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.
Are you saying that a person who is born again in Christ is incapable of sinning?
A while back there was a lengthy discussion about this EXACT topic. I’m going to ping Cronos to this and ask if he can find the link (I can’t do it right now because I’ve got 2 more nights in a row to work). So Cronos, if you could do that it would certainly clarify what these people believe, as unbelievable and unscriptural as it may sound.
Yes, some believe that “born again’s” cannot sin. Some believe that even if they can sin, it won’t affect them in the least. Sin all you want and they are still going to heaven. We talked about Ravi Zacharias and the accusations against him, if true (rape, adultry, embezzlement, etc...and I’m not saying he did it.) Many said that even if every accusation was true, RAVI WILL BE IN HEAVEN, because he was already sealed and NOTHING can change that (not judging, just using him as an example).
That’s what MHGinTN and others on this forum believe (your soul/flesh can sin but your spirit can’t). So, let your flesh sin all it wants to. You are still going go heaven.
To them, it comes down to once saved, always saved, no matter how much willful sin may be committed AFTER one’s conversion to Christ. And of course, their complete misunderstanding of everything Paul says about the law (to fit their justification that they are not required to keep the commandments/law).
The problem is that Protestantism has backed themselves into a corner on this this question. They are forced to hold two contradictory answers simultaneously: both “yes” and “no.” Whichever way they answer leads to a dead end, so they try to avoid answering. I asked the question to force the issue.
Yep, I asked the very same question and not one of them could give me a straight answer.
I found the link. This topic starts at about post 156.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3938240/posts?q=1&;page=101
I’ll pull some gems from this thread and post them tomorrow morning.
Here’s one:
To: MHGinTN
The spirit of the born again cannot sin because God’s Life is abiding in that newborn spirit, IRREVOCABLY. Since you are not responsible for putting His Life in your spirit, you cannot revoke His Presence in your spirit, if you are born again by faith in Christ alone.
I guess what he did wasn’t sin, right? Because you said the spirit of the born again cannot sin, right?
159 posted on 3/2/2021, 3:25:09 PM by Philsworld
As far as All Protestants getting backed into a corner?....wouldn’t apply to me. I believe that sin is sin, just like the bible teaches. God says that if you love Him, obey and keep his commandments. Pretty simple.
To: MHGinTN
The spirit of the born again cannot sin because God’s Life is abiding in that newborn spirit, IRREVOCABLY.
176 posted on 3/2/2021, 5:04:33 PM by Philsworld
etc...
There are FR Christians that think that saved folks will already be WITH Jesus.
It's either that or the CLEAR WORDS of an angel of GOD:
Wow. It’s a good thing today’s Catholic hierarchy is so orthodox and doesn’t subscribe to Biblical criticism or invoke the Bible to support trendy secular causes.[/sarcasm]
The devil made me do it.
or
MATTHEW 12:31 KJV
Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
What is your point?
The Bible has NEVER been a political document. There is only ONE purpose of Scripture and that is to convict the world of sin, righteousness and of judgement. It is to call the elect to God and to tell about the judgement that will someday happen. People can't say they haven't been warned.
People have been twisting the Word of God to whatever ends they've wanted since Adam and Eve. It only proves the wickedness of man and validate what God has written.
Did you think Jesus went to the Cross so the behavior mechanism can be saved? He didn't. He will be giving every born again member of the Body of Christ Believers a new behavior mechanism and new body, when He comes to gather us unto Himself and return to the father's house. The born again spirit cannot sin because the character of God is always with Him where He abides, and John tells us that Spirit is abiding in our born again alive in Christ spirit.
You might want to be cautious agreeing with a Seventh Day Adventist cult apologist, BTW.
Have you ever heard of a dead soul committing sin?
Let me see if I understand you correctly. When someone is saved in Jesus Christ his body/soul are separated from his spirit. While the body/soul are capable of sinning, the spirit is not. I am sincerely not trying to misrepresent your position. Please correct me if I have gotten it wrong.
If you would like more, on my FR profile page is a hyperlink to a short essay I have composed explaining the nature of our hyperdimensional reality. HINT: our spirit exists in a coordinate system greater/different from the coordinate systemn of opur current physical body.
Just as I thought. This is turning into a catholic vs. non-catholic shiiteshow. You should open these kinds of threads under caucus tags by way of the religion moderator.
You are about to get Freepmail ...
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.