Posted on 11/01/2011 6:08:48 PM PDT by rzman21
Sola Scriptura or Prima Luther? What Did Martin Luther Really Believe About the Bible?
By COGwriter
Most people realize that the Living Church of God (or any of the true Churches of God) cannot be part of the Roman Catholic Church. However, some do not realize that the Living Church of God is not part of the Protestant reformation movement led by Martin Luther (our history predates Luther, and the actual Roman Catholic Church for that matter, please see the History of Early Christianity).
Regarding the Bible, the Living Church of God believes that "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and, and is profitable for doctrine" (II Timothy 3:16, NKJV throughout unless otherwise stated).
Did Martin Luther agree?
Martin Luther publicly taught that only the Bible should be used as doctrine. One of the rallying cries of his movement was sola Scriptura (translated in English as 'the Bible alone'). This is one of the major positions that many professing Protestants respect Martin Luther for.
Although Martin Luther stated that he looked upon the Bible "as if God Himself spoke therein" he also stated,
My word is the word of Christ; my mouth is the mouth of Christ" (O'Hare PF. The Facts About Luther, 1916--1987 reprint ed., pp. 203-204).
[Specifically, what Martin Luther wrote in German was ""Ich bin sehr gewiss, dass mein Wort nitt mein, sondern Christus Wort sei, so muss mein Mund auch des sein, des Wort er redet" (Luther, 682) - also translated as "I am confident that it is not my word, but Christ's word, so my mouth is His who utters the words"(God's words - the violence of representation. Universitatea din Bucuresti, 2002. http://www.unibuc.ro/eBooks/filologie/meanings/1.htm, September 25, 2003).]
Did Martin Luther really revere and believe the Bible more than his own opinions? This article will quote Martin Luther extensively to assist the reader in answering that question.
Martin Luther Added to the Book of Romans
The Bible, in Romans 3:28, states,
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.
Martin Luther, in his German translation of the Bible, specifically added the word "allein" (English 'alone') to Romans 3:28-a word that is not in the original Greek. Notice what Protestant scholars have admitted:
...Martin Luther would once again emphasize...that we are "justified by faith alone", apart from the works of the Law" (Rom. 3:28), adding the German word allein ("alone") in his translation of the Greek text. There is certainly a trace of Marcion in Luther's move (Brown HOJ. Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church. Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody (MA), 1988, pp. 64-65).
Furthermore, Martin Luther himself reportedly said,
You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word alone in not in the text of Paul…say right out to him: 'Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,'…I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word 'alone' is not in the Latin or the Greek text (Stoddard J. Rebuilding a Lost Faith. 1922, pp. 101-102; see also Luther M. Amic. Discussion, 1, 127).
This passage strongly suggests that Martin Luther viewed his opinions, and not the actual Bible as the primary authority--a concept which this author will name prima Luther. By "papists" he is condemning Roman Catholics, but is needs to be understood that Protestant scholars (like HOJ Brown) also realize that Martin Luther changed that scripture.
Perhaps it should also be noted that Martin Luther also claimed that the word for "alone" was needed for a translation into the German language, but that is really only true if one feels that the word alone must be added (according to one person I consulted with who studied German). The truth is that Martin Luther intentionally added a word and many sadly relied on it.
A second rallying cry for followers of Martin Luther was the expression sola fide (faith alone). But it appears that Martin Luther may have intentionally mistranslated Romans 3:28 for the pretence of supposedly having supposed scriptural justification for his sola fide doctrine.
He also made another change in Romans. Romans 4:15 states,
...because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression.
Yet in his German translation, Martin Luther added the word 'only' before the term 'wrath' to Romans 4:15 (O'Hare, p. 201).
This presumably was to attempt to justify his position to discredit the law.
Martin Luther Made At Least One Other Intentional Mistranslation
Martin Luther has also been charged with intentionally mistranslating Matthew 3:2, Acts 19:18, and many other scriptures (ibid, p. 200).
Matthew 3:2 states,
"Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!"
Martin Luther, in his German translation, according to at least one Catholic source, changed the word 'repent' to 'mend' or 'do better' (ibid, p. 201), presumably to justify his position that one does not need to obey God's laws through repentance. Others disagree on that point and indicate that the German term chosen can or should be translated as repent.
Yet, irrespective of the translation (as I do not know enough German to have a strong opinion), Martin Luther did not seem to teach strong real repentance as he taught,
Be a sinner, and sin boldly, but believe more boldly still. Sin shall not drag us away from Him, even should we commit fornication or murder thousands and thousands of times a day (Luther, M. Letter of August 1, 1521 as quoted in Stoddard, p.93).
Martin Luther seemed to overlook what the Book of Hebrews taught:
For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries (Hebrews 10:26-27).
The Bible, in Acts 19:18, states,
"And many who had believed came confessing and telling their deeds..."
Yet according to one source, Martin Luther rendered it, "they acknowledged the miracles of the Apostles" (O'Hare, p. 201).
There are several possible reasons why Martin Luther intentionally mistranslated Acts 19:18, but the point on this article is to show that he did.
Another point to be made is that by making mistranslations of the Bible, Protestants have given Catholics reasons to ignore them (cf. 2 Peter 2:1-3). Here is what one Catholic priest has written:
The proponents of Protestantism made false translations of the Bible and misled people into their errors by apparently proving from the "Bible" (their own translations) the correctness of their doctrines. It was all deceit, lying and hypocrisy. (Kramer H.B. L. The Book of Destiny. Nihil Obstat: J.S. Considine, O.P., Censor Deputatus. Imprimatur: +Joseph M. Mueller, Bishop of Sioux City, Iowa, January 26, 1956. Reprint TAN Books, Rockford (IL), p. 224).
Perhaps I should add that many important Protestant-accepted doctrines would have been understood as false if later Protestant translators also would not have made their own intentional mistranslations of other parts of the Bible, especially in the New Testament. Yet, many who profess sola Scriptura even in the 21st century do not know that some of what they have relied on has been intentionally mistranslated.
Martin Luther Preferred to Change John 1:14
Martin Luther also taught,
And John 1 says: "The Word was made flesh," when in our judgment it would have been better said, "The Word was incarnate," or "made fleshly" (Disputation On the Divinity and Humanity of Christ February 27, 1540 conducted by Dr. Martin Luther, 1483-1546 translated from the Latin text WA 39/2, pp. 92-121 by Christopher B. Brown).
This was apparently done to justify his belief that Jesus was fully God and fully human while on the earth.
As Martin Luther correctly pointed out, John 1:14 states that "the Word was made flesh", yet John 1:14, combined with Philippians 2:6-7 show that Jesus 'emptied Himself' (the proper Greek translation; see Green JP. Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, 3rd ed., 1996, p. 607) of His divinity while on the earth.
If not, He could not have been tempted as we are, which He was,
"For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin" Hebrews 4:15-16).
This is discussed more in the article on Binitarianism.
Martin Luther Stated Jesus Meant the Opposite of What He Said
The Bible, in Luke 10:28, states,
"And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live" (KJV).
Yet Martin Luther taught,
To do means to believe-to keep the law by faith. The passage in Matthew: Do this and thou shalt live, signifies Believe this and thou shalt live. The words Do this, have ironical sense, as if our Lord should say: Thou wilt do it tomorrow, but not today; only make an attempt to keep the Commandments, and the trial will teach thee the ignominy of thy failure (O'Hare, p.205).
Although Martin Luther mentioned Matthew's account (which is in Matthew 19:16-21), the quote in question is actually from Luke 10:28. It is because of such misinterpretations of what the Bible states that many Protestants have tossed out the necessity to keep the ten commandments, even though scholars agree that they were kept by the early Christians (please see the article The Ten Commandments and the Early Church).
Martin Luther's comments clearly suggest that he felt that Jesus meant the opposite of what He said in Matthew 19:16,
"But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments".
Two articles of related interest may include What Did Jesus Teach About the Ten Commandments? and Hope of Salvation: How the Living Church of God differ from most Protestants
Martin Luther Taught Certain Books of the Bible Were Questionable
Martin Luther had different views of various books of the Bible. Specifically, he had a fairly low view of the Books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation.
The Catholic Encyclopedia claims:
As for Protestantism, the Anglicans and Calvinists always kept the entire New Testament But for over a century the followers of Luther excluded Hebrews, James, Jude, and Apocalypse (Reid, George J. Transcribed by Ernie Stefanik Canon of the New Testament. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume III Copyright © 1908 by Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, November 1, 1908. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).
Martin Luther himself was the obvious reason why, as he wrote,
Up to this point we have had the true and certain chief books of the New Testament. The four which follow have from ancient times had a different reputation. In the first place, the fact that Hebrews is not an epistle of St. Paul, or of any other apostle (Luther, M. Prefaces to the Epistle of the Hebrews, 1546).
Regarding the New Testament Book of Hebrews Martin Luther stated,
It need not surprise one to find here bits of wood, hay, and straw (O'Hare, p. 203).
He also wrote,
St. James' epistle is really an epistle of straw…for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it" (Luther, M. Preface to the New Testament, 1546).
and
In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works…Besides, he throws things together so chaotically that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took a few sayings from the disciples of the apostles and thus tossed them off on paper. Or it may perhaps have been written by someone on the basis of his preaching (Luther, M. Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude, 1546).
Interestingly the Epistle of James is the only place in the Bible to actually use the term 'faith alone':
You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone (James 2:24).
One would have to assume that the fact that James 2:24 contradicted Martin Luther's sola fide teaching would have been a major reason that he discounted this book of the Bible.
Protestant scholars have recognized that Martin Luther handled James poorly as they have written:
The great reformer Martin Luther...never felt good about the Epistle of James...Luther went to far when he put James in the appendix to the New Testament.
(Radmacher E.D. general editor. The Nelson Study Bible. Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, 1997, p. 2107)
Martin Luther taught,
Concerning the epistle of St. Jude, no one can deny that it is an extract or copy of St. Peter's second epistle…Therefore, although I value this book, it is an epistle that need not be counted among the chief books which are supposed to lay the foundations of faith (Luther, M. Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude, 1546).
To me, Jude does not sound that similar to 2 Peter, but if even it is, should it be discounted? Maybe Martin Luther discounted it because it warns people:
...to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). And this, sadly, is not something that Martin Luther really did (though he did sometimes make some efforts towards that).
Perhaps none of Martin Luther's writings on the Bible are as harsh as what he wrote about "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" (Revelation 1:1). Specifically he wrote,
About this book of the Revelation of John...I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic…I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it. Moreover he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly-indeed, more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important-and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will take away from him, etc. Again, they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there are many far better books available for us to keep…My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it" (Luther, M. Preface to the Revelation of St. John, 1522).
Another reason Martin Luther may not have been able to accommodate this Revelation of Jesus Christ is because he clearly violated this warning,
For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book (Revelation 22:18-19).
Martin Luther took away from this book through his comments about it, and this is the same Martin Luther who (as shown previously in this article) added words to the Bible that were not there.
Martin Luther's Comments on Books of the Old Testament Show A Hate for Things Jewish
As the following quotes show, Martin Luther did not care for several books in the Old Testament either:
"Job spoke not as it stands written in his book, but only had such thoughts. It is merely the argument of a fable. It is probable that Solomon wrote and made this book."…
"Ecclesiastes ought to have been more complete. There is too much incoherent matter in it...Solomon did not, therefore, write this book."…
"The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe. I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist, for it Judaizes too much..."
"The history of Jonah is so monstrous that it is absolutely incredible." (as quoted in O'Hare, p. 202).
Furthermore, Martin Luther had little use for the first five books of the Old Testament (sometimes referred to as the Pentateuch):
Of the Pentateuch he says: "We have no wish either to see or hear Moses" (Ibid, p. 202).
Martin Luther hated the Jews, which may be why he was against Esther, the first five books of the Bible, and other parts of the Hebrew scriptures.
Notice that Martin Luther advised his followers,
...to burn down Jewish schools and synagogues, and to throw pitch and sulphur into the flames; to destroy their homes; to confiscate their ready money in gold and silver; to take from them their sacred books, even the whole Bible; and if that did not help matters, to hunt them of the country like mad dogs (Luther’s Works, vol. Xx, pp. 2230-2632 as quoted in Stoddard JL. Rebuilding a Lost Faith, 1922, p.99).
Accordingly, it must and dare not be considered a trifling matter but a most serious one to seek counsel against this and to save our souls from the Jews, that is, from the devil and from eternal death. My advice, as I said earlier, is: First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss in sulphur and pitch (Martin Luther (1483-1546): On the Jews and Their Lies, 1543 as quoted from Luther's Works, Volume 47: The Christian in Society IV, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971). pp 268293).
More on Martin Luther and the Jews (as well as some of his other doctrinal positions) can be found in the article The Similarities and Dissimilarities between Martin Luther and Herbert W. Armstrong.
Martin Luther Claimed that John Was the Only True Gospel
Although Martin Luther decried John for penning the Revelation of Jesus Christ, he did like John. According to Martin Luther,
The first three speak of the works of our Lord, rather than His oral teachings; that of St. John is the only sympathetic, the only true Gospel and should undoubtedly be preferred above the others. In like manner the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Paul are superior to the first three Gospels (O'Hare, p. 203).
Martin Luther's position on this, and some of his other matters, appear to be blasphemous and in contraction to II Timothy 3:16.
Martin Luther' German Translation of the Bible
Perhaps it should be mentioned, that while some have credited Martin Luther with being the first person to translate the Bible into German, this was not the case.
The first translation of the Bible into Teutonic (old German) was apparently by Raban Maur, who was born in 776 (O'Hare, p.183). Actually, by 1522 (the year Martin Luther's translation came out) there were at least 14 versions of the Bible in High German and 3 in Low German (ibid).
However, it is true that Martin Luther's translation, became more commonly available, and possibly more understandable (in a sense)--even though it did include his intentional translating errors.
Martin Luther Preferred to Change a Commandment
Martin Luther seemed to believe that the Sabbath command had to do with learning about God's word, as opposed to rest, as he wrote about it,
What does this mean? We should fear and love God so that we do not despise preaching and His Word, but hold it sacred and gladly hear and learn it (Luther's Small Catechism with Explanation. Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, 1986, p. 10).
"We sin against the Third Commandment when we despise preaching and the Word of God...What does God require of us in the Third Commandment? A. We should hold preaching and the Word of God sacred" (Ibid, p. 68).
The Lutheran Confessions admit:
As we study Luther's expositions of the Decalog, or the Ten Commandments, we find that he does not quote the Third Commandment in its Old Testament form: 'Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy', but rather in the spirit of the New Testament: 'Thou shalt sanctify the holy day' (Mueller, John Theodore. The Lutheran Confessions. Circa 1953, p.10).
In another place, Martin Luther wrote,
Now follows the Third Commandment: "Thou shalt hallow the day of rest." (Luther, M. A treatise on Good Works together with the Letter of Dedication, published 1520. In Works of Martin Luther. Adolph Spaeth, L.D. Reed, Henry Eyster Jacobs, et Al., Trans. & Eds. Philadelphia: A. J. Holman Company, 1915, Vol. 1, pp. 173-285).
It should be noted that Lutherans (and Roman Catholics) consider the Sabbath to be the Third, not Fourth, Commandment. The order that Martin Luther chose to accept was an order changed by Augustine (please see the article Which Is Faithful: The Roman Catholic Church or the Church of God?) and not the order from the Bible or that as understood by the early Church (please see the article The Ten Commandments and the Early Church). Sadly, Martin Luther often accept Roman Catholic changes instead of believing what the Bible actually taught (and of course, he came up with other teachings that neither the Bible nor the Roman Church supported).
Martin Luther Preferred to Teach Doctrines That Did Not Have Proper Scriptural Support
Martin Luther apparently decided that he could not understand God, but that he should teach the unbiblical doctrine of the trinity. Notice what one Protestant scholar wrote:
For Luther, as for the German mystics, God is Deus absconditus, the "hidden God," inaccessible to human reason...
By emphasizing the sole authority of Scripture and downgrading the work of the church fathers and the decisions of the ecumenical councils, Luther created a problem for his followers. One the one hand, Luther wanted to affirm traditional theology with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity and Christ, but on the other those doctrines are not explicit in Scripture. They are the product of church fathers and the councils (Brown HOJ. Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church. Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody (MA), 1988, p. 314).
It should be noted here that NONE of the so-called "church fathers" prior to the end of the second century espoused any trinitarian position (more can be found in the article Did the True Church Ever Teach a Trinity?).
A French Protestant named Rabaud declared,
Luther has no fixed theory of inspiration: if all his works suppose the inspiration of the Sacred Writings, all his conduct shows that he makes himself the supreme judge of it (Rabaud, Histoire de la doctrine de l inspriaation dans les pays de langue francaise depuis la Reforme jusqu a nos jours Paris, 1883, p.42 as quoted in O'Hare, p. 203).
Thus even Protestant scholars realize that Martin Luther considered Prima Luther to be of more importance than Sola Scriptura--those interested in doing God's will should heed the Bible, and most should read the article The Bible and Tradition.
Martin Luther held many doctrinal positions that did not have biblical support, as well as some that did (please see the documented article The Similarities and Dissimilarities between Martin Luther and Herbert W. Armstrong.
Martin Luther Declared That Part of Three Days Equaled Three Days and Three Nights
The Catholic-supporting Augustine declared through an odd calculation that three days and three nights equaled thirty-six hours as ratios of twelve came to thirty-six (please see the article What Happened in the Crucifixion Week?).
Martin Luther, who had been a Roman Catholic, also did not accept that Jesus was in the grave for three days and three nights as he wrote,
How can we say that he rose on the third day, since he lay in the grave only one day and two nights? According to the Jewish calculation it was only a day and a half; how shall we then persist in believing there were three days? To this we reply that be was in the state of death for at least a part of all three days. For he died at about two o'clock on Friday and consequently was dead for about two hours on the first day. After that night he lay in the grave all day, which is the true Sabbath. On the third day, which we commemorate now, he rose from the dead and so remained in the state of death a part of this day, just as if we say that something occurred on Easter-day, although it happens in the evening, only a portion of the day. In this sense Paul and the Evangelists say that be rose on the third day (Luther M. Of Christ's Resurrection from volume II:238-247 of The Sermons of Martin Luther, published by Baker Book House (Grand Rapids, MI). It was originally published in 1906 in English by Lutherans in All Lands Press (Minneapolis, MN), as The Precious and Sacred Writings of Martin Luther, vol. 11).
However, Jesus clearly said He would be in the grave for three days AND three nights and this would be the sign religious leaders should pay attention to:
An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (Matthew 12:39-40).
Jesus being the Messiah was to be proven by Him being three days and three nights in the heart of the earth like Jonah was in the belly of the great fish.
Should we believe the Bible or human tradition? Does anyone really believe that ratios of 12 are how Jesus expected His words to be understood?
Notice what the Book of Jonah states:
Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights (Jonah 1:17).
Does any one really feel that Jonah was only in the belly of the fish for less than three days and three nights?
(Most Protestant commentators hedge on this and claim that parts of days is acceptable so 49 hours is possible--see The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1962 by Moody Press. Of course the problem with this is that even with 49 hours, it is not possible that Jesus was buried before sunset, about 6:00pm, on Friday and rose prior to sunrise, about 6:00am, on Sunday as that only adds up to 36 hours. Furthermore, if one takes the fact that Jesus died about 3:00 pm, as opposed to the time He was buried, that only makes 39 hours. Hence there is no way that any who actually believes the scriptures over personal interpretation can agree with Martin Luther.)
Conclusion
This author cannot agree with Martin Luther's assessment of the books of the Bible, nor Martin Luther's personal changes.
It appears that Martin Luther truly preferred the concept of prima Luther (the primacy of Luther) and not sola Scriptura when it came to doctrine.
Those of us in the Living Church of God believe that all 66 books of the Bible are inspired and profitable for doctrine (II Timothy 3:16). Because we also believe that we are not allowed to add or subtract from the Bible (see Revelation 22:18-19), we cannot follow the teachings of Protestant reformers such as Martin Luther—who changed or diminished the importance of at least 18 of them (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Esther, Job, Ecclesiastes, Jonah, Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation).
For a more complete background on the history of the Living Church of God, please request its free booklet God's Church Through the Ages or read it online at http://www.lcg.org/files/booklets/gca/default.htm.
For more information on how the Living Church of God differs from Protestantism, please read the article, Hope of Salvation: How the Living Church of God differs from most Protestants. To understand the the relationship between the Bible and tradition, please read Tradition and Scripture: From the Bible and Church Writings.
For specific information regarding the teachings of Martin Luther, please see the article The Similarities and Dissimilarities between Martin Luther and Herbert Armstrong.
Back to home page www.cogwriter.com
Thiel B., Ph.D. Sola Scriptura or Prima Luther? What Did Martin Luther Really Believe About the Bible? www.cogwriter.com (c) 2003/2006/2007/2008/2009/2011 1024
You are being overly simplistic.
Cronos wrote:
“The problem is escalation”
I will disagree with you slightly. The problem is sin and the general corruption it has worked in all of us. One symptom of this, our true problem, is when we attempt to discuss these very important things and we as Christians feel anger when we think that God has been demeaned, defamed or blasphemed. Righteous anger in us who are fallen is easily transformed into self-righteous anger and vengeance. When this happens the argument quickly degenerates, the wrong done by one is returned by the other (usually escalated), and the whole discussion becomes unprofitable if not even harmful for all.
Ephesians 4:17-32 is a good primer on how the Christian should approach the discussion of the holy things of God. It will encourage us on the one hand as we try to do what is right, and discourage us on the other when we see how badly we have strayed from the way of Christ.
As you rightly concede - and I with you - we so often fail to do as we should. And it seems so hard to apologize. Yet, I think, one can do so without having to concede a point wherein one has done wrong in defended what one sees to be right. There isn’t much civility and apologizing around here. More would be better; and then the discussion might actually become more profitable.
And the mods would be happier as well.
Catholics don’t believe the Pope is divinely inspired. Just that when defines a doctrine that is already universally held the issue can’t be revisited.
Protestants seem to believe in their own infallibility when it comes to interpreting scripture.
First, the Wycliffe Bible was a number of versions all attempting to translate the Vulgate into Middle English, not so as to provide access to the Scripture to the uneducated but as a platform to rationalize his differences with the Vatican.
To suggest that there was a literate audience for any English writings in the 14th century is a stretch. Those that were literate were educated in Latin and French (because of their Norman roots). Further to suggest that there was a single common English vernacular across England is preposterous. As different as the accents of the various regions of England are today in the 14th century they were incomprehensible. Peasant classes spoke languages that were still largely Anglo-Saxon, Fresian, Norse, or Celtic in vocabulary and grammar.
That is the trouble with the gospel. It's too simple.
I don't believe I said that the Pope is divinely inspired. Catholics believe that his decrees are infallible when coming from the seat of Peter. And since he issued this decree from the seat of Peter it must be infallible. I know...the logic is enough to make one dizzy. But I just explain it.
Protestants seem to believe in their own infallibility when it comes to interpreting scripture.
If you say it enough this may come true but I doubt it. In fact, it would mean that there are 10,000, 40,000 or a million (by some accounts) different infallible Protestants all running around. I have yet to find one that believes they're infallible.
We Catholics believe that in very limited areas and conditions the pope can make infallible pronouncements. This has only been done twice in the history of the Church. Conversely, I have never met a Protestant that did not claim an "indwelling" ability to infallibly interpret Scripture, something they deny to the pope. We get to witness that everyday on these threads.
“First, the Wycliffe Bible was a number of versions all attempting to translate the Vulgate into Middle English...”
No. There was essentially one extensive revision of the initial attempt, with the first being overly literal.
“...not so as to provide access to the Scripture to the uneducated but as a platform to rationalize his differences with the Vatican.”
On the contrary. Every attempt was made by the Lollards to get the scripture into the hands of the common man. It was not an academic attempt to show the Vatican was wrong, but to persuade the masses by giving the masses the source material for Wycliffe’s beliefs.
Wycliffe and his followers believed that the more men knew of God’s Word, the less they would follow the Catholic Church. They believed the more men read, the more they would agree with Wycliffe.
And since the Catholic Church responded by trying to prevent the scriptures from being translated into the vernacular - see the 1408 Oxford Constitutions, pushed by the then-Catholic Archbishop of Canterbury - it is hard to disagree.
The Catholic Church argued that scripture was too subtle for unlearned men to understand. One can agree or disagree, but it isn’t right to pretend that the Catholic Church WANTED commoners to read scripture.
“To suggest that there was a literate audience for any English writings in the 14th century is a stretch.”
Ah...then there must have been no market for the Wycliffe Bible, and it ceased existence because no one wanted it. But that is NOT the way it worked, is it?
“Further to suggest that there was a single common English vernacular across England is preposterous.”
I’ve suggested no such thing. It was a challenge that Tyndale also faced, until his translation proved so popular that it united the dialects into his common tongue - as Luther’s translation did for Germany.
But the problems with translation are not the point. The point was that the Lollards considered them a challenge to overcome, because it was important to them for commoners to read scripture, while the Catholic Church viewed them as an excuse to do nothing.
Remember - the unlearned Apostles of Jesus’ time knew their scriptures. The problem wasn’t that it was impossible. The problem was that it wasn’t tried - and it wasn’t tried because the Catholic Church wasn’t interested in scripture.
A survey taken of English priests around 1500 found 9 of 311 did not know there were 10 Commandments, 33 did not know were to find them, and 168 did not know them. 30 did not know that Jesus spoke the Lord’s Prayer.
The Lollards had some success, in spite of various local but severe persecutions. Had the Catholic Church taken the same approach, success would have been guaranteed. But the Catholic Church did not WANT commoners to read scripture.
“I have never met a Protestant that did not claim an “indwelling” ability to infallibly interpret Scripture”
Odd. I’ll bet both HarleyD & I strongly believe our interpretations of scripture are fallible. But we will be judged by God as individuals, and God will know if we wished to follow Him or not.
That is why we argue from scripture. We have no reason to think anyone cares for our beliefs, if they depart from what God’s Word has already said.
I can attribute most of your post to opinion, but some of it is preposterous. 30 priests not knowing the Lord's Prayer? Really, hen the Pater Noster is a part of the Latin Mass they said every day? Who actually ran that poll, MSNBC?
Please notice this passage in Romans 14:
” 1As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. 2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 3Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. 8For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s. 9For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.
10Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; 11for it is written,
“As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me,
and every tongue shall confess to God.”
12So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.”
It says we will be accountable to God - as individuals.
But it also is notable for what it does NOT say...
It doesn’t say, “Ask Peter. He knows.” It doesn’t say, “I’m an Apostle, and I know.” It doesn’t even say, “Ask your Bishop.”
Instead, it assumes each man has to decide these issues for himself.
“22The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. 23But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.”
Notice again, there is no suggestion to write to Peter. Just act from faith. To do otherwise is sin.
And it is INDIVIDUAL.
The poll was taken in a rural area. Remember, England was the backwash of Catholicism, and rural priests were not educated like those in cities. I can try to find out more, but it will take time.
“I don’t believe I said that the Pope is divinely inspired. Catholics believe that his decrees are infallible when coming from the seat of Peter. And since he issued this decree from the seat of Peter it must be infallible. I know...the logic is enough to make one dizzy. But I just explain it.”
Catholics don’t believe the Pope’s every utterance is infallible.
As Matthew 16:19 says, “Whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Baptists and Catholics don’t share the same faith when it comes to Baptism.
Found this:
“The main complaint against the lower clergy was their ignorance and inability to do their job properly. The sacraments would be administered to the poor with a chanted rigmarole that must have increased ideas about the Mass being magic and so heightened the superstition of the uneducated; the prayers would be mumbled by a man who had forgotten a Latin he never understood, and the poor might never have received any coherent or intelligent instruction in their faith. The lower clergy’s inadequate education and general unsuitability were ridiculed by leading laymen like Thomas More and Erasmus, while the privileges they could nevertheless claim earned the resentment and hatred of an increasing number of the population.”
http://www.structuralcommunication.org/sc/tudorpeace/sc_tudorpeace_unit4.html
I also found reference to the Council of Trent setting up seminaries to educate monks and priests...so it must have been a problem, although everything I’ve seen indicates it was at its worst in England.
I guess you cannot count very well. A day was from evening one day until evening the next day. So Jesus was buried Wednesday evening. So:
Wednesday evening to Thursday evening = first day
Thursday evening to Friday evening = second day
Friday evening to Saturday evening = third day
The women went to the tomb "as it was beginning to dawn on the first day of the week" (Sunday) and Jesus was not there, he had already risen. The guards had already hit the road in fear for their lives. Jesus rose on the evening of the Sabbath day. Three days and three nights, just as he said.
As to the Eucharist and what Jesus said about it, I believe in exactly what he DID say. The bread symbolized his body which would be broken for us, and was. The cup of wine symbolized his blood which would be shed for us, and it was. When we accept Christ, receive him as our Savior, we are consuming him as our "bread of life" and his blood, we accept as the payment in full for our sins. You don't need a "special" prayer to change those elements into physical flesh and blood - regardless of those special "miracles" that claim real human heart tissue was found - because Jesus even said he was speaking "spiritually" because "flesh" profits nothing. His words are "spirit" and "life". When you receive your Eucharist "host" you MUST imagine it is spiritually changed because NOBODY would swallow human flesh and blood. It IS a spiritual presence and, don't have a conniption fit on me, that was EXACTLY what the disciples at the Last Supper understood.
One more thing, why do you always interject this argument into nearly every thread you post to? What, pray tell, does this have to do with Luther?
i am always amazed of how easily some are swayed by the latest fad in theology.
Christians have always believed Jesus rose on the first day of the week, this is why we worship on Sunday and not Saturday.
i have to laugh, you say i can’t count very well ( don’t tell the state of NJ, they issued me a license to practice as a CPA! )but then you conclude Jesus rose on saturday, the same day i stated you must conclude in the post!
even if you discount Mark 16:9 as not Scripture, if Mark did not pen this verse someone did late 1st century when many believers who personally spoke to the Apostles were still alive. all agree, Jesus rose on Sunday!
but Paul tells us definitively what day Jesus rose.
let’s turn to 1 Corinthians 15:20
“but in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the FIRST FRUITS of those who have fallen asleep”
again in verse 23 we read “Christ THE FIRST FRUITS”
now, you may not be familiar with the Jewish Feast of First Fruits, but if you look it up, it is always celebrated the day AFTER the Sabbath, i.e. SUNDAY.
the feast signifies the start of the harvest, which is a perfect figure for Jesus starting to begin the harvest of souls after paying the penalty for sin and opening the gates of heaven.
once someone realizes how days were counted back then, Jesus statement about the sign of Jonah is absolutely consistent with dying on Friday and rising on Sunday.
this Wednesday nonsense is just another attack on the Church and it’s teaching authority.
why do i always bring up the Eucharist? because it is a central tenant of Christianity, so much so, that Jesus personally taught the Apostle Paul it’s meaning. it is also the hallmark of the Christian Church, central to the worship of the One true God from the Apostles to today.
Luther actually believed in the Real Presence, so kudos to him.
now, i am waiting for a repsonse to my post yesterday about the canon of Scripture and who can infallibly set the canon?
how can someone claim “sola scriptura” and then not defend how the “scriptura” can be believed to be the word of GOd and how do we KNOW we have the proper “scriptura”?
That has always been an issue in every church and every period.
Well, that's strange. Which two pronouncements do you believe is without error and are you prepare to say that every other doctrine of the Catholic Church (e.g. Mary, purgatory, the Eucharist, etc.) could be in error?
I suspect I know the answer to that question-except which two pronouncements are without error. One would have to be that the Pope is infallible. What the second one is I suppose is a mystery.
see post #377, i am sorry i forgot to ping you.
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.