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.
From this article: (I have no idea who they are affiliated with)
“This is where God’s Spirit can help you see that your behavior is wrong and give you the strength to stop it. The Spirit will not take away your addiction and sin unless you are willing to stop it and start doing the right thing. The strength of God’s Spirit can help you resist the urge to indulge in your sin or satisfy the craving of your addiction.
THE HOLY SPIRIT WILL NOT KEEP YOU FROM SINNING! You have to be willing and repentant.
Cultist, do you even believe we have a body, q soul, and a spirit? Yourave on as if you are unable to comprehend that reality which The Bible asserts! Ask yourself, cultist, does a dead person commit sin after they are buried? Then ask yourself, is there some aspect of a person which remians active AFTER they are buried? Now apply your answers to the two classes of humans: the born again members of The Body of Christ, qand the unregenerate, unsaved, dead in tresspasses and sins majority of humans.
You are literally spiritually blind. Do you walk with the red-tipped cane of Lucifer?
21. Not every one. The words “not” and “but” highlight the strong contrast between the mere talker and the actual doer of God’s will. Mere profession is worthless. He who pretends to know God and yet disobeys His commandments “is a liar, and the truth is not in him” (1 John 2:4), irrespective of any appearance to the contrary.
Lord, Lord. To address Christ as “Lord” is to profess the belief that He is indeed the Messiah, and implies that the speaker has assumed the role of disciple.
He that doeth. That is, he who performs the will of God when he learns of it. Faith in God must accompany the doing, or the doing is only a form. It is true that “faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone” (James 2:17), but it is equally true that works unaccompanied by a sincere and living faith are also “dead” (Heb. 11:6). Those who do not know the will of God are not held accountable for it (Luke 12:47, 48), but those who have heard God’s voice speaking to their hearts and yet persist in ways of their own choosing “have no cloke for their sin” (John 15:22) and are in danger of presumption.
22. Many will say. Here for the first time Jesus indirectly alludes to the fact that He will appear on “that day” as judge of all men (cf. ch. 26:64). Those who thus address Christ as Lord on the great final day of judgment do so as professed Christians. They have pretended in this life to be His followers, but have been weighed and found wanting. That day. The great final day of judgment (cf. ch. 25:32, 33, 41).
“That day,” or “day of the Lord,” is often mentioned by the OT prophets (see Isa. 2:11, 17, Joel 2:1; 3:14; Amos 5:18, 20; Zeph. 1:15; cf. Mal. 3:17; 4:1; Luke 10:12; 2 Thess. 1:10; 2 Tim. 4:8).
Prophesied in thy name. The form of the question in Greek implies that those speaking expect a positive answer. They are saying, “Surely we have prophesied in thy name, have we not?” They would hardly claim before the great Judge of the universe to have done so if the claim was not, apparently, substantiated by the facts. This is the measure of their self-conceit and self-deception. It is as if they protest to the Judge that His decision is unfair, and that He cannot rightfully treat them as renegades. They have been preaching in His name, have they not? But they have forgotten that ostensible worship of God based on human tradition is vain.
Cast out devils. Presumably the most difficult of all miracles (see on Mark 1:23), and thus typical of all others that might be mentioned. When the Seventy returned from their first evangelistic expedition, it was the fact that “even the devils” were subject to them that seemed most significant to them (Luke 10:17). See Additional Note on Mark 1.
Many wonderful works. Perhaps including even actual miracles (cf. GC 553, 588), performed as evidence purporting to demonstrate the presence of God with them and His approval of their teachings (see Rev. 13:13, 14; 2 Thess. 2:9, 10). It is evident from the Scriptures that the performance of miracles is not of itself conclusive evidence that divine power has been in operation. The greatest miracle of time and eternity is a life transformed according to the divine likeness (see DA 406, 407). Those who profess to be prophets are to be tested by their lives (see on Matt. 7:16), and not by their professed miracles. See pp. 208, 209.
23. Profess. Gr. homologeō, here meaning “to declare frankly.”
I never knew you. Or, according to the form of the Greek verb, “I never recognized [or, “became acquainted with”] you.” This is evidence that their teachings and miracles had not been spoken and performed in harmony with the will of God, or by His power.
Depart from me. Compare ch. 25:41. Sin results in a final and complete separation from God.
Iniquity. Gr. anomia, “lawlessness,” or “lack of conformity with law.” The workers of iniquity are “lawless” because they have refused to conform their lives to the perfect pattern set forth in the law of the kingdom of heaven—and “sin is the transgression of the law [anomia] ” (1 John 3:4). On the Mount of Olives Christ said that in the last days “iniquity,” anomia, would abound (Matt. 24:12), and a few decades later Paul observed that the “mystery of iniquity [anomia] ” was already at work (2 Thess. 2:7). SDA bible commentary
You must have missed the part where a saved by grace, spirit filled Christian, loses their salvation because of sin....
Hebrews 10
26For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
27But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
28He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
30For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
31It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Clearly you do not believe Jesus, when HE SAID depart from me, I NEVER Knew you. Your diatribe requires they have been saved at one time, BUT Jesus contradicts you, cultist.
“The funny thing is I challenged that when I asked about a Christian who DID obey the commandments and was not unrepentant about sin but lived in holiness through the leading of the indwelling Holy Spirit but who went to church on Sunday instead of Saturday. You know what answer I got? “Nope! Not keeping the Saturday sabbath was lawlessness.”! So, unless the commandments were kept exactly like the cult said, the believer wouldn’t be saved. Yep...live like the cult says or it’s hell for you! Where have we heard this “dogma” before?”
Oh, my. My, my, my, Boatbums! If a person is intent on keeping the Sabbath, they should learn when it truly is: Sundown to sundown, Friday - Saturday. Makes me wonder now if they are going to Hell.
I noticed the claim of keeping the dietary laws, too.
And I wonder why they just don’t go full-on Jewish!
Here is the dust from my sandals/sneakers. I give you over to the spirit that is driving your unbelief. Keep busy, cultist, as you skate that broad road.
Reading through a lot of the posts, MHG, it’s plain to see that someone fails to rightly divide. There’s before the cross and after the cross; there’s the law and there’s grace; there’s the Church and there’s Israel, mystery and prophecy, etc., etc., etc. Even the Book of Hebrews gets distorted. No wonder there are so many other false beliefs by the person and the cult he’s in. There seems to be very little understanding of even the basics of Christianity.
If someone really wants to know God’s word and understand it, he need only ask God Almighty and start reading. Instead, some go for what others tell them the Scriptures mean and then spin, spin, spin when asked specific questions. Easy to see, yeah? Working for that salvation ...
AMEN!
Reading through a lot of the posts, MHG, it’s plain to see that someone fails to rightly divide.
I say that about all of you, too.
Your diatribe requires they have been saved at one time, BUT Jesus contradicts you, cultist.
Lord, Lord. To address Christ as “Lord” is to profess the belief that He is indeed the Messiah, and implies that the speaker has assumed the role of disciple.
They obviously were NEVER believers to begin with and had no salvation to "lose", but cultists and works-based religionists who thought their calling Him Lord, prophesying in His name and performing miracles would save them (they were not, BTW, your "unrepentant sinners"). What is doing the will of the Father?:
Once again you are WRONG!
They obviously were NEVER believers to begin with and had no salvation to “lose”,
Lord, Lord. To address Christ as “Lord” is to profess the belief that He is indeed the Messiah, and implies that the speaker has assumed the role of disciple.
Hmmm... there remains NO MORE SACRIFICE FIR SINS. The way you put it it's one and you're done. Sin even one time after you become a Christian and you lose your salvation FOREVER! Sure you want to use that verse as your prooftext? It's not saying what you want it to say.
I can imagine you do, Phil, because you have a completely different set of beliefs as regard the gospel than we. I know you would certainly oppose.
“It’s not saying what you want it to say.”
Amen to that, Sister! Amen all day long!
The way you put it it’s one and you’re done. Sin even one time after you become a Christian and you lose your salvation FOREVER!
Hmmmm, it doesn’t say that at all.
Stop being so hung up on Ravi and look to your OWN faith. Are you counting on your obedience to the commandments to save you or the grace of God through faith and NOT your works?
Should we even wonder why God hates pride???
Wrong AGAIN. MHGinTN's point was that Jesus said to them, "I never knew you.". NOT you once were believers but then you sinned so I don't know you anymore. Keep twisting the word, I'm sure Jesus is pleased (not).
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.