Posted on 03/30/2011 10:52:11 AM PDT by WPaCon
He is definitely an intellectual heavyweight, although I'm not sure I agree with everything he says. For example, in the article, he seems to think that capitalism was not all that great and was dying. That view is a bit more understandable though, because this was written in the 1930's, when communism and fascism were all the rage. However, at least he felt socialism to be inferior to capitalism, with his economic system of choice actually being distributism. Overall, though, he and G.K. Chesterton together produced some of the finest work, Christian or secular, from around the earlier part of the century.
It’s a shame that he isn’t alive today. I’d love to get his take on things like Vatican II, the collapse of at least “cultural” Christianity in Western Europe, the growth of Islam in so called “Christian” countries and the rapid growth of Evangelical Christianity in Latin America.
I'm not so sure if he foresaw VII or the rise of Latin American Evangelicals at all, but he did foresee the return of a strong Islam. In his chapter on Islam in The Great Heresies, he pretty much expects the return of a strong Islam and chillingly says Vienna, as we saw, was almost taken and only saved by the Christian army under the command of the King of Poland on a date that ought to be among the most famous in history — September 11, 1683. I highly recommend reading that chapter. It's the reason I decided to post his whole book. Also, I believe he foresaw the collapse of Christianity in Europe, if he wasn't already decrying it in his day. I haven't yet read the next chapter on "The Modern Attack" (I am actually reading each chapter the day I post it, save for the chapter on Islam, which I read a while ago), but it seems to be about the collapse of Christianity and what we see now, especially in Western Europe.
Thank you for the posting and God Bless.
You're welcome, I'm glad you liked it, and God bless you too!
My reaction to his comment on capitalism was much the same as yours.
“How can one know what part is infallible, if it is so often misinterpreted?”
Do you believe that I am able to understand your question adequately, or is it ultimately impossible to decipher? Can I have a working understanding of your question sufficient to attempt to answer?
And btw, “infallible” is indeed a head-scratcher.
It’s simple: some seed fell on shallow soil and sprouted, but withered away when the growing conditions got tough— and some seeds were carried away by evil birds. The winnowing out continues to this day.
The faithful have stayed and flourished and will be running this race to the very end, secure in the promises of Christ for His Church.
“It questioned the authenticity of the four Gospels, particularly the two written by eyewitnesses to the life of Our Lord and more especially that of St. John, the prime witness to the Incarnation. It came to deny the historical value of nearly everything in the Old Testament prior to the Babylonian exile; it denied as a matter of course every miracle from cover to cover and every prophecy. That a document should contain prophecy was taken to prove that it must have been written after the event. Every inconvenient text was labelled as an interpolation.”
This seems very misleading to me. First of all, this type of analysis began long before the 19th century; one could probably ascribe the beginnings of it to Erasmus, who was a Catholic, even if they later practically disowned him. Then you have Spinoza, who was a Jew, though they seem to similarly have disowned him. As for the so-called Protestant critics of later centuries, there are plenty of Protestants who would question if they should even be considered Christians, and many of these “scholars” were committed Marxists. I think it’s pretty clear that all of them put their philosophy of rationalism above whatever religious beliefs they held, and that was the true source of this error, not something particular to the “spirit of Protestantism” as the writer suggests.
“Anti-semitism in Germany started with HIM, not Schicklgruber.”
1096 Spring, CRUSADERS (France-Germany)
Over one quarter of the Jewish population of Germany and northern France were killed during the First Crusade (1095-1099), mostly during the months of April-June. It was estimated that in Germany, prior to the First Crusade, there were approximately 20,000 Jews. The period of time between Pessach and Shavuot (Passover and Pentecost) is also known as Sefirat Haomer which commemorates the death of Rabbi Akiva’s pupils (2nd Century) and was considered a period of mourning. Since most of the massacres took place between these dates, new regulations of national mourning were added. This was also the period of time when the Unetaneh Tokef prayer for Yom Kippur was written by Amnon of Mayence.
1096 April 10, TRIER (Germany)
After being attacked by a mob and threatened with death, Bishop Egelbert offered to save all Jews who were willing to be baptized. Most Jews chose to drown themselves instead.
1096 May 3, EMICHO (Emico), COUNT OF LEININGEN (Germany)
On his way to join the Crusade led by Peter the Hermit, he attacked the synagogue at Speyer. The Jews defended themselves but were systematically slain. Until this time atrocities in Europe were sporadic. From here on in they became organized and frequent, and Jewish martyrdom began in earnest. (It should be remembered that the atrocities committed by the rampaging crusaders were not always supported by the local burghers and bishops. Furthermore, in many countries - especially the Slavic states - the local Christian community suffered from pillages as well. John, bishop of Speyer even called out his army after 11 Jews were killed in a riot, but he was an exception rather than the rule. Approximately 5,000 Jews were murdered in Germany in 1096.)
1096 May 18, WORMS MASSACRE (Germany)
The survivors hid in the Bishop’s palace for one week, after which they were either murdered or forcibly baptized.
1096 May 25, WORMS (Germany)
Simcha bar Isaac Hakohen pretended to submit to baptism. As he entered the church he attacked the priest. He was “torn to bits” by the crowd.
1096 May 27, MAYENCE (Germany)
Count Emicho entered Mayence. Approximately 1200 Jews took refuge in the Episcopal Palace and, seeing no other escape from forced conversion, chose suicide using ritual slaughter knives. Each family head killed his wife and children, with the leaders killing themselves last. The idea of suicide, normally abhorrent, was considered acceptable or even preferable under these circumstances. One Jew by the name of Isaac, his two daughters and a friend called Uriah allowed themselves to be baptized. Within a few weeks Isaac, who was remorseful of his act, killed his daughters and burned his own house. He and Uriah went to the local synagogue, locked themselves in and burned it down. A large part of the city was destroyed.
1096 May 30, COLOGNE (Germany)
In one instance of individual courage, the local bishop and some of the local burghers offered the Jews protection in their own houses. The Bishop later escorted them to towns under his protection.
1096 June 27, XANTEN AND ELLER (Germany)
Massacre of the Jewish population. This was the second massacre at Xanten in a month. Fifty Jews died. At Eller, five Jewish community leaders were assigned the task (by the community) of killing all the members and then themselves rather than suffer at the hands of the Crusaders. Out of a community of three hundred, only four remained.
http://www.jewishhistory.org.il/history.php?startyear=1090&endyear=1099
I guess Luther invented a time machine and went back to the 11th century to kickstart German anti-semetism, eh?
Doesn't that verse refer solely to prophecy? Also, isn't there a bit of controversy concerning the translation of the verse, and whether the “private interpretation” is referring to the origin of the prophecy, referenced in the following verse, or the interpretation thereof by other individuals?
“Iindividual interpretation of Scripture was not practiced by the early Christians or the Jews. (Acts 8:29-35).”
This is a single story of one man, who did not understand a prophecy of Christ. Are we to assume, that if this is indicative of the standard practice of Jews, that all he needed to do was ask a Jewish priest or rabbi and they would tell him the correct interpretation? Wouldn't it more accurate to admit that even this man's religious authorities did not have the proper interpretation themselves, and this was the source of his confusion? It's also enlightening to note that the New Testament wasn't available to the Ethiopian. If it had been, wouldn't the interpretation of this prophecy have been quite obvious without the necessity to appeal to an authority?
Doesn't Eph 1:2-5 demonstrate that the New Testament writings were written so they could be read and understood, specifically for understanding the mystery of Christ, which, not being previously revealed, was exactly what the Ethiopian was lacking?
Doesn't Acts 17:11 praise the Bereans for verifying the message of the Apostles by searching the Scriptures? If the Bereans had instead decided that they could not interpret the Scriptures privately, would they not have had to resort to appealing to their religious authorities to find if the Apostles’ message was the truth? If so, do you really think the Jewish authorities would have approved it?
I think that is really the heart of the matter. If we are forbidden to question religious authority, then there probably would not be a Christian church today, since most of the original disciples were Jews, and the religious authorities of the Jews rejected Christ and interpretations of the Scripture which would confirm Christ. Thank God that those Jews did not take that as the final word on the matter!
The Reformation, unlike all the other great heresies, led to no conclusion, or at least has led to none which we can as yet register, although the first upheaval is now four hundred years behind us. The Arian business slowly died away; but the Protestant business, though its doctrine has disappeared, has borne permanent fruit. It has divided the white civilization into two opposing cultures, Catholic and anti-Catholic.
........
I dropped out of the essay here.
The Arian Heresy has killed the protestant church in Europe and sapped the Catholic church of congregants in europe and latin america. The arian heresy is behind the slow steady decline of american liberal protestant churches.
My understanding is the protestants just checked in on the Jews to see what they considered to be in the Old Testament. I don’t think Maccabees made the cut among the Jews.
But neither did the book of Enoch, or the book of jubilee that the rabbis threw out in the 2nd or 3rd century.(the books remain in the Ethiopian Jewish bible. and fragments of them were found among the dead sea scrolls.)
Actually, I think it would be more accurate to say that no one needs a pope.
God gave us his Word. Man gives us a pope.
As for me, I’ll go with God.
It seems to me that people have been misinterpreting the bible since it’s beginning, yet everyone believes it is infallible in it’s truth. How is that infallability determined, if more than one interpretation is believed to be the truth?
You didn’t answer my question, so I’ll rephrase it.
Do you believe that any piece of written text can be understood at a level sufficient to capture the intended meaning and act on it properly?
There is no use in talking about “infallibility” until we can come to a consensus on that question.
Interestingly, without the Church, there would not be the Bible.
I don’t really know, but I don’t believe so. I’m sure there is some stuff that has been written that no one can understand, but I suppose at a minimum, the originator should be capable of that.
“I don’t really know, but I don’t believe so. “
So you don’t know, but don’t believe that anything has ever been written that can be understood.
And yet you responded in a perfectly rational way to my question. You truly were able to enter my head, in some limited way, and “understand” my question.
And then you added peripheral information about “some stuff” that had nothing to do with my question. That was at your own initiative. Perhaps you were trying to interpret what I am thinking, things that I didn’t choose to share with you.
However, the point remains that you were able to develop an adequate working response that satisfied both of us that communication was going on.
Introduction: Heresy [The Great Heresies]
The Great Heresies
John Calvin’s Worst Heresy: That Christ Suffered in Hell
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Succumbs to Heresy
The Bishop Discovers Heresy?
From Orthodox to Heresy: The Secularizing of Catholic Universities
Progressivism/Liberalism is Heresy [Excellent read & reference]
Is heresy better than schism? [Ecumenical]
Modernism: The Modernist Heresy
THE GREAT HERESIES-THE MODERN PHASE
The Protestant Heresy
The Gospel According to Mary Magdalene
Americanism, Then and Now: Our Pet Heresy (encyclical of Pope Leo XIII)
Heresies then and now: ancient Christian heresies practiced in modern times
The Plain Truth About The Baptist Bride Heresy
Balthasar, Hell, and Heresy: An Exchange (is it compatable with the Catholic faith?)
Know Your Heresies
The Rev. John Piper: an interesting look at "heresy vs. schism"
Pietism as an Ecclesiological Heresy
Heresy
Arian Heresy Still Tempts, Says Cardinal Bertone (Mentions Pelagianism As Well)
Catholic Discussion] Church group stays faithful (to heresy!)
An overview of modern anti-Trinitarian heresies
Where heresy and dissent abound [Minnesota]
Gnostic Gospels - the heresy entitled "Gnosticism."
Christian mavericks find affirmation in ancient heresies
The So-Called ‘Gospel’ of Judas: Unmasking an Ancient Heresy
Benedict XVI Heresies and Errors
Donatism (Know your heresies)
The Heresy of Mohammed (Chapter 4, The Great Heresies)
Father & Son Catholic Writers Tag-Team Old & New Heresies
What a disgusting waste of time. I would love to join the Mother Church but in good conscience cannot as long as it promulgates lies like this. Until the Catholic church repents of its lies about the Lutheran reformation it stands convicted by its own corruption and deceptiveness.
History is clear. Luther did not "Uprise." He sought to "speak truth to power," within the bonds of the church; was excommunicated by a corrupt and apostate papacy as a result; and had a price placed on his head for his faithfulness to the Gospel.
Luther was to the church as the Tea Party is to the GOP. The parallel is so close as to be downright scarey.
That is exactly the lie by which the RC Church has destroyed the potential for Christian unity for 500 years.
Right. That's why the Lutheran reformers said "Sola Scriptura", Scripture alone, as the source of knowledge about the will of God. Someone has totally lied here. And it isn't the reformers.
Prior to the reformation, the overt, unabashed, uncontested position of the Church was, "the faith means what we Bishops say it means and nothing more." Anyone who seeks to dispute this is lying to you. It is a historical and empirical fact beyond dispute.
Indeed, much of the power behind Luther was that the church had cynically and corruptly abandoned the scripture in favor of what today would be called chicago politics.
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.