Medieval Mistakes

Founders.org ^ | Winter, 2002 | Sinclair Ferguson

[Claud]

Oh boy. You just may recall that Johannes Guttenberg -WHO DIED IN 1468!! - printed his Bible in German.

And Wulfilas, who died 1000 years before that in 381, translated the Bible into Gothic--a Germanic predecessor of German. Here's a page of same.

[ItsOurTimeNow]

>>but I know bunches of people who love it and think it so spiritual.<<

And lots of people think candy isn't bad for them either. :-)

There's a retail store down the street from me, which sells "Angels, Crystals, Incense, and other Spiritual Stuff". Not a single Bible can be found on the property.

Junk food mysticism and warm fuzzy feelings - that's all it is.

[sheltonmac]

You just may recall that Johannes Guttenberg -WHO DIED IN 1468!! - printed his Bible in German.

Yes, I am well aware that Luther's translation wasn't the first. But he was key to the popularization of the vernacular Bible.

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

Actually, Gutenberg's Bible was in Latin. But dozens of different German translations of the Bible were available in manuscripts from the 1200s onward. Of course they were less widely disseminated than printing was. But about 80 percent of what was printed in the first fifty years of printing, before Luther, consisted of Bible excerpts, Bible story books, devotional books setting forth Biblical teachings etc. The "sola scriptura" Protestant willl object, "but that's not the same as the Bible itself." True. But people today get most of their Bible information, not from reading the Bible directly, rather from intermediary sources like the above. That's true today, even for "Bible Christians" and it has always been true, from the time of the Apostles through the Middle Ages through the Reformation to today. Luther's publication of a German translation of the Bible did not change in any significant way the balance between direct and indirect appropriation of knowledge of the Bible. I will make the case for that below.

The assumption that Luther's German translation, which was the first to be widespread via printing, made the Bible more directly accessible than it had been is based on modern assumptions about everyone being able to read. Devout medieval Christians knew their Bible very well, but most did not know how to read it either in German or English or in Latin. But since when does knowing how to read mean you can't know things? Most of the college students I teach are now incapable of taking a textbook and reading it for comprehension. They simply do not know how to master the meaning of a text. They think they've read a chapter when they've followed across line by line with their eyes. They don't know how to distinguish major points from minor points, how to take notes, how to outline the points made. One can, painstakingly, try to teach them how to do this--but it almost requires one-on-one tutoring and practically speaking, one can't do it. So we give them crib sheets and summaries--do their notetaking for them. Or they depend on our lectures, just as most people in the culture today, despite widespread literacy, actually learn most of what they learn from other people's summaries, the depend on TV or movie "texts" etc. Perhaps 10 or 20 % of college students do know how to read for meaning; the rest do not. High schools used to teach this; they do not do so any longer. A new illiteracy is upon us--people get their information in icon-forms, via visual and audio presentations of various forms. We are reverting to the situation before widespread literacy in the 1800s.

. One hundred years ago, at the peak both of general literacy and of ability to read a paragraph and understand it, perhaps more people could read and understand Scripture on their own. But that has been the great exception over the last 2000 years of Christian history. Even today, even among Bible Christians (among whom I spent the first 40 years of my life), very few Christians truly gain their own understanding of Scripture on their own. Instead they depend on this or that guru, this or that pastor. When I was in college, Ray Stedman was all the rage; today its James Kennedy, R. D. Sproul, John MacArthur and dozens of others (I hope I do not offend by leaving anyone's favorite off the list). There is no such thing as naked reading of scripture--people read the text with a set of guidelines in their heads, guidelines derived from their Sunday School or parents or pastors. Exactly the same thing was true in the Middle Ages. Monks and priests and university trained elites read Latin Bibles themselves but even their learned guidelines for interpretation from their own teachers. Average people could not read German or Latin so they heard the Bible read to them: in church, in sermons, in stained glass windows, in conversations with others. Most people didn't pay much attention--just like today. The devout did pay attention to sermons, to devotional books read to them, to stories of great Christians whose lives were "books" illustrating the Gospel stories and illustrating the teachings of St. Paul and St. Peter and St. John etc.

From my research over the past 30 years I would put the average knowledge of the Bible by devout medieval Christians up against the average knowledge of the Bible by devout Christians today any time--as being comparable. Of course, not everyone cared, not everyone was devout. So what else is new?

The canard that medieval people were kept from knowledge of the Bible by the mean old Church is just that, a propaganda piece stemming from the time of the Protestant Reformation--sort of like trusting the New York Times' version of Plame-gate today. Now, the NYT might well be trustworthy in its reporting of what its fellow liberals are doing but I wouldn't trust it for ten seconds in its reporting about Karl Rove or George Bush. The Protestant reports from the 1500s about themselves need to be taken seriously (but discerningly). But what the Reformers claimed about the medieval Church, given their vested interest in damning it to hell, need not be taken very seriously at all.

[magisterium]

I'm sure I can speak for many Catholics in saying that there is nothing discernably "Catholic" in TBAA. It is not only touchy-feely "feel-goodism," as someone on this thread said, it is also syncretistic and univeralist in the bargain. It serves to give a 'non-judgmental and spiritual" glow to a large percentage of Americans who couldn't be bothered/don't want the moral baggage of living a Christian life. If it's anything, it goes a long way to fulfilling 2Timothy 3:5-7.

It may "seem very Catholic" to you, but it only resembles your perception of "Catholicism" from the vantage point of one outside of it. No thinking Catholic would consider the show to be anything more than sentimentalist trash, at least as it pertains to expositions of authentic Christianity.

[HarleyD]

You bounce around from the late 1100 to the 1500-1600s. I can’t tell what century you’re writing about. There was a vast difference from “medieval” times to the time of the Renaissance. The middle ages are generally thought to be before the Renaissance from the 5th century to the 15th century. The Renaissance is generally thought to be from the 14th to the 17th century so there is a little bit of overlap. It’s inconsistent to give credit to “non-medieval” things that happened in 1100AD (12th century) during the middle ages.

One thing many Catholics don’t understand is the doctrinal perversion the Renaissance had on the Catholic Church from 1100-1500. The Renaissance with its man-centered humanism played an important role in not only reshaping society but reshaping the culture of the Catholic Church. By the time Luther came around the Catholic Church, with all its prominent Renaissance scientists, inventors and artists, was steeped in a humanistic belief structure where man can choose his own destiny. Many of the Catholic Church writings by prominent “saints” of this time reflect these humanistic Renaissance beliefs. The Catholic website, newadvent.com, is unabashed at proclaiming this. Doctrine was shaped by the times, not by scripture.

The great Renaissance scholar Erasmus was pals with Luther but unlike Luther who sought for doctrinal and practice reform, Erasmus in true Renaissance style placed reason above scripture and wanted only moral reform within the Catholic Church. Erasmus defined free-will or free choice as "a power of the human will by which a man can apply himself to the things which lead to eternal salvation or turn away from them." which was a significant departure from the Augustinian view but not inconsistent with the Renaissance belief of humanism nor the Catholic Church at this time. The Catholic Church needed Erasmus to fight Luther. Luther had no choice to leave if he wished to be consistent with Augustine and the founding beliefs of the western church. What Erasmus got was his beliefs recorded as official Catholic doctrine at the Council of Trent.

[jo kus]

Harley, Interesting piece. As you know, we disagree on this part of how history played itself out. First. Doctrine is ALWAYS shaped, in some sense, by the society that men exist within. The men of the Church do not exist in a vacuum. Even when they disagree with the prevailing philosophy (such as in early Christianity and its battle vs. Gnostic Platoism), there can be and is a tendency to overreact in defense of the faith. Thus, Scriptures are NEVER read without our own paradigms read alongside them. That is what makes Scriptures so enduring over the ages. They apply to us TODAY!

Second of all, humanism was certainly a product of the Renaissance. And unfortunately for the Church, Erasmus was a humanist. Thus, he was not an able defender of the Catholic position on free will (as I believe you would agree with). It is certainly false to say that Trent is a move away from Augustine and a move towards humanism. Trent is clear that man can do nothing ALONE. With God, we can. That is the big difference that Protestantism cannot fathom - that man united with the Spirit, can actually do good. There is no need for such legal fictions as imputed righteousness. Just as when the Person Jesus Christ's hypostatic union allowed us to say that a man has redeemed the world, we, too, can say in truth that we are being transformed and can take note that we are pleasing to God when God Himself moves us to obey Him. Scripture is clear that there is a similar union between us and God in our acts of faith and love.

Luther wasn't forced out, he left on his own after Eck got the better of Luther - who made the grievous error that a Council was fallible. After that point, Luther had lost all notion of unity with the Church.

And finally. Augustine never denied free will. And while some have interpreted Augustine to lean towards double predestination (God positively reprobates to hell), this is a mis-interpretation - as we have thoroughly covered previously. The Council of Orange never mentions such doctrines that you give to Augustine. Thus, the Church has been able to hold nature and grace in tension (not perfectly, but never has grace been thought to overcome nature. Christ doesn't push us out when He comes to us)

Brother in Christ

[magisterium]

I have read that the Mentel Bible was printed in German by Guttenberg c. 1465, and another one, whose name escapes me, was printed in 1473, after his death but largely due to his work.

[magisterium]

Indeed, but you never said that in your original post. You were content to insinuate that there were no vernacular translations of the Bible in Germany before Luther.

[Mr. Lucky]

Johhanes Gutenberg was a German printer, but the Gutenberg Bibles was printed in Latin. The Bible is available on-line.

[HarleyD]

That is the big difference that Protestantism cannot fathom - that man united with the Spirit, can actually do good.

Well, we’ve certainly have beaten the Council of Orange/Council of Trent dead horse down on other threads. I would just add that your statement is the very thing most Protestants (not to be confused with Reformers) believe today-and something I would reject if I understand the statement correctly. Most Protestants believe that if they have faith in God (united with the Spirit), God will use them to accomplish great things. Certainly Pentecostals believe this and something I was taught and believed for many years. This seems to be the essences of what you are saying.

I would respectfully disagree with this belief. It is God who works through us that we accomplish any works independent of our actions. God will set a bush on fire, give a donkey the ability to speak, prophesy through a false prophet, or impregnate a virgin handmaiden without asking permission. He knows our hearts and He works everything to His will. He is the one who produces our fruit independent of anything we might do. If He has to He’ll have a giant fish sallow us and throw us up somewhere once we are submissive to His will. As Augustine stated:

"O God, command what you wouldst, and grant what thou dost command."

God commands and gives us the resources-everything including our will-to accomplish His tasks.

Doctrine is ALWAYS shaped, in some sense, by the society that men exist within. The men of the Church do not exist in a vacuum.

Yes, I would agree. But unlike Catholics who based their scriptural interpretation on traditions, for a Reformer the foundation are traditions based upon the scriptures. Creeds or doctrine made by the Church during the Renaissance where humanism was rampant are binding. It becomes difficult to tell a good creed, from an OK creed, from a bad creed.

For example the filoque in the Nicene Creed is a major sticking point between the Orthodox and the RCC. The EO believes the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son who proceeds from the Father. The RCC believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Son and the Father. Some say it was added by some unauthorized monk hundreds of years later. No one knows. What do you do? It’s an official creed. Is the RCC willing to change the Nicene Creed or just ignore it?

For a Reformer we would look at the history to be sure but then go back to the scriptures to see what it states. Personally I believe the EO is correct on their interpretation. Does that mean I reject the entire Nicene Creed? No, the rest of it seems correct. I only reject those areas that may be tainted by one thing or another.

Doctrine is far easier to be changed and modified with a sola scriptura perspective so long as there is solid justification.

Blessings

[jo kus]

It is God who works through us that we accomplish any works independent of our actions. God will set a bush on fire, give a donkey the ability to speak, prophesy through a false prophet, or impregnate a virgin handmaiden without asking permission. He knows our hearts and He works everything to His will. He is the one who produces our fruit independent of anything we might do. If He has to He’ll have a giant fish sallow us and throw us up somewhere once we are submissive to His will.

Certainly true. Yet, this omits that God INCLUDES man in His Divine Plans. All men are objectively saved by the Redemption, but some willingly choose not to repent of their sins, etc. This cannot be God's positive responsibility, as the Scripture tells us over and over that it is man who is at fault for being condemned. Man has a certain responsibility towards his eternal destiny - but he cannot do this without God's gift of grace. I am not aware of any Christian Father before Luther who blamed God for the sinful actions of man or took away man's responsibility to obey the Commandments.

But enough of that! We will never fully comprehend God's Divine Providence and our interaction on this side of heaven.

I wrote : Doctrine is ALWAYS shaped, in some sense, by the society that men exist within. The men of the Church do not exist in a vacuum.

You wrote : Yes, I would agree. But unlike Catholics who based their scriptural interpretation on traditions, for a Reformer the foundation are traditions based upon the scriptures. Creeds or doctrine made by the Church during the Renaissance where humanism was rampant are binding. It becomes difficult to tell a good creed, from an OK creed, from a bad creed.

Thus, we should use our own interpretations outside of the Traditions of our Forefathers? The Reformers, unfortunately, EXCLUDES Tradition. This leads to culture determining what we should believe. Consider birth control. Universally unacceptable by ALL Christianity until 1930, the Catholic Church is one of the few that remains faithful to the teachings of Tradition given by 2000 years of the Church. If we rely on our own particular conventions OUTSIDE of this line of Tradition, what prevents you, Harley, to deciding for yourself that the Trinity has too much Platonic overtones - it is time to change these definitions... As you probably know, the Scripture is unclear or nearly silent on many things that we practice and believe. Whether you realize it or not, YOU ALSO rely on Traditional interpretations of Scripture! Consider reading more of the Church Fathers to see that they, too, had to deal with heretics who slung verses out of context to support their fanciful ideas of God OUTSIDE the confines of Apostolic Tradition.

For example the filoque in the Nicene Creed is a major sticking point between the Orthodox and the RCC. The EO believes the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son who proceeds from the Father. The RCC believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Son and the Father. Some say it was added by some unauthorized monk hundreds of years later. No one knows. What do you do? It’s an official creed. Is the RCC willing to change the Nicene Creed or just ignore it?

This is a big misunderstanding. Both us and the Orthodox believe the same thing regarding the Divine Procession. But sometimes, words can be twisted or taken out of context. Recall that during the Filioque controversy, Rome and Constantinople weren't exactly cozy partners full of understanding for the other's pastoral situations. "The Spirit proceeds from the Father THROUGH the Son" is the correct formula. Some in Spain resurrected the Adoptionist heresy (Jesus was not of the essence of God, but was 'adopted' by the Father). The bishops of Spain (with Rome agreeing) removed the word "through". This was done even during Augustine's time by some theologians. The East thought that this meant that there are 2 divine principles as a result: The Spirit comes from two essences... Yet, the West has ALWAYS affirmed the divine nature and the oneness of God. When they were saying "Father and Son", they are saying the same divine essence or substance is equally contained in all three Persons. At the Council of Florence, the East agreed with the Western formula - theologically, they were saying the same thing with different words. Unfortunately, political problems prevented the re-unificiation. But the Filioque is more a misunderstanding than a difference of theology. East and West both believe the same thing about the Trinity, while emphazing different charecteristics; the East the Three Persons, the West the One Nature.

Doctrine is far easier to be changed and modified with a sola scriptura perspective so long as there is solid justification.

It sounds good on paper. But you, of all believers, should be aware and believe in the "depravity" of man. How does man come to the truth with his own powers if you refuse my argument above? Doesn't it sound contradictory that man can come to the knowledge of God, of His truth, unaided, but cannot do good, even aided by the Holy Spirit Himself? You can't have it both ways. History, also, proves the idea wrong - even Luther realized that there were as many ideas on Christian belief in Protestantism as there were Christian heads.

Brother in Christ

[Lord_Calvinus]

***She said the creators would have preferred to be more openly Christian...***

I'm sorry, but that really doesn't make much sense to me. They never mentioned Christ, nor any other name of the Lord; they never preached a gospel message of salvation (how can you preach the gospel without using the name of Christ).

What they did do was teach that people should just basically be good and call on angels and some nebulous undifferentiated "god."

Just exactly what is even remotely Christian about that show?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

It is as if they actually hate what the Scriptures have to say...

Men have always hated the light.

Did you notice how that show never mentioned the name of the Lord?

It's permissible to say "the big Potentate in the sky," "the Creator," or even "God."

But the name, Jesus Christ, is not permitted to be spoken on TV or films. It is the great divide.

[Corin Stormhands]

Just exactly what is even remotely Christian about that show?

Did you read my post? All I did was relay what she said.

[PAR35]

It doesn't look like German to me. Here's a link where you can see each page:

http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/permanent/gutenberg/web/pgstns/01.html

Click to enlarge the single page to get the type large enough to easily see.

[rwfromkansas]

bump

[skr]

bump for later

[HarleyD]

All men are objectively saved by the Redemption, but some willingly choose not to repent of their sins, etc.

No. All men are not saved by the Redemption. This is the view of the Arminian Remonstrants who echoed the Pelagius error. Those chosen of God are saved by God’s grace and through the faith that He instills in us. God hand is not shorten that it cannot save. Has He not said and will He not fulfill it?

Dan 4:37 "Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise, exalt and honor the King of heaven, for all His works are true and His ways just, and He is able to humble those who walk in pride."

I am not aware of any Christian Father before Luther who blamed God for the sinful actions of man or took away man's responsibility to obey the Commandments.

With all due respect, you do not understand Luther because Luther never blamed God for the sinful actions of man. I would suggest you read Bondage of the Will by Luther for a more precise picture of what Luther believed.

Consider birth control. Universally unacceptable by ALL Christianity until 1930, the Catholic Church is one of the few that remains faithful to the teachings of Tradition given by 2000 years of the Church…. As you probably know, the Scripture is unclear or nearly silent on many things that we practice and believe.

I’ve heard this before. While I applaud the Catholic Church’s stance on abortion, I don’t see writings on using condoms or diaphragms within the context of marriage in Augustine’s or Jerome’s writings.

The Spirit bears witness to our spirit of what is right or wrong:

Jam 4:17 Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin.

1Co 7:35-38 This I say for your own benefit; not to put a restraint upon you, but to promote what is appropriate and to secure undistracted devotion to the Lord. But if any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter, if she is past her youth, and if it must be so, let him do what he wishes, he does not sin; let her marry. But he who stands firm in his heart, being under no constraint, but has authority over his own will, and has decided this in his own heart, to keep his own virgin daughter, he will do well. So then both he who gives his own virgin daughter in marriage does well, and he who does not give her in marriage will do better.

These are just two examples where the apostles tell us to THINK FOR OURSELVES. We are to seek God’s will, search the scriptures, look at the paths of other Christians (yes-tradition) and ask it of God. The apostles rarely sat down specific guidelines but gave advice.

But the Filioque is more a misunderstanding than a difference of theology.

No, it's no misunderstanding. There is a specific legitimate disagreement on the Filioque as it is written. You apparently haven’t seen some of the posts on this issue. When the Catholic Church or the EO changes their view and the text on the Filioque to make it consistent get back to me.

How does man come to the truth with his own powers…Doesn't it sound contradictory that man can come to the knowledge of God, of His truth, unaided, but cannot do good, even aided by the Holy Spirit Himself?

I don’t know where you got this information. On all the posts and threads that we have discussed this issue I have made it abundantly clear that we come to the knowledge of God by God Himself ALONE through His Holy Spirit. God doesn’t “aid” us. God does the work. God the Father chooses us. God gives us grace. God regenerates us. God gives us our faith to come to Him. God gives us to our Lord Jesus. God seals us with His Holy Spirit. God works through us and gives us our good works. Our Lord Jesus keeps us and sees us home.

It is all to His glory. There is NOTHING that we have received that was not given to us. Like Elizabeth, Mary, John the Baptist, Paul, Jeremiah, Abraham, David, Samuel, Samson, Ester, Gideon, Isaiah, Adam, Noah, Peter, etc. They never made a decision. We never make a decision.

With all due respect, Catholic doctrine is the one erroneously saying man needs to “cooperate” with God. Not me. God does it all without our cooperation to the praise of His glory. Amen.

[bornacatholic]

With all due respect, Catholic doctrine is the one erroneously saying man needs to “cooperate” with God. Not me. God does it all without our cooperation to the praise of His glory. Amen.

Ecclus. 15

14 God made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his own counsel.

15 He added his commandments and precepts.

16 If thou wilt keep the commandments and perform acceptable fidelity for ever, they shall preserve thee.

17 He hath set water and fire before thee: stretch forth thy hand to which thou wilt.

18 Before man is life and death, good and evil, that which he shall choose shall be given him:

Num 30:14 If she vow and bind herself by oath, to afflict her soul by fasting, or abstinence from other things, it shall depend on the will of her husband, whether she shall do it, or not do it.

1 corinth 7:37 37 For he that hath determined, being steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but having power of his own will: and hath judged this in his heart, to keep his virgin, doth well.

*I could cite many other examples from Scripture. I will end with a quote from St. Augustine

He was handed over for our offenses, and he rose again for our justification.’ What does this mean, ‘for our justification?’ So that He might justify us; so that he might make us just. You will be a work of God, not only because you are a man, but also because you are just. For it is better that you be just than that you be a man. If God made you a man, and you made yourself just, something you were doing would be better than what God did. But God made you without any cooperation on your part. For you did not lend your consent so that God could make you. How could you have consented when you did not exist? But He who made you without your consent does not justify you without your consent. He made you without your knowledge but He does not justify you without your willing it.