How We lost The Bible

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.

"How about cutting to the case and giving us the cliff notes? "

Why is it so hard to comprehend the answer in 309?The answer in a polemical thread that has seen much debate requires substantiation. But in reiteration and supplementation if I may answer the ?, "WHAT’S THE PENALTY for sinning UNREPENTANTLY?, it is very simple, that such a one which knowingly, will-fully impenitently choose to continue in sin has denied the faith, such as in 1 Timothy 5:8 in writing to the pastor and believers: "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." And thus such will have forfeited what faith obtained if they die in that condition, having "evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God," drawing "back to perdition," so that Christ shall "profit you nothing," having "fallen from grace," not standing fast in "the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free," not holding fast "the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end," "the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end," so that the gospel labor on their behalf would be in vain, (Gal. 5:1-5; Heb. 3:6,12,14; 10:25-31, 38-39; 1 Thessalonians 3:5) Wherefore God chastens us to work repentance so "that we should not be condemned with the world." (1 Corinthians 11:32)

As heretofore explained, salvation is by faith, not by works, for faith is imputed for righteousness (Rm. 4:5) as it was for Abraham, (Gn. 15:6) long before this statement was manifested/fulfilled by his offering up, by willingness, his miraculous son. However, belief effects corespondent actions, thus all that we choose to do is a result of what we truly believe, as least at the moment. Thus to be a full believer in a health food guru is to follow the counsel of such, and to believe in the Lord Jesus (Rm. 10:9-13) is to seek to obey Him, first in the basic repentance of conversion in which one forsakes faith in any other savior and Heavenly Lord, and progressively more so as the disciple receives more light.

Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. (James 2:18)

We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak; (2 Corinthians 4:13)

But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak. For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister. (Hebrews 6:9-10)

Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God. For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake. And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost: So that ye were ensamples to all that believe in Macedonia and Achaia. For from you sounded out the word of the Lord not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place your faith to God-ward is spread abroad; so that we need not to speak any thing. For they themselves shew of us what manner of entering in we had unto you, and how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God; (1 Thessalonians 1:4-9)

Faith and obedience therefore are inseparable, just as the forgiveness of the palsied man in Mark 2 and his healing were, and thus sometimes persons are told that if they do something that requires and manifests faith then they will receive the gift that comes by believing, as in Acts 2:38, since to be baptized requires as well as manifests faith, but the latter is the cause behind the effect, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9) like as forgiveness was the cause behind the healing of the palsied man.

Conversely, to knowingly, will-fully impenitently choose to continue in sin (via commission or omission) after having been converted/born of the Spirit is contrary to faith is to act contrary to faith, and thus deny it. Therefore the command,

Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates? (2 Corinthians 13:5)

And among other texts, first John describes the two conditions, in which believers versus unbelievers are manifest by what they practice (for so the word "doeth" in he that "doeth righteousness" vs. he that "doeth not righteousness in 1 John 3:7,10 signifies*), righteousness or unrighteousness, and with the former practice of righteousness including penitent confession of sin when convicted of the same, as per 1 Jn. 1:7-9. * 1 John 3:7: He that doeth righteousness (ho poiōn tēn dikaiosunēn). “He that keeps on doing (present active participle of poieō) righteousness.” For this idiom with poieō see 1Jo_1:6; 1Jo_3:4. 1 John 3:9: The present active infinitive hamartanein can only mean “and he cannot go on sinning,” as is true of hamartanei in 1Jo_3:8 and hamartanōn in 1Jo_3:6. For the aorist subjunctive to commit a sin see hamartēte and hamartēi in 1Jo_2:1. A great deal of false theology has grown out of a misunderstanding of the tense of hamartanein here. Paul has precisely John’s idea in Rom_6:1 epimenōmen tēi hamartiāi (shall we continue in sin, present active linear subjunctive) in contrast with hamartēsōmen in Rom_6:15 (shall we commit a sin, first aorist active subjunctive). - Robertson's Word Pictures

The belief that "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" (1 John 3:9) refers to a person who can sin in human nature but not by his spirit is not what the Scriptures teach and refer to as sinning. In context "Sin is the transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4) and the impenitent practioners of such manifest that they are not of faith, Abrahamic-type faith which is imputed for righteousness.

And since faith justifies, and departing from the faith and dying in apostasy means forfeiting what faith obtained, therefore we see the emphasis upon preserving in the faith, (Acts 14:22; Colossians 1:23; 1 Timothy 2:15) which effects obedience as "it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure," (Philippians 2:13) versus resisting God, grieving the Spirit (Ephesians 4:30) which lusts against the flesh. Galatians 5:17; James 4:5) - which I often sadly do to some degree!

Such exhortations to preserving in the faith, to holding fast "the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end," "the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end" versus "departing from the living God (Heb. 3:6,12,14) does not mean we work for our salvation or are dependent upon ourselves any more than we did in conversion, for in both cases we are motivated and enabled to do what we otherwise could not and would not do, and can claim no credit for doing. However, what we can do is resist God to varying degrees, which is the only thing we can and must take credit for. Thus the debate btwn OSAS and conditional security should be whether the elect can resist God unto final apostasy, but which the Spirit warns believers, as believers, against doing.

With this foundation we understand what the end shall be of those who knowingly, will-fully impenitently choose to continue in sin, and why Paul delivered "such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." (1 Corinthians 5:5) And which, thankfully, had its desired effect. (2 Corinthians 2:6,7)

Texts in full:

And because ye are sons [Paul's audience], God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. (Galatians 4:6)

Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again [those who were set free] with the yoke of bondage [going back into what they were set free from]. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if [submission to Judaizers these believers are being warned against] ye be circumcised [signifying justification obtained by keeping all the law], Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become [an effectual change due to their choice] of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace[their former state]. For we [those who continue to believe] through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. (Galatians 5:1-5)

Take heed, brethren, [contextually not a general sense, but as believers] lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God [a departure from their former state s believers]. But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin [a change of heart]. For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end [[perseverance of the saints]. (Hebrews 3:12-14)

Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering [continued exhortation to persevere]; (for he is faithful that promised And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, [indicating departing from the faith, as follows] as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. (Hebrews 10:23-25)

For if [a choice brethren are warned against] we [not just you] sin wilfully [not out of weakness, but with full consent, as a decision not to continue but to depart, signified by giving up being with the believers] after that we have received the knowledge of the truth [a term which refers to believing, as per 1Tim. 2:4; 2Tim. 3:7], there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins [cf. Hebrews 6:6-8; a terminal condition of judgment, with no provision for repentance and forgiveness, having forfeited what saving faith obtained], But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. (Hebrews 10:26-27)

He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of 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 [a past condition, appropriated by faith, now forfeited by a definite denial of the same] , an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? (Hebrews 10:28-29)

Cast not away therefore your confidence, [the issue being faith, out of which obedience flows] which hath great recompence of reward. For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise [not that doing earns the promise, but that saving faith is that which finally perseveres, which faith as manifested in works God - who gave faith and the ability and motivation to obey - rewards under grace] For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.

Now the just shall live by faith [the just live by faith, not merely profess it, with such faith being what appropriates justification]: but if any man draw back [a denial of justifying faith], my soul shall have no pleasure in him [as solemnly, fearfully described above]. But we [who do not draw back, but persevere] are not of them who draw back unto perdition [contextually a terminal condition of judgment, with no provision for repentance and forgiveness due to treating Christ with contempt] but of them that believe to the saving of the soul. (Hebrews 10:35-39)

But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. (1 Corinthians 11:32)

For verily, when we were with you, we told you before that we should suffer tribulation; even as it came to pass, and ye know. For this cause, when I could no longer forbear, I sent to know your faith, lest by some means the tempter have tempted you, and our labour be in vain. (1 Thessalonians 3:4-5)

Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory [katechō: hold fast: cf. 1Ths. 5:21] what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. (1 Corinthians 15:1-2)
Such departing from the the living God, drawing backing into perdition, falling from grace, etc., is likely the the "great transgression," (Psalms 9:13) that of having "wickedly departed from my God,"(2 Samuel 22:22) which David stated he did not do, despite his sins, for unlike apostates he overall kept the ways of the Lord, and confessed in repentance when convicted of not doing so, (2 Samuel 12:7-13)

Note again that the above verses are clearly written to believers as believers, exhorting them to continue in the faith and warning against rejecting it, and thus these cannot be dismissed as never having been born again , although there are those who left fellowship since they were never in Christ. (1 John 2:19)

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.