Posted on 11/14/2017 5:03:23 AM PST by Kaslin
When Jim Zeigler, the state auditor of Alabama, invoked the Bible to defend Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore against allegations that he had inappropriate contact with underage girls while single and in his 30s (which Moore has sort of denied), it signaled perhaps the final stage in the corruption of American evangelicalism.
Zeigler claimed there are many instances in the Bible where older men had sexual relations with young girls. He cites Mary and Joseph as one example. That the religious left has made similar analogies to advance their political agenda is no excuse. It proves my point. Religious liberals long ago stopped preaching a gospel of personal salvation in favor of a social gospel that is more social than gospel.
Conservative evangelicals are repeating this error.
This being the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation, politically active Christians would do well to read deeper than the 95 Theses Martin Luther supposedly "nailed" to that church in Wittenberg, Germany, in 1517. Luther was distressed about the corruption that had overtaken the Roman Catholic Church.
In an essay for Modern Age Journal, titled "Beyond the Reformation of Politics," Alec Ryre, professor of Christianity at England's Durham University, writes that Luther believed governments were ordained by God to restrain sinners and little else. Real transformation of individuals and thus societies, he reasoned, could be achieved only by a changed heart, which is the work of the church, not government.
"In Luther's view," writes Ryre, "God permits these scoundrels to rule because 'the world is too wicked, and does not deserve to have many wise and upright princes.' Anticipating (James) Madison, Luther argued that it is only because of human sin that God had instituted government at all, in order to make some limited semblance of peace and order possible."
That is the antithesis of the theology and political activism of many modern evangelicals, who seem to prefer access to temporal power more than faithfulness to a kingdom and King not of this world.
Ryre continues: "(Luther's) point, deeply counterintuitive to most modern sensibilities, is that government is not very important. It is necessary in a humdrum way for as long as this passing world endures, but Christians should not pay much attention to it. Their hearts should be set instead on the kingdom of Christ, where there is no law, and no coercion, and which is not passing away."
There is an unstated conceit among some evangelicals that God is only at work when a Republican is elected, even a Republican who does not share their view of Jesus, or practice what He taught. It is the ultimate compromise, which leads to the corruption and dilution of a message more powerful than what government and politics offer.
German Protestantism made its own Faustian bargain in the 1930s. Theologian Gerhard Kittel joined with other Protestant leaders in a proclamation declaring Adolf Hitler "A call of God." More like a call of Satan. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was the better example of a serious believer who confronted the Nazis with the power and truth of that other kingdom and was martyred for it.
Henry VIII provides another cautionary tale when it comes to fusing faith with politics. Here's Ryre's indictment: "Henry was no Protestant, but most English Protestants were willing to swallow their principles for the sake of an alliance with him..."
Principles are still being swallowed today in exchange for a false sense of influence and power.
In the Book of Revelation, Jesus says about the church at Ephesus, which had been strongly influenced by the Emperor's cult and worship of the Greek goddess Artemis: "You have left your first love," meaning Himself (Rev 2:4).
For too many modern Protestants, politics has become a cult and their "Artemis." They are forgetting their first love, the consequences of which can be found in history, dating back to Israel's King David, who warned, "Do not put your trust in princes, in human beings, who cannot save" (Psalm 146:3).
Cal violated Godwin’s Law by invoking Hitler.
I was not aware Mooew was accused of having sex with any of these women. Also what in the bible examples was incorrect Cal?
Or maybe....
Cal confirmed Godwin’s Law by invoking Hitler.
Oh, and in keeping with FR tradition, no I did not read the article. ;o)
Well, had he not invoked Hitler, said law would not have been violated. (or something like that)
"In Luther's view," writes Ryre, "God permits these scoundrels to rule because 'the world is too wicked, and does not deserve to have many wise and upright princes.' Anticipating (James) Madison, Luther argued that it is only because of human sin that God had instituted government at all, in order to make some limited semblance of peace and order possible."
We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life — physical, intellectual, and moral life.
But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. This process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course.
Life, faculties, production — in other words, individuality, liberty, property — this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.
"The Law" - Frederic Bastiat (1801 -1850)
SORT OF DENIED? Seems Judge Moore has made it perfectly clear that he has no knowledge of having done what his accusers have alleged. Guess Thomas missed that part.
Good catch, DaveA37. Thanks. Cal is a doubting Thomas?
So really what is “left” of faith? You might think back 2K years ago to when the followers of Jesus declared Him both a replacement and co-God and upshuring the God of the Jews into one coexisting with a corruption by the Gentile’. And for most of my life I have listened to both those who profess “a” faith and those who deny faith, quoting Jesus while claiming the Jewish Old Teastment null and “void” with a new interpertation written in Red letters - but those Red Letter Words are twisted, unlike the Law and Word of God; so much so that the Word of God is now null and void in the ears and minds of mere mortal man. So without any Commandants “left” nor right nor center in our lives WE THE PEOPLE, no longer resemble God’s People, neither Jew nor follower Christian. We have twisted the words of Jesus and only asked what would Jesus do, and to placate the non-beliver excluded the Word of God now find ourselves without Marriage, with a morale comapss, without our leaders under the same man-made laws as those govorned.... And our sodmite leadership, from Obama to Hillary, to DWS or Donna Brazile, take children as sexual toys if only a democrat, but alas if a republican even dating is off limites. I ask myself if Judge Moore had simply been a democrat, or a homosexual could this happen; if he had took a queer turn into a boy scout troop or the YMCA and “mentored” the boys like the Priest’s of Rome and the Vatican, but to be a mere man trying to live his life as a Christian follower of Jesus has begot him only scorn and hatred.
‘Et tu, Cal?’
What is hilarious is any Democrat daring to sit in judgment of Judge Moore (guilty or not, and let us be reminded he is not charged with anything except the high crime of being against the corrupt Deep State Establishment) hails from a party inundated with perverts, degenerates and other various and sundry lowlifes (indeed, a party that prides itself on “No Judgment”, especially of those engaged in degeneracy). They have no credibility or standing to pass judgment on anyone when they themselves have no moral standing.
Defamination of character... No democrat has any good character to defaminate.
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.