How We lost The Bible

The Catholic Thing ^ | 8-4-2021 | Casey Chalk

[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.

[Cronos]

Babylon if you look at it through the lens of history had a career from around 2000 BC - it was an Amorite i.e. Semitic speaking people who created the city of Babylon.

So Abraham pre-dated the foundation of Babylon

Far older are the cities to the south - Eridu and Ur. Ur we of course know as the city of Abraham (c. 2000 to 2400 BC) and dates to 4000 BC, but older is Eridu

We have the opening lines of the Sumerian Kinglist

"After kingship had descended from heaven, Eridu became the seat of kingship. In Eridu Aululim reigned ...as king. Alalgar reigned next. .. Eridu was abandoned and its kingship was carried off to Bad-tabira. . . ."The FLOOD then swept over. After the Flood had swept over, and kingship had descended from heaven, Kish became the seat of Kingship.

[MHGinTN]

Your effort at bullying aside, none other than Irenaeus stated that John saw the apocalypse near the end of Domitian’s reign, not during Nero’s reign. John penned The Revelation in 95AD, not before the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD. YOU are a liar and a religious bully with false teaching you keep spewing out at FR.

[Cronos]

MHG - you're repeating an untruth again - Irenaeus did not say that John saw the Apocalypse during the end of Domitian's reign

The Syriac version of the book of Revelation begins by stating that it was written in Patmos, to which John was sent by Nero Caesar

Also the Syriac book dating to the first century The History of John the Son of Zebedee (reference Gentry The book of Revelation page 146) asserts that Nero exiled John

The book ITSELF says that it was written during Nero's time - see Rev 1:9 9 I, John, your brother, who share with you the distress, the kingdom, and the endurance we have in Jesus, found myself on the island called Patmos[a] because I proclaimed God’s word and gave testimony to Jesus. , 2:10; 12:11; 13:15) -- that the book of Revelation was written in a time of great tribulation -- and Clement of Alexandria says that John wrote the Apocalypse while on the island of Patmos, where he had been banished by a tyrant.

There were NO widespread imperial persecution of the Jesus-movement Jews under Domitian

Nero on the other hand, as Tacticus wrote Mockery of every sort was added to the Christians' deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as nightly illumination, when day had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus... There arose a feeling for compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good that the Christians were being destroyed

========

Furthermore if you compare the Greek in the book of Revelation v/s the Gospel of John you can see that the latter has BETTER Greek, more grammatically accurate etc. - this is as the Gospel of John dates to the 80s AD.

[Kevmo]

The religion moderator would see sectarianism in the very first two things, the title and the source.

How We lost The Bible
The Catholic Thing ^

Come on -
***You come on. Some things are obvious until people put their religious blinders on.

the article at the most says
***In proving my point I’ve barely even gotten past the title and the source. And look where this article went. It was a troll.

some characters wrote something or the other and doesn’t comment so much on their belief system but on the historical events.
***Saying “how we lost the bible” isn’t a commentary? Nonsense.

[Cronos]

You are delusional MHG

The Church, the community of Christians in the Apostolic Church (whether Catholic or Orthodox or Assyrian etc.) is the inauguration of the Kingdom of Heaven as Christ spoke of

Your very “hundreds of thousands” is another one of the lies that you repeat

The blasphemies now running your belief system such as the 19th century pre-tribulation Rapture philosophy and your belief that Jesus is the Messiah only of the Jews, and of a split covenant - those are anti-Christian beliefs of yours.

Your philosophy’s blasphemies are an insult to human reason, and a filthy insult to God’s Grace in Christ.

[Cronos]

It's born FROM ABOVE, not bjorn again

In John 3:4 Nicodemus does not use either Palon or Anothon, but rather Deuteron, meaning secondly or second. Here are the other places where it is used:

Matt 27:50 But Jesus cried out again (Palon) in a loud voice, and gave up his spirit.

Matt 27:51 51 And behold, the veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top (Anthon) to bottom. 31 The earth quaked, rocks were split, and

Mark 15:38 16 The veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top (above anthon) to bottom.

Luke 1:3 I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew (From their source anthon), to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus,

Then in John 3: 3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born 3 from above (Anthon).”

John 3: 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a person once grown old be born again (duetron secondly)? Surely he cannot reenter his mother’s womb and be born again, can he?”

John 3:31 The one who comes from above (Anthon) is above (Anthon) all. The one who is of the earth is earthly and speaks of earthly things. But the one who comes from heaven (is above all).

John 19:11 Jesus answered (him), “You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above (Anthon). For this reason the one who handed me over to you has the greater sin.”

John 19:23 When the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they took his clothes and divided them into four shares, a share for each soldier. They also took his tunic, but the tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from the top (Anthon) down.

Acts 26:5 They have known about me from the start (Anthon) From the first), if they are willing to testify, that I have lived my life as a Pharisee, the strictest party of our religion.

Galatians 4:9 but now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again (Palon) Untranslated word Anthon (anew) to the weak and destitute elemental powers? Do you want to be slaves to them all over again (Palon)?

James 1: 17 all good giving and every perfect gift 9 is from above (Anthon), coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no alteration or shadow caused by change.

James 3: 15 Wisdom of this kind does not come down from above (Anthon) but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic.

James 3: 17 But the wisdom from above (Anthon) is first of all pure, then peaceable, gentle, compliant, full of mercy and good fruits, without inconstancy or insincerity.

All 12 verses with the Greek Translation Matt 27:50 But Jesus cried out again (Palon) in a loud voice, and gave up his spirit.(Jesus did not cry out from above, he cried out a second time)

Mat 27:50 o de ihsouv palin kraxav fwnh megalh afhken to pneuma

Matt 27:51 And behold, the veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top (Anothon) to bottom. 31 The earth quaked, rocks were split,(The veil was not torn “again” it was torn from top to bottom)

Mat 27:51 kai idou to katapetasma tou naou esxisqh ap eiv duo apo anwqen ewv katw eiv duo kai h gh eseisqh kai ai petrai esxisqhsan

Mark 15:38 16 The veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top (above Anothon)to bottom.

Mar 15:38 kai to katapetasma tou naou esxisqh eiv duo ap apo anwqen ewv katw

Luke 1:3 I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew (From their source Anothon), to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus,(This is the only verse that you could conceivably substitute “Again”, but the colloquial “From their source makes better sense)

Luk 1:3 edoxe edoxen kamoi parhkolouqhkoti anwqen pasin akribwv kaqexhv soi grayai kratiste qeofile

John 3: 3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above (Anothon).”(Verse in contention, no comment required)

Joh 3:3 apekriqh o ihsouv kai eipen autw amhn amhn legw soi ean mh tiv gennhqh anwqen ou dunatai idein thn basileian tou qeou

John 3: 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a person once grown old be born again (duetron secondly)? Surely he cannot reenter his mother’s womb and be born again, can he?” (Here is where the Prots really put their foot in it). Nicodemus never says again (Palon) he says Secondly (Deuteron)

Joh 3:4 legei prov auton o o nikodhmov pwv dunatai anqrwpov gennhqhnai gerwn wn mh dunatai eiv thn koilian thv mhtrov autou deuteron eiselqein kai gennhqhnai

John 3:31 15 The one who comes from above (Anothon) is above (Apanow) all. The one who is of the earth is earthly and speaks of earthly things. But the one who comes from heaven (is above all).Those that come” again” are “again” all, Makes no sense at all.

Joh 3:31 o anwqen erxomenov epanw pantwn estin o wn ek thv ghv ek thv ghv estin kai ek thv ghv lalei o ek tou ouranou erxomenov epanw epanw pantwn estin estin

John 19:11 Jesus answered (him), “You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above (Anothon). For this reason the one who handed me over to you has the greater sin.” (Pilate was not given power again, he was given it from above, God allowed him to have power)

Joh 19:11 apekriqh autw o ihsouv ouk eixev exousian oudemian kat emou oudemian ei mh hn soi dedomenon soi anwqen dia touto o paradouv paradidouv me soi meizona amartian exei

John 19:23 When the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they took his clothes and divided them into four shares, a share for each soldier. They also took his tunic, but the tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from the top (Anothon) down. (The tunic was not woven again, it was woven from the top down)

Joh 19:23 oi oun stratiwtai ote estaurwsan ton ihsoun elabon ta imatia autou kai epoihsan tessara merh ekastw stratiwth merov kai ton xitwna hn de o xitwn arafov arrafov ek twn anwqen ufantov di olou

Acts 26:5 They have known about me from the start (Anothon, From the first), if they are willing to testify, that I have lived my life as a Pharisee, the strictest party of our religion. (They did not know about Paul “again” they new about him from the beginning)

Act 26:5 proginwskontev me anwqen ean qelwsi qelwsin marturein oti kata thn akribestathn airesin thv hmeterav qrhskeiav ezhsa farisaiov

Galatians 4:9 but now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again (Palon) Untranslated word Anothon (anew) to the weak and destitute elemental powers? Do you want to be slaves to them all over again (Palon)? (The phrase “from above” clearly does not fit here)

Gal 4:9 nun de gnontev qeon mallon de gnwsqentev upo qeou pwv epistrefete palin epi ta asqenh kai ptwxa stoixeia oiv palin anwqen douleuein qelete

James 1:17 all good giving and every perfect gift is from above (Anothon), coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no alteration or shadow caused by change. (Is the gift coming “again”, no it is coming from God, who is “From above”)

Jas 1:17 pasa dosiv agaqh kai pan dwrhma teleion anwqen estin katabainon apo tou patrov twn fwtwn par w ouk eni parallagh h trophv aposkiasma

James 3:15 Wisdom of this kind does not come down from above (Anothon) but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. (See Previous)

Jas 3:15 ouk estin auth h sofia anwqen katerxomenh alla all epigeiov yuxikh daimoniwdhv

James 3:17 But the wisdom from above (Anothon) is first of all pure, then peaceable, gentle, compliant, full of mercy and good fruits, without inconstancy or insincerity. (Again the wisdom is “from above”, not “again”)

Jas 3:17 h de anwqen sofia prwton men agnh estin epeita eirhnikh epieikhv eupeiqhv mesth eleouv kai karpwn agaqwn adiakritov kai anupokritov

Conclusion: The only reasonable definition of the word “Anthon” is “From above/ from the source or beginning”.

There is a perfectly good word for “again” but, neither Nicodemus, or Jesus use that word, instead Nicodemus uses Deuteron.

[MHGinTN]

“We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision.

For [it or he] was seen not very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.”

– Saint Irenaeus, Adversus haereses 5, 30, 3

[MHGinTN]

Irenaeus was discpled by Polycarp, and OPolycarp was di8scipled by John who saw the apocalypse.

[Elsie]

And Mark is Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.

 

 

What it does NOT say is:

 

                                      Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever is not baptized will be condemned.

[Elsie]

Instead of excerpting, look at the gospel of John as a whole

 

 Why not follow your own advice instead of EXCERPTING these verses:  John 3:20, John 3:36 , John 6:27,  John 6:35,  John 6:54 

 

Lookie at what you've left out from 'John as a whole'...

 

Jesus is asked a specific question and Jesus gives a specific answer:

---

John 6:25-40

²⁵ When they found him on the other side of the lake, they asked him, “Rabbi, when did you get here?”

²⁶ Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. ²⁷ Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.”

²⁸ Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

²⁹ Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

³⁰ So they asked him, “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? ³¹ Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’^[c]”

³² Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. ³³ For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

³⁴ “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”

³⁵ Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. ³⁶ But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. ³⁷ All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. ³⁸ For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. ³⁹ And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. ⁴⁰ For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

---

If the above is NOT sufficient for a soul to make it to heaven; then shame on Jesus for leaving it up to the religious organization based in Rome to fill in the blanks!

[boatbums]

This is NOT our homeland. And that is what is most reassuring.

God has given us many pleasant inns along our road of life but we should never mistake them for home.

[daniel1212]

"Again, like all of your posts, that's a half-truth at best "As usual, you added your own false interpretation and added words to the text. The 1215 Lateran council says " that they will seek, in so far as they can, to expel from the lands subject to their jurisdiction all heretics designated by the church in good faith." not "exterminate" That's how your ilk adds words to historical document as well as to the Bible, right?" So you say whether eliminate or exterminate it is one and the same?"

First, as to the latter question the two terms can mean the same thing as remove as well as extirpate, as I already expressed, but which word we read that the 1215 Lateran council used depends upon Catholic translations and not just ones understanding of exterminate. However, you are ignoring that in all of your posts charging me with making things up and adding words to the text you have unapologetically asserted falsehoods (and continue to do so here with your spitwad). In response to my post on Rome requiring RC rulers to "exterminate all she deemed to be heretics or loose their authority” you denied this was the case and asserted "why are you making things up."

Next, when I responded by providing the text from the Canons of the Ecumenical Fourth Lateran Council 1215 from a Catholic source and translator which I linked to, then your recourse was to falsely charge me with adding your own false interpretation and words to the text, since your version says "expel" rather than exterminate.

And yet when I responded by stating the truth, that

"what I posted is copied from the very source that I diligently provided the link to, http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp, and which is a Catholic (if Jesuit) source, well know for its Internet Medieval Sourcebook. And it lists its source as Roman Catholic priest Father. H. J. Schroeder, a translator of the decrees of the Council of Trent. And which text is here and does indeed say "exterminate", and showing that "extirpate" is another word used for the same purpose, so that "whether by excommunication and expulsion or actual slaying Catholic rulers were indeed required exterminate - remove, destroy or wipe out completely - those she deemed to be heretics"

you ignore the fact that all your charges of me making things up and adding words to the text were shown to be false, and that your debate is with Catholic sources, and utterly refuse to apologize. Instead want to debate what "exterminate" means as if my use of "remove, destroy or wipe out completely" was my own. Thus read a Collins dictionary definition:

Exterminate

Definition

to destroy or get rid of completely

In the sense of extirpate

Definition

to remove or destroy completely

in the sense of kill

Definition

to cause the death of (a person or animal)

And we see the understanding of this position of the 1215 Lateran council can be seen in Rome handing over those she indicted as heretics to the civil powers to be dealt with, knowing their severe (if better than regular civil courts) and too often deadly means. Heresy was simply not to be tolerated. with use of the sword of men being the most effective means of repression. Thus it remains that whether by excommunication and expulsion or actual slaying Catholic rulers were indeed required to exterminate\extirpate\eliminate those she deemed to be heretics, and if we want to restrict the use of the word "exterminate" to only necessarily mean slaying of such - or deny that this was provided for - then it is us who is adding words to the text (and it is actually good to see the broadness of the word in question).

"No wonder your biblical exegesis is so wrong. "

Which is another false charge that you have failed to demonstrate despite years of vain attempts and amounts to mere spitwad recourse.

[boatbums]

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.

No, rather it is you who keeps putting an "incorrect example". The drowning man grabbing hold of the rescue buoy is in the same way that a lost sinner comes to saving faith in Jesus Christ as his redeemer, rescuer and savior. He doesn't then need to swab the decks, empty the bilge and stay onboard as a slave the rest of his life or he gets kicked off the boat into the briny deep again! NOBODY has claimed Christ will still save someone who doesn't want to be saved. We are told to BELIEVE, to RECEIVE, to COME UNTO HIM in order to have eternal life.

[Philsworld]

Cronos said: 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.

You said: No, rather it is you who keeps putting an “incorrect example”. The drowning man grabbing hold of the rescue buoy is in the same way that a lost sinner comes to saving faith in Jesus Christ as his redeemer, rescuer and savior. He doesn’t then need to swab the decks, empty the bilge and stay onboard as a slave the rest of his life or he gets kicked off the boat into the briny deep again!

---

Maybe the guy was thrown overboard by the Captain/crew for crimes he committed (murder, theft, homosexuality, etc...) on board and maritime law of whatever country they were from, allowed for quick justice at sea. So, the guy is in the water, drowning. He’s asking for forgiveness and salvation, even though he deserves DEATH. The Captain and crew agree to forgive him and throw him a rope/life preserver. They pull him back on board. Guess what happens to him if he goes back to his sinning ways? He’s going in the water and he isn’t coming back. That guy is now under an even higher duty to live an obedient life (because he was saved from a certainty of death. He deserved to die) AND OBEY THE LAW. Now he’s a model crew member and lives the rest of his life serving his Captain.

Basically, that’s how it works.

[Philsworld]

Philsworld: 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?

BB to SC: 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.

BB: Well, let me turn your question around and ask you...

---

No. You called me a liar, so answer the question. What’s the PENALTY if a “saved” Christian sins unrepentantly?

Your side has REPEATEDLY said that a saved person cannot be lost, regardless of committing ANY KNOWN SIN, and being unrepentant. They are STILL GOING TO HEAVEN (The Ravi principle). The flesh can sin, but the Spirit cannot, right?

So, what’s the penalty?

[Philsworld]

Here is just one section from this article
https://www.amazingfacts.org/media-library/book/e/10066/t/the-flesh-and-the-spirit

All of you should find this pertinent, because it’s integral to your once saved/always saved (false) doctrine.

THE FLESH AND THE SPIRIT

1. Understanding Romans 7
2. Sold Under Sin?
3. The Law in Salvation
4. The Law Did Not Die
5. The Law Confronts Paul
6. No Power to Obey
7. Convicted But Unconverted
8. Serving the Law of Sin
9. The Power of the Will in Victory
10. Taking a Stand

Here’s section 3

The Law in Salvation
It is important to clearly understand that Romans 7 is given entirely as an explanation of the law and its role in the process of salvation. In the preceding chapter, Paul explains how justification came upon all the world through one man. Most of the material presented in chapters 1 through 5 deal with the theology of righteousness by faith, with the chief focus on justification.

Then in Romans 6, Paul moves into the area of sanctification and begins to describe the effect of being saved by grace. This chapter is taken up with a portrayal of perfect obedience and sin-free living. Over and over, Paul asserts that sin (breaking the law) cannot prevail against the power of God’s justifying grace. The consistent, habitual pattern of the child of God will be to reject sin. Obedience to the law is the fruit of true justification.

But even though holy living and law keeping will mark the lifestyle of every true Christian, Paul doesn’t want anyone to misunderstand the specific role of the law in the process of salvation. Important as it is, the law has its limitations. It cannot cleanse or sanctify. Although it marks out the path of God’s perfect will, there is no redeeming grace in the law to justify a single person. Its primary function is to convict, condemn, and create a desire for deliverance. Then, like a loving schoolmaster, it will conduct the sinner to Jesus for free cleansing and grace.

So what does Paul do at this point? He inserts 25 verses that carefully define the function of the law in leading a person to Christ. And by way of illustration, he uses his own experience with the law to show how it affected him when he fell under its influence. He tells, in retrospect, how the law opened his eyes to the real nature of sin within him and “slew” him with its devastating exposé of gross disobedience. It is most important to acknowledge that Romans 7 is Paul’s description of his reactions to the law before he was converted. He is laying out his unconverted heart’s bondage to the carnal nature and his utter helplessness in trying to fulfill the requirements of God’s law. Step by step, he gives a heart-rending account of his anguish under the prodding convictions of the law.

Yet many Christians conclude that Paul is really describing his converted Christian experience in Romans 7, comforting themselves with the notion that it is normal—and therefore acceptable—to be overcome by sin. They express it in this way: “If Paul had no power to do what he knew to be right, surely we cannot be held accountable for disobeying also. After all, it is not us, but sin in us, that is guilty of the wrongdoing. God will not let us be lost as long as we have the desire to do His will, even though we do not ‘perform that which is good.’”

Yet if such an interpretation is correct, we are immediately faced with the problem of harmonizing hundreds of other texts in Scripture that assure us that we should live without sin. Can you see what a serious issue this becomes for every one of us? Surely, it must be apparent that such a teaching, if true, would have to be the best news in the world for those who are not willing to crucify their fleshly nature completely. With two memorized texts, they could biblically justify any act of disobedience and still feel secure: “I am carnal, sold under sin … the evil which I would not, that I do … it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.”

On the other hand, if this interpretation is wrong, it is, without question, one of the most dangerous teachings on Satan’s long list of deceptions. The horrible import of teaching people to tolerate that which God hates boggles the mind. If sin really is non-negotiable in His sight and will never enter into His kingdom, then any doctrine that tries to make sin acceptable to God could lead millions to damnation.

---

Matthew 5:
17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

All of you should rethink what you’re “teaching”.

[HarleyD]

You will always have the poor. Christ said so.

[HarleyD]

"Scientists" aren't doing that. Those are political players."

You might call them political players. They will call themselves scientists and undoubtedly will correct you if you do not call them "Doctor..."

[Philsworld]

In the last chapter of Revelation, John says this...

1And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.

2In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

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.

Those who are unrepentant sinners will not have eternal life and will have no chance of getting into heaven. It is the eating of fruit from the tree of life that will give us eternal life (probably eating from it once a month, and of course, we will be keeping the 7th day Sabbath every week for eternity)

Genesis 3:
22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

23Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

24So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

Isiah 66:
23And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.

24And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.

The message is clear throughout the bible: Transgressors of God’s law will not be in heaven.

Nothing that defiles will enter heaven. Unrepentant sinners will not be in heaven, no matter how much any of you want that to be true.

And, an eternity of keeping the 7th day Sabbath and worshiping before our Lord, Jesus Christ, our Creator. Jesus didn’t really mean what he said about remembering that day, now did he? Hmmmmm.

[boatbums]

Maybe the guy was thrown overboard by the Captain/crew for crimes he committed (murder, theft, homosexuality, etc...) on board and maritime law of whatever country they were from, allowed for quick justice at sea. So, the guy is in the water, drowning. He’s asking for forgiveness and salvation, even though he deserves DEATH. The Captain and crew agree to forgive him and throw him a rope/life preserver. They pull him back on board. Guess what happens to him if he goes back to his sinning ways? He’s going in the water and he isn’t coming back. That guy is now under an even higher duty to live an obedient life (because he was saved from a certainty of death. He deserved to die) AND OBEY THE LAW. Now he’s a model crew member and lives the rest of his life serving his Captain. Basically, that’s how it works.

No, basically how it works is we are ALL miserable sinners unable to tread water long enough or strong enough to save ourselves. Every single one of us deserves to be cast into the deep darkness of hell for eternity. How well we behave ourselves after we are redeemed is a product of the indwelling Holy Spirit's conviction of sin, righteousness and judgement and our response to the chastisement of our Father in heaven. But when we are born again into the family of Almighty God, we are saved from the penalty for sin because of Christ's sacrifice on the cross. We can't become UN-born again.

"A prince, while he is a little child, is presumably as willful and as ignorant as other little children. Sometimes he may be very obedient and teachable and affectionate, and then he is happy and approved. At other times he may be unruly, self-willed, and disobedient, and then he is unhappy, and perhaps is chastised—but he is just as much a prince on the one day as on the other. It may be hoped that, as time goes on, he will learn to bring himself into willing and affectionate subjection to every right way, and then he will be more princely, but not more really a prince. He was born a prince" (C.I.Scofield, Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth).