Posted on 01/23/2011 5:12:54 AM PST by St_Thomas_Aquinas
Did Martin Luther Act Infallibly in Defining What Books Belong in the Bible?
If Luther did not act infallibly:
- How can Protestants be certain that they have an infallible collection of Books in Holy Scripture?
- How can the Bible be the sole rule of faith, if no one knows with certainty which books belong in the Bible?
If Luther acted infallibly:
- How do you know?
There were a few small parts translated into English prior to Wycliffe, and one even was large enough to include the Gospels. However, there was no attempt to translate the entire Bible into the current form of English until Wycliffe, and he undertook it because he believed it undermined the Catholic Church - a view the Catholic Church seemed to agree with, since it went to such lengths to prevent its spread.
As for literacy rates, I don’t care if it was 5% or 75%. That there was a hunger for reading the Bible is proved by the willingness to copy and spread Wycliffe’s translation in spite of the risk. People don’t risk their lives or wealth to get a book they cannot read.
Ditto with Tyndale’s translation, which was printed, smuggled in and distributed at great risk. People don’t do that for something they cannot read.
The first Bibles printed by printing presses were the sort far too expensive for most people to afford. Wycliffe’s hand copied Bibles (and extracts, since many could not afford an entire Bible) were cheaper, and Tyndale’s were intended to be a cheap as possible for the widest distribution possible.
Nor was the problem just literacy and cost. When King Henry finally agreed to have a Bible published, he ordered it distributed (and chained for security) to every church. This allowed those who could read to come and see for themselves what scripture said.
“Since the Wyclif Bible conformed fully to Catholic teaching, in practice, there was no way that the ecclesiastical authorities could distinguish it, and accordingly the many manuscripts of the Wyclif version were mistakenly believed to demonstrate an unauthorized Roman Catholic version of the New Testament dating from about 1400; a view endorsed and repeated by many Catholic commentators, including Thomas More.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_English_Bible_translations
“Misuse of the sacred text by the Albigensians in France, by the Lollards in England, by the Hussites in Bohemia, and by other heretics compelled the Church to adopt a conservative attitude as we see in the history of early first century heresies”
IOW, basing their doctrine on scripture instead of Sacred Tradition threatened the Catholic Church, which chose to try to keep scripture out of the hands of commoners as a matter of policy.
As Tyndale wrote in The Obedience of a Christian Man:
“They will say haply, the scripture requireth a pure mind and a quiet mind; and therefore the lay-man, because he is altogether cumbered with worldly business, cannot understand them. If that be the cause, then it is a plain case that our prelates understand not the scriptures themselves: for no layman is so tangled with worldly business as they are. The great things of the world are ministered by them; neither do the lay-people any great thing, but at their assignment. ‘If the scripture were in the mother tongue,’ they will say, ‘then would the lay-people understand it, every man after his own ways.’ Wherefore serveth the curate, but to teach him the right way? Wherefore were the holy days made, but that the people should come and learn? Are ye not abominable schoolmasters, in that ye take so great wages, if ye will not teach? If ye would teach, how could ye do it so well, and with so great profit, as when the lay-people have the scripture before them in their mother tongue? For then should they see, by the order of the text, whether thou jugglest or not: and then would they believe it, because it is the scripture of God, though thy living be never so abominable...If they will not let the lay-man have the word of God in his mother tongue, yet let the priests have it; which for a great part of them do understand no Latin at all, but sing, and say, and patter all day, with the lips only, that which the heart understandeth not.”
http://www.godrules.net/library/tyndale/19tyndale7.htm
The problem wasn’t that the Catholic Church COULD not, it was that it WILLED not. As a matter of policy, the Church was opposed to commoners learning the scripture in English (or German, where Luther’s translation helped so much).
“The sermons which thou readest in the Acts of the apostles, and all that the apostles preached, were no doubt preached in the mother tongue. Why then might they not be written in the mother tongue? As, if one of us preach a good sermon, why may it not be written? Saint Jerom also translated the bible into his mother tongue: why may not we also? They will say it cannot be translated into our tongue, it is so rude. It is not so rude as they are false liars. For the Greek tongue agreeth more with the English than with the Latin. And the properties of the Hebrew tongue agreeth a thousand times more with the English than with the Latin. The manner of speaking is both one; so that in a thousand places thou needest not but to translate it into the English, word for word; when thou must seek a compass in the Latin, and yet shall have much work to translate it well-favoredly, so that it have the same grace and sweetness, sense and pure understanding with it in the Latin, and as it hath in the Hebrew. A thousand parts better may it be translated into the English, than into the Latin...
... They will say yet more shamefully, that no man can understand the scriptures without philautia , that is to say, philosophy. A man must be first well seen in Aristotle, ere he can understand the scripture, say they.
Aristotle’s doctrine is, that the world was without beginning, and shall be without end; and that the first man never was, and the last shall never be; and that God doth all of necessity, neither careth what we do, neither will ask any accounts of that we do. Without this doctrine, how could we understand the scripture, that saith, God created the world of nought; and God worketh all things of his free will, and for a secret purpose; and that we shall all rise again, and that God will have accounts of all that we have done in this life!...
... Howbeit, my meaning is, that as a master teacheth his apprentice to know all the points of the mete-yard; first, how many inches, how many feet, and the half-yard, the quarter, and the nail; and then teacheth him to mete other things thereby: even so will I that ye teach the people God’s law, and what obedience God requireth of us to father and mother, master, lord, king, and all superiors, and with what friendly love he commandeth one to love another; and teach them to know that natural venom and birth-poison, which moveth the very hearts of us to rebel against the ordinances and will of God; and prove that no man is righteous in the sight of God, but that we are all damned by the law: and then, when thou hast meeked them and feared them with the law, teach them the testament and promises which God hath made unto us in Christ, and how much he loveth us in Christ; and teach them the principles and the ground of the faith, and what the sacraments signify: and then shall the Spirit work with thy preaching, and make them feel. So would it come to pass, that as we know by natural wit what followeth of a true principle of natural reason; even so, by the principles of the faith, and by the plain scriptures, and by the circumstances of the text, should we judge all men’s exposition, and all men’s doctrine, and should receive the best, and refuse the worst. I would have you to teach them also the properties and manner of speakings of the scripture, and how to expound proverbs and similitudes. And then, if they go abroad and walk by the fields and meadows of all manner doctors and philosophers, they could catch no harm: they should discern the poison from the honey, and bring home nothing but that which is wholesome.
But now do ye clean contrary: ye drive them from God’s word, and will let no man come thereto, until he have been two years master of art...
...Finally, that this threatening and forbidding the lay people to read the scripture is not for the love of your souls (which they care for as the fox doth for the geese), is evident, and clearer than the sun; inasmuch as they permit and suffer you to read Robin Hood, and Bevis of Hampton, Hercules, Hector and Troilus, with a thousand histories and fables of love and wantonness, and of ribaldry, as filthy as heart can think, to corrupt the minds of youth withal, clean contrary to the doctrine of Christ and of his apostles: for Paul saith, “See that fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, be not once named among you, as it becometh saints; neither filthiness, neither foolish talking nor jesting, which are not comely: for this ye know, that no whoremonger, either unclean person, or covetous person, which is the worshipper of images, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.” And after saith he, “Through such things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of unbelief.” Now seeing they permit you freely to read those things which corrupt your minds and rob you of the kingdom of God and Christ, and bring the wrath of God upon you, how is this forbidding for love of your souls?...” — William Tyndale, The Obedience of a Christian Man
“The Tynsdale version was not the basis for the KJV.”
Some 90% of the KJV came from Tyndale, although King James made a point of refusing to allow the translators to use congregation or elder, since “No Bishop, No King”.
“The fact that the Rheims New Testament was published in 1582 meant that it appeared almost thirty years before the KJV...”
yes, except the version you can buy today is the 1750 revision, which was based on the KJV:
“Much of the text of the 1582/1610 bible, however, employed a densely latinate vocabulary, to the extent of being in places unreadable; and consequently this translation was replaced by a revision undertaken by bishop Richard Challoner; the New Testament in three editions 1749, 1750, and 1752; the Old Testament (minus the Vulgate apocrypha), in 1750. Although retaining the title Douay–Rheims Bible, the Challoner revision was in fact a new version, tending to take as its base text the King James Bible rigorously checked and extensively adjusted for improved readability and consistency with the Clementine edition of the Vulgate.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay%E2%80%93Rheims_Bible
Tyndale’s translation was superior to the KJV, in that his goal was accuracy, while the KJV’s goal was to support the Anglican Church.
But if anyone wants to suggest Tyndale’s translation was in error, let tehm look here and back up their claims (and Tyndale himself wished to revise his translation - if he hadn’t been killed before he could finish it):
http://www.faithofgod.net/WTNT/
Consider (updated spelling):
“And as Moses lift up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the son of man be lift up, that none which believeth in him perish: but have eternal life. God so loved the world, that he gave his only son for the intent, that none that believe in him, should perish: But should have everlasting life. For God sent not his son into the world, to condemn the world: But that the world through him, might be saved. He that believeth on him shall not be condemned. But he that believeth not, is condemned all ready, because he believeth not in the name of the only son of God. And this is the condemnation: Light is come into the world, and the men have loved darkness more than light, because their deeds were evil. For every man that evil doeth, hateth the light: neither cometh to light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doth truth, cometh to the light, that his deeds might be known, how that they are wrought in God.”
“O foolish Galatians: who hath bewitched you, that ye should not believe the truth? to whom Iesus Christ was described before the eyes, and among you crucified? This only would I learn of you, received ye the spirit by the deeds of the law? or else by preaching of the faith? Are ye so unwise, that after ye have begun in the spirit, ye would now end in the flesh? So many things ye have suffered in vain. If it be so that ye have suffered in vain. Which ministered to you the spirit, and worketh miracles among you doth he it though the deeds of the law? or by preaching of the faith? Even as Abraham believed God, and it was ascribed to him for righteousness. Understand therefore, that they which are of faith, are the children of Abraham.”
“At midnight Paul and Silas prayed, and lauded God. And the prisoners heard them. Suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundation of the prison was shaken, and by and by all the doors opened, and every man’s bonds were loosed. When the keeper of the prison waked out of his sleep, and saw the prison doors open, he drew out his sword and would have killed himself, supposing the prisoners had been fled. Paul cried with a loud voice saying: Do thyself no harm, for we are all here.
He called for a light and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, and brought them out and said, Sirs what must I do to be saved? And they said: believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved and thy household. And they preached unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds, and was baptised with all that belonged unto him straight way. When he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and joyed that he with all his household believed on God.”
Not bad for a translation made some 80 years prior to the KJV.
For, tell me, who of you that stand here, if he were required, could repeat one Psalm, or any other portion of the divine Scriptures? There is not one.Note again: Let us not therefore despise the hearing of the divine Scriptures. -- Chrysostom attached considerable imporance to the COMMUNAL reading and HEARING of Scripture on the part of the laity.
Why, this is what has ruined all, your supposing that the reading of the divine Scriptures appertains to those only, when you need it much more than they.
For if you would learn how great is the profit of the Scriptures, examine yourself, what you become by hearing Psalms,
Yes, for a word from the divine Scriptures, made to sound in the ear, does more than fire soften the hardened soul, and renders it fit for all good things.
Let us not therefore despise the hearing of the divine Scriptures.
You have some question, you say, to ask concerning the holy scriptures. If so, ask it publicly; let your maids and your attendants hear it. Everything that is made manifest is light. He who says only what he ought does not look for a corner to say it in; he is glad to have hearers for he likes to be praised. He must be a fine teacher, on the other hand, who thinks little of men, does not care for the brothers, and labours in secret merely to instruct just one weak woman!No "reading or study" -- all Jerome is saying is that one should commit to memory. Now one can commit to memory even when illiterate, but that means one is told what is there. Secondly, NO 'studying' rather commit to memory, rote memorisation
she should until she is grown up commit to memory the psalter and the books of Solomon; the gospels, the apostles and the prophets should be the treasure of her heart.
To question and challenge can be to attack to some. If you are challenging someone’s deeply held faith in a false religion, challenging its basic beliefs and assumptions, how can it not be viewed as an attack by the person who holds the belief?
Thank you. Between a bad cold and a dislocated knee in the middle of a very cold winter, I’m not... quite.. thinking... all right... I even drowsed through yesterday’s football games... Green Bay won by casting a giant sea serpent who ate Jay Cutler, right?
Wow. That is probably the most blatant manifestation of the 'false dilemma' logical fallacy I've ever seen.
Regarding James, in his preface he states,
“Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, 1 I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle; and my reasons follow.
In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works. It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac; though in Romans 4 St. Paul teaches to the contrary that Abraham was justified apart from works, by his faith alone, before he had offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15.”
The problem is that James was talking about the works of faith ( not works of the Law ) Paul was talking about works of the law, they had no argument because they were not even talking about the same thing.
But if Luther thought that James was not an apostle he was probably right, as James was most likely an older step brother who became a believer after Jesus,s death along with his other brothers and sisters and mother Mary.
There is no indication that any of jesus,s family was followers of him.
(I am not stating that as fact but the scriptures seem to put much more sense in that than any thing else.)
If a group of farmers in one country are trying to read a letter from a farmer from another country and a different language they may have a problem but then a professor comes along and deciphers it for them is he also expected to understand it?
No, after it is translated the farmers should then be expected to understand it much better than the professor.
That may be a poor example but we go on and on about what some professor said hundreds of years ago, and they go on about what some one else said before them.
We have the same scripture they did, we do not agree any more than they did and we are not going to agree because we like them all want it to say what we want it to say.
An example
Luke 22:44 (King James Version)
44
And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.
Even the doctors will tell you that it might be possible, but what the heck are we talking about? why are people asking if it is possible to sweat blood when it does not say that jesus sweat blood, the scripture says that it was (as it were great drops of blood falling to the ground, sweat is water.
So the so called doctors of religion, the professors go on an on about how Jesus could have sweat blood, why not ask a working man or woman, a fisherman, a lumberjack, miner, farmer,construction worker, any one who actually works for a living.
They can tell you what its like to sweat as it were great drops of blood falling to the ground, but most of them can not tell you how it could be done by praying.
If we believe the scripture s are nothing more than an alice in wonderland story then i guess we should be able to read them to suit our selves and change what we don,t like to something more to our liking.
If we really believe, why would we want to change any thing
or are we like the religious leaders who had Jesus killed,
just pretenders, pretend we believe in something we don,t just to be on the band wagon, out to get our share of the gravey.
And some people say that this is the generation of Christians that will be taken up in a rapture, they have got to be kidding.
There is a complete collection of infallible papal documents, it is “The Sources of Catholic Dogma” by Denzinger. It fits in the palm of one hand, weighs about a pound. There may also be some Council proceedings in there as well. The only item missing from the list is Humanae Vitae by Pope Paul VI, which was published later. Here is a link for those who don’t immediately go to Amazon and buy a copy: http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma.php
Any protestant who thinks that the yoke of Rome is so burdensome needs to read it, to see what the infallible action of the Holy Spirit through human instruments looks like, it is really quite refreshing.
The care with which the Holy Spirit has guided the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church through many persecutions, tumults, and heresies, is marvelous to behold.
The little snippet of Handel’s Messiah just came to me while thinking about how blessed we are, “if God be for us, who can be against us?”
As I stated, all creeds contain some truth to help the victims swallow the lies.
There is no point in affirming any creed, or portion thereof. We have the scriptures, which are inerrant, which we can affirm; why would we want to dabble in the adversary’s deception?
Stick one finger in the tar pot, and by the end of the day your hands are black.
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, creator of all things seen and unseen.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, light from light, true God from true God.
Begotten not made, of one being with the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven.
And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; He was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and on the third day rose again according to the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, and His Kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, who spoke through the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.
Whether you support the baptism statement is a different question, I was pointing out the basic beliefs in the trinity that is encapsulated in the Nicene Creed. If you wish we can discuss baptism here, though that seems to be veering off the topic of the thread.
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.