We?
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.
It doesn’t seem to matter how many times we have said we are NOT saying “Christians...have a license to sin without penalty, to commit lawlessness”, they will still lie and say we are.
What’s the penalty if a “saved” Christian sins unrepentantly? You guys say once a person is “saved”, NOTHING will keep them out of heaven. Once saved, always saved, right? So, what’s the penalty for committing lawlessness?
How about a “saved” person who continues to do these types of things (v15)?
Rev 22: 14Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
15For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
Or these:
ADULTERY
EFFEMINATE
FORNICATION
HOMOSEXUALITY
UNCLEANNESS
LASCIVIOUSNESS
DRUNKENNESS
FORNICATION
COVETOUSNESS.
EMULATIONS
ENVY
HATRED
VARIANCE
WRATH
EXTORTION
HERESIES
REVELLINGS
SEDITIONS
STRIFE
THEFT
And the like…..
“WHAT IS TRUE REPENTANCE? According to the writings of the Apostle Paul, if anyone practices one or more of the following 23 sins, then they “will not inherit the kingdom of God” (i.e., go to heaven). This is because true repentance is more than telling God we are sorry for our sins. It also involves turning away from our sins, and beginning to walk in obedience to God. If you “repent,” but then continue to practice one or more of these sins, then you have not truly repented, according to Scripture.”
https://followingmessiah.org/2018/03/22/23-sins-that-will-keep-you-from-gods-kingdom/
(I just came across this article and I liked this definition of true rependance, and of course there is the list of sins that can keep people out of heaven)
You and I both know that the bible clearly states that those who continue in these sins (being unrepentant), will not be in heaven. Claiming to have been saved and free from the penalty of eternal death, will not save them.
Believing that equates to A LICENSE TO SIN (No penalty).
Well, let me turn your question around and ask you... What saves you - faith or works? Are you saved by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ or are you saved because you try to not sin and be a good and obedient Christian? Are you saved by the blood of Christ who made propitiation for all your sins or do you merit salvation by your manner of life?
This is why I continue to challenge you whenever you claim up and down that salvation is by grace and not works but then in the next sentence you assert a Christian who sins "unrepentantly" cannot be saved! You even take it a step further with your keeping the seventh day sabbath vs. Sunday is "lawlessness" legalism. So, either we are saved by the grace of God THROUGH faith and not works or we are saved by works (e.g., being good, obeying the commandments, etc.).
Until you can settle this question in your mind, it does no good to keep explaining how the indwelling Holy Spirit works through Godly chastisement in a believer's life. You'll keep dishonestly claiming we're saying a Christian can sin with abandon and still go to heaven. Your "gospel" is no different from any other works-based religion and stands accursed.
And to reiterate...NO ONE is saying "Believing ...equates to A LICENSE TO SIN (No penalty)".
Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.Does this include Adam, the first man? We see Adam's actions. God sees his heart. The condition of Adam's heart did not change when he ate the fruit, the condition was revealed. He was naked before and naked after. I don't know if Satan, the accuser, told him that he was naked but he is surely Satan would be on the short list of suspects to answer God's first question "Who told thee that thou wast naked?" Then their eyes were opened and the light shined in. Whatsoever doth make manifest is light.
Matt 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
Matt 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
Acts 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
14 And just as Moses lifted up[a] the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.
Things don't change because the world is corrupt. Thus the “war on poverty” has been going on for over fifty years with no results under Democrats or Republicans administrations because they are all under the influence of Satanic influence. The world says that they want to stamp out poverty but it hasn't. Christ said you will always have poor, and thus it is so. People want to save the planet but we cannot save the planet because it is headed for destruction. Our scientists are trying to convince us there are more than two genders no matter how mindless this is. God said that He made man and woman, period. The world system is against God. On and on and on....
That isn't to say we shouldn't stand up for what is right. It is only saying that we are not going to influence this world politically nor should we be discouraged when things are falling apart. Things are not going to get better. They are only going to get worst. This is what the scriptures teaches.
It sounds discouraging until one get to the end knowing that God will right all wrongs. This is NOT our homeland. And that is what is most reassuring. The church needs to get about their mission of calling people out of this darkness and into His light.
Peter was the Bishop of Rome. The first Bishop of Rome.
You, smvoice, incorrectly, in post #238 state that 1Peter 5:13. refers to the city of Babylon on the River Euphrates
It cannot and did not refer to Babylon on the Euphrates, as:
Josephus and others give adequate proof that Peter not only was in Rome, but was leader of the church there before he was executed.
Book 18 chapter 8 refers to the PROVINCE of Babylonia and not the city of Babylon. In particular it specifically refers to city of Babylonia called Neerda and Nisibis NOT to Babylon =
And to book 19 -- that doesn't even refer to the province of Babylonia except in the title
Poverty has been dropping rapidly worldwide
And even in the USA. If you look at the poor in 1972 and compare them to the poor in 2021 there is a startling difference -- the poor of today would be considered lower middle class in 1972.
The Democrats have moved the goalposts to keep having a "poor" votebank. But the poor of today have no food fears, they have transportation, entertainment etc. that a middle-class person in 1972 would only dream of.
"Scientists" aren't doing that. Those are political players. There are two genders - or at the most some with intersex (a tiny minority). The "gender" philosophy is based on non-science.
3:20 20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come toward the light, so that his works might not be exposed. 21 But whoever lives the truth comes to the light, so that his works may be clearly seen as done in God.That's just John.John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him.
John 6:27 Do not work for food that perishes but for the food that endures for eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him the Father, God, has set his seal.”
John 6:35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.
John 6:54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
John is clear that for eternal life you need to
Matthew is also very clear with
Matthew is
And Mark is Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Jesus through all this tells us clearly that to be saved we must
Repent
Believe
be Baptized
Eat of his Body and drink of His bloody
work for food that endures
Endure to the end
===
It is not either/or but AND.
I assume you didn't mean to say "regular sin is fine" but more along the lines that it is bad, but not the crime that willful sin is?
While I don't agree with Phillie's position, you keep putting this incorrect example.
You are "saved" by grace in the same way that a drowning man is saved by someone throwing a rescue buoy at him. However the drowning man still has to move towards the buoy and not away from it.
The drowning man was saved by the rescuer but still had to grab the rescue buoy, move towards the rescue buoy and not away.
While YOU have never said or wrote or even indicated that in our years of sparring, that is not true of the people phil initially responded to.
BB, you cannot speak to what other people who disagree with Phil believe.
there is a poster here who believes that Paul had a separate Gospel, that there are two churches - one for gentiles and one for Jews and that Jesus is the Messiah only for the latter.
This is not what you believe in afaik
The RM would come to the same conclusion.
Come on - the article at the most says some characters wrote something or the other and doesn’t comment so much on their belief system but on the historical events.
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.