Posted on 11/07/2013 10:07:49 PM PST by RBStealth
>> Then while you accuse Luther of being unclear, you should have made it clear that “Catholics reject sola fide” due to it meaning a faith that does not effect works, as if it was a faith that does not produce “things that accompany salvation.” (Heb. 6:9) but which was is not the historical view, and should not be made today 500 years after the Reformation. <<
The phrase, in Latin, means “faith alone.” Catholics reject that someone is saved through faith alone. “Alone” means it does not have to be accompanied by works. Catholic doctrine says that yes, faith will necessarily be accompanied by works, as done the gospel, as does the Epistle of St. James. So I don’t see where there is any need to clarify. Is it the works that lead to salvation (as Protestants accuse Catholics of believing)? No, but neither is it faith: both stem from grace.
>> You stated why RC rejected sola fide as if this was the current reason. Then you invoked what Leo said in 1520 and a statement Luther said in 1521. <<
The reason they reject it today is the same reason they rejected it in the time of Luther.
>> “the canon was directed at what Lutherans of the time said, but not at what they meant by what they said, so the doctrinal formula was condemned as defective rather than the doctrine itself, or (5) the canon was never directed at Lutherans to begin with but was directed at something else.” <<
You’re now quoting the Catholic Church’s charitable reading of Luther as it asserts that means nothing other than what Lutherans now insist Luther meant. As my point was to clarify what was and was not condemned: if the Lutherans now say, “yes, we call it sola fide, but we mean is sola gratis cum fide et labore et sacramentum,” (that’s almost certainly nongrammatical in Latin, by the way) then fine, that’s not what the Council of Trent condemned.
>> Salvation by merit under unmerited grace. <<
Let’s say salvation by merit of which Christ is the ultimate source, and the Christian is the proximate source. But you see, the Council of Trent clarified in the same context (unlike Luther, where you have to read some Table Talk in 1540 to counter the impression you might get from some declaration in 1520) that Christ was the same source of all grace, from which works and faith flow.
You can hardly read any of the great works of the Saints and get the notion that you can earn your salvation apart from grace.
>> Then while you accuse Luther of being unclear, you should have made it clear that “Catholics reject sola fide” due to it meaning a faith that does not effect works, as if it was a faith that does not produce “things that accompany salvation.” (Heb. 6:9) but which was is not the historical view, and should not be made today 500 years after the Reformation. <<
The phrase, in Latin, means “faith alone.” Catholics reject that someone is saved through faith alone. “Alone” means it does not have to be accompanied by works. Catholic doctrine says that yes, faith will necessarily be accompanied by works, as done the gospel, as does the Epistle of St. James. So I don’t see where there is any need to clarify. Is it the works that lead to salvation (as Protestants accuse Catholics of believing)? No, but neither is it faith: both stem from grace.
>> You stated why RC rejected sola fide as if this was the current reason. Then you invoked what Leo said in 1520 and a statement Luther said in 1521. <<
The reason they reject it today is the same reason they rejected it in the time of Luther.
>> “the canon was directed at what Lutherans of the time said, but not at what they meant by what they said, so the doctrinal formula was condemned as defective rather than the doctrine itself, or (5) the canon was never directed at Lutherans to begin with but was directed at something else.” <<
You’re now quoting the Catholic Church’s charitable reading of Luther as it asserts that means nothing other than what Lutherans now insist Luther meant. As my point was to clarify what was and was not condemned: if the Lutherans now say, “yes, we call it sola fide, but we mean is sola gratis cum fide et labore et sacramentum,” (that’s almost certainly nongrammatical in Latin, by the way) then fine, that’s not what the Council of Trent condemned.
>> Salvation by merit under unmerited grace. <<
Let’s say salvation by merit of which Christ is the ultimate source, and the Christian is the proximate source. But you see, the Council of Trent clarified in the same context (unlike Luther, where you have to read some Table Talk in 1540 to counter the impression you might get from some declaration in 1520) that Christ was the same source of all grace, from which works and faith flow.
You can hardly read any of the great works of the Saints and get the notion that you can earn your salvation apart from grace.
“We have been in the last days for 2,000 years.”
No according to Christ and Paul. Methinks you need to reread their words and not the creeds with regards to this.
“This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come. Matthew 24:14
First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, because your faith is being proclaimed throughout the whole world. Romans 1:8
but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith; Romans 16:26
...the gospel which has come to you, just as in all the world... Colossians 1:5-6
...the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister. Colossians 1:23
The end of all things is near...1 Peter 4:7
You too be patient; strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is near. Do not complain, brethren, against one another, so that you yourselves may not be judged; behold, the Judge is standing right at the door. James 5:8-9
Jesus said the end would come when the gospel had been preached throughout the whole world. Paul wrote that the gospel had, indeed, been preached throughout the whole world. Peter and James (among others) both wrote that the end was near and that Lord was coming soon.
Sola scriptura. Your creeds don’t match the Word of Christ. I don’t believe you, your creeds, or your sect.
“No according to Christ and Paul. Methinks you need to reread their words and not the creeds with regards to this.”
The end days began with Christ: Hebrews 1:2 “God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son.”
“Sola scriptura.”
Your interpretation of scripture is not scripture.
“Your creeds don’t match the Word of Christ.”
Your assertions do not match either the creed or the Word of God.
“I don’t believe you, your creeds, or your sect.”
I am not in a sect. You are. If you don’t believe the creed, then you’re not a Christian since denial of it is denial of the truth of Christ and the Trinity. It doesn’t matter if you believe me. You will. I just hope it’s before it’s too late.
“...in these last days...”
Written 2,000 years ago. If those were the “last days”, we cannot be living in them 2,000 years later.
“Written 2,000 years ago. If those were the “last days”, we cannot be living in them 2,000 years later.”
We can and we are.
You can parse the meaning of “is” with Bill Clinton, but PROTESTANTS translated the scripture into the vernacular and placed it in the hands of commoners. The Catholic Church did not.
Allowing a few hundred to be distributed, sometimes requiring dispensation of the Pope, is hardly the same as distributing hundreds of thousands. If you cannot see the difference between 100 and 100,000...well, everyone else can.
““but as an example of the measures Catholics, operating in accordance with the Council of Trent, took to suppress vernacular translations - and WHY they did so.”
Applying that to the Sorbonne Index was an error. Applying it to the Papal Index makes a true statement. My ONLY error was applying it to Sorbonne, rather than allowing that the Sorbonne ban mirrored the common practice of the Catholic Church over hundreds of years.
“Tyndale too never finished the whole Bible so he didn’t ensure “that MILLIONS could” read the Bible either.”
He finished the New Testament personally, and was working on the Old when his efforts were interrupted by his death under the direction of the Catholic Church. His translation was continued, and most of it was incorporated when Coverdale finished translating the Old Testament:
“Coverdale based his New Testament on Tyndale’s translation. For the Old Testament, Coverdale used Tyndale’s published Pentateuch and possibly his published Jonah.”
“Miles Coverdale (see below) continued Tyndale’s work by translating those portions of the Bible (including the Apocrypha) which Tyndale had not lived to translate himself, and publishing the complete work. In 1537, the “Matthew Bible” (essentially the Tyndale-Coverdale Bible under another man’s name to spare the government embarrassment) was published in England with the Royal Permission. Six copies were set up for public reading in Old St Paul’s Church, and throughout the daylight hours the church was crowded with those who had come to hear it. One man would stand at the lectern and read until his voice gave out, and then he would stand down and another would take his place. All English translations of the Bible from that time to the present century are essentially revisions of the Tyndale-Coverdale work.”
Henry VIII then had the Coverdale Bible distributed throughout England. And, indeed, much of Tyndale’s New Testament found its way into the KJV.
Of course, there aren’t many who would be proud that the Catholic Church condemned Tyndale to death as a heretic, although I suppose a few are happy about it.
“I don’t think his real goal was to “allow commoners to read the scriptures” since that was already happening. I think his goal was to push his own Lutheran like heresy.”
Tyndale and his associates managed, after his death, to make it possible for anyone who could read English to read the scripture for themselves in England. This came well over 100 years after Thomas Arundel, “by divine permission archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England, and legate of the apostolical see” ordered:
“The translation of the text of Holy Scripture out of one tongue into another is a dangerous thing; as blessed Jerome testifies, because it is not easy to make the sense in all respects the same; as the same blessed Jerome confesses that he made frequent mistakes in this business, although he was inspired: therefore we enact and ordain that no one henceforth do by his own authority translate any text of Holy Scripture into the English tongue or any other by way of book, pamphlet, or treatise. Nor let any such book, pamphlet, or treatise now lately composed in the time of John Wicklif aforesaid, or since, or hereafter to be composed, be read in whole or in part, in public or in private, under pain of the greater excommunication, till that translation have been approved by the diocesan of the place, or if occasion shall require, by a provincial Council. Let him that do contrary be punished in the same manner as a supporter of heresy and error.”
In between 1408 & Tyndale, no one received permission to publish Wycliffe’s translation and no one received permission to produce a new one. Tyndale asked, and was denied.
It was obviously in the power of the Catholic Church to get the Scriptures into the hands of commoners, but it refused, and punished those who tried. Burning Tyndale at the stake was hardly a bright and shining moment in Catholic history.
“We can and we are.”
Nope. Because if we are, then Christ’s words mean nothing.
“We can and we are.”
Furthermore, you place yourself at odds with Peter, James, John, and Paul with this view, who all wrote that the end was near and the Lord was coming soon to the people of their day.
If you are right, then they lied. I’m not comfortable calling the apostles “liars.” Are you?
I like that word, anagogical...
: interpretation of a word, passage, or text (as of
Scripture or poetry) that finds beyond the literal,
allegorical, and moral senses a fourth and ultimate spiritual or mystical sense
Apparently it is a word that means 'spiritual' that was invented for people who want others to think they are a little more intellectual than the average folk...
“Your interpretation of scripture is not scripture.”
Considering that I offered no interpretation but only the words of Christ and His apostles alone, your statement is patently false on its face.
“You can parse the meaning of “is” with Bill Clinton, but PROTESTANTS translated the scripture into the vernacular and placed it in the hands of commoners. The Catholic Church did not.”
Catholics had produced Bibles and Biblical books in vernacular languages for over a millennium before Protestants first walked the earth.
“Allowing a few hundred to be distributed, sometimes requiring dispensation of the Pope, is hardly the same as distributing hundreds of thousands. If you cannot see the difference between 100 and 100,000...well, everyone else can.”
The problem is that you are completely making up the “few hundred” and “100” idea. The truth is that no one knows how many Bibles were hand copied (by Catholics) before moveable type was invented (by Catholics). You have done this at least twice now without even a rational argument for it. You’re making it up out of thin air – like so much else of what you post.
“Applying that to the Sorbonne Index was an error.”
Yet another on your part.
“Applying it to the Papal Index makes a true statement.”
No, actually it doesn’t.
“My ONLY error was applying it to Sorbonne, rather than allowing that the Sorbonne ban mirrored the common practice of the Catholic Church over hundreds of years.”
No, your errors are – on just this one particular aspect of your posts: 1) not making the proper distinction between the University of Sorbonne and the Catholic Church since the two institutions are not the same, 2) claiming – with no evidence for it whatsoever – that the French state and the Church were one in the same, 3) suggesting # 2 somehow proved that the Sorbonne was the same as the Church, 4) being incorrect on when the Council of Trent started, 5) being mistaken on the idea that Trent influenced the 1544 index from the Sorbonne when Trent had not started, 6) not doing a modicum of research to avoid numbers 1-5. You made at least 6 errors.
“He finished the New Testament personally,”
Which was still never read by millions nor gained access to the scriptures for millions. Your claim is still wrong in any case. This is yet another error on your part.
“and was working on the Old when his efforts were interrupted by his death under the direction of the Catholic Church. His translation was continued, and most of it was incorporated when Coverdale finished translating the Old Testament:”
And it was never read by millions.
“Henry VIII then had the Coverdale Bible distributed throughout England. And, indeed, much of Tyndale’s New Testament found its way into the KJV.”
And still that means Tyndale neither was read by millions nor was he responsible for gaining access to the Bible for millions. The Bishops’ Bible, Geneva Bible, the Coverdale Bible, Matthew’s Bible, the Great Bible, and the Geneva Bible and Taverner’s Bible and the New Testament of the Douay–Rheims Bible all influenced the KJV.
“Of course, there aren’t many who would be proud that the Catholic Church condemned Tyndale to death as a heretic, although I suppose a few are happy about it.”
There’s certainly less reason to lament his death than Edmund Campion’s.
“Tyndale and his associates managed, after his death, to make it possible for anyone who could read English to read the scripture for themselves in England.”
Not really. There were several competing English Bibles printed in the 16th century (see above).
“This came well over 100 years after Thomas Arundel, “by divine permission archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England, and legate of the apostolical see” ordered:”
And?
“In between 1408 & Tyndale, no one received permission to publish Wycliffe’s translation and no one received permission to produce a new one.”
How do you know? The fact that no one printed it doesn’t mean no one received permission to do so.
“Tyndale asked, and was denied.”
Since he was a heretic there was no reason to entrust him with such a task.
“It was obviously in the power of the Catholic Church to get the Scriptures into the hands of commoners, but it refused, and punished those who tried.”
You have repeatedly failed to show this.
“Burning Tyndale at the stake was hardly a bright and shining moment in Catholic history.”
The existence of the heresy of Protestantism is hardly a bright and shining thing in the history of Christianity. Heretics come and go. The Church remains. In a 1,000 years, Tyndale’s Bible will be unintelligible for almost all of humanity (it already is for most people), while the Church will still be here.
“Nope. Because if we are, then Christ’s words mean nothing.”
No, only your interpretation means nothing.
“Furthermore, you place yourself at odds with Peter, James, John, and Paul with this view,”
No, the only thing I am at odds with is your interpretation.
“who all wrote that the end was near and the Lord was coming soon to the people of their day.”
No, they all simply wrote in an apocalyptic sense which is valid for all people and in all times since the coming of Christ since these are the last days. To suggest otherwise is to suggest the Bible is in error (i.e. the sacred authors wrote mistakenly in scripture about the time of the end).
“If you are right, then they lied.”
Nope. None of them lied and I am still right.
“I’m not comfortable calling the apostles “liars.” Are you?”
No, and only you are calling them liars following your logic. Has the world ended? No.
You wrote:
“Considering that I offered no interpretation but only the words of Christ and His apostles alone, your statement is patently false on its face.”
But...
Post #267, you wrote: “Written 2,000 years ago. If those were the “last days”, we cannot be living in them 2,000 years later.”
That is not scripture. That is merely your interpretation.
“You have repeatedly failed to show this.”
More precisely, you have failed to agree. But no one has ever found a Catholic translation of the entire Bible prior to the DR a generation or two after Tyndale. We have Wycliffe’s, and Tyndale’s, and Coverdale’s, etc - but nothing else.
On the German side, there was Luther’s translation:
“Hans Lufft, the Bible printer in Wittenberg, printed over one hundred thousand copies between 1534 and 1574, which went on to be read by millions. Luther’s vernacular Bible was present in virtually every German-speaking Protestant’s home; and there can be no doubts regarding the Biblical knowledge attained by the German common masses. Luther even had large-print Bibles made for those who had failing eyesight. German humanist Johann Cochlaeus complained that
Luther’s New Testament was so much multiplied and spread by printers that even tailors and shoemakers, yea, even women and ignorant persons who had accepted this new Lutheran gospel, and could read a little German, studied it with the greatest avidity as the fountain of all truth. Some committed it to memory, and carried it about in their bosom. In a few months such people deemed themselves so learned that they were not ashamed to dispute about faith and the gospel not only with Catholic laymen, but even with priests and monks and doctors of divinity.””
Meanwhile, in England, Tyndale’s initial effort was followed by Coverdale’s Great Bible (aka The Chained Bible) (1539); the Geneva Bible (1560), and the Bishop’s Bible (1568). It wasn’t until 1610 that the Douay–Rheims Bible was finished, and it was of such poor caliber that it went out of print from 1635 until the mid 1700s, when the Challoner revision (”Challoner’s revisions borrowed heavily from the King James Version”) came out.
Hmmmm...it took 80 years for the Catholic Church to produce an English translation, and it took over 200 years for them to produce a readable version.
There isn’t any doubt about who wanted commoners to read the scriptures for themselves. PROTESTANTS did. The supposedly true church did not. Hmmm...any idea why?
“More precisely, you have failed to agree.”
No, you have failed to show it.
“But no one has ever found a Catholic translation of the entire Bible prior to the DR a generation or two after Tyndale. We have Wycliffe’s, and Tyndale’s, and Coverdale’s, etc - but nothing else.”
That in no way means no one else sought permission to make a translation. You are doing what you have done before: claiming that one thing is another.
“On the German side, there was Luther’s translation:”
There were 14 German Bibles before his. As the quote I posted earlier attested - people already knew the Bible well in the vernacular long before Luther:
Miriam Usher Chrisman in Conflicting Visions of Reform: German Lay Propaganda Pamphlets, 1519-1530, page 4: “The German Bible, first printed in 1466, went through 14 editions before 1518 and was often listed in the inventories taken at the death of ordinary men and women.” She goes on to mention: “The overwhelming preponderance of scriptural quotation among the artisans confirms the existence of a strongly established Bible culture at the artisan level well before the Reformation.” (page 11) Now, granted, she was speaking of Germany and not England, but Wycliffe was in England and not Germany. Clearly people had access to Bibles.
“Meanwhile, in England, Tyndale’s initial effort was followed by Coverdale’s Great Bible (aka The Chained Bible) (1539); the Geneva Bible (1560), and the Bishop’s Bible (1568). It wasn’t until 1610 that the Douay–Rheims Bible was finished, and it was of such poor caliber that it went out of print from 1635 until the mid 1700s,”
False. It was not printed because English speaking Catholics were being crushed in Ireland and dying out in England or converting to the new heresy. Those who remained Catholic often bought and used Fulke’s edition to cover their use of a Catholic Bible.
“when the Challoner revision (”Challoner’s revisions borrowed heavily from the King James Version”) came out.”
And the KJV had borrowed from the Douay Rheims.
“Hmmmm...it took 80 years for the Catholic Church to produce an English translation, and it took over 200 years for them to produce a readable version.”
The Catholic Church did not produce the Douay Rheims. A small group of English Jesuits did. And the original Douay Rheims is readable. I have two copies. I have no trouble reading it.
“There isn’t any doubt about who wanted commoners to read the scriptures for themselves. PROTESTANTS did.”
For themselves? Do you really think God wants people to just make up new interpretations of the Bible? That’s what your suggesting even if that was not your intention because that is ALWAYS what happens.
“The supposedly true church did not. Hmmm...any idea why?”
The Catholic Church was founded by Christ to teach, preach and baptize. It succeeded in doing that in every place it went, and to every people it went, and in every century before anyone ever printed a single Bible. Romans 10:17
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.