Matthew 7:
21Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ 23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness!’…
SIN IS TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW, no matter what part of your body does it (spirit or soul, or whatever your excuse is)
Maybe Ravi said:
Hey, I can rape as many women as I want and commit adultery until the day I die, AND I’M STILL GOING TO HEAVEN, because I’ve been told that my Spirit can’t sin. I love being a born againer. See you all in the clouds.
To: Philsworld
Ravi’s sin, which now appears after two separate investigations, appears to be true. He basically lived a double life....and He certainly doesn’t nor did he get a free pass. The consequences here on earth are currently playing out as his reputation and the span of his once great institutions are fighting not to crumble....but are. There of course is damage.
As for Ravi himself regarding his Salvation. That is secure for any who are in Christ because Jesus will not deny His Spirit within us. But Ravi’s ‘rewards’ no doubt will be affected in Heaven and that’s Gods call. Our Judgment in Heaven is one of rewards....not punishment....for what we have done for Christ through his Spirit.
229 posted on 3/3/2021, 4:21:23 AM by caww
Ravi is STILL going to heaven but raping all those women and committing adultery on his wife numerous times will affect his reward.
There are almost no words to describe the insanity of this statement.
1 John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.I posted a verse. I did not interpret it. Have you considered that it may mean what it says.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.