Posted on 11/07/2013 10:07:49 PM PST by RBStealth
The Reformation isn’t over. But Protestantism is, or should be.
When I studied at Cambridge, I discovered that English Evangelicals define themselves over against the Church of England. Whatever the C of E is, they ain’t. What I’m calling “Protestantism” does the same with Roman Catholicism. Protestantism is a negative theology; a Protestant is a not-Catholic. Whatever Catholics say or do, the Protestant does and says as close to the opposite as he can.
Mainline churches are nearly bereft of “Protestants.” If you want to spot one these days, your best bet is to visit the local Baptist or Bible church, though you can find plenty of Protestants among conservative Presbyterians too.
Protestantism ought to give way to Reformational catholicism. Like a Protestant, a Reformational catholic rejects papal claims, refuses to venerate the Host, and doesn’t pray to Mary or the saints; he insists that salvation is a sheer gift of God received by faith and confesses that all tradition must be judged by Scripture, the Spirit’s voice in the conversation that is the Church.
(Excerpt) Read more at firstthings.com ...
“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.”
No, that is taking the relevant texts (of which there are many) literally and logically. Read Revelation 1:1-3 and the entirety of chapter 22: the apostles from Paul to Peter to James and John wrote that the end was near; that the events of the apocalypse were coming “soon” and were “at hand.”
If they were “soon” and “at hand” 2,000 years ago, they cannot logically or literally be “soon” and “at hand” now, otherwise these words and the book that contains them are utterly meaningless!
“No, the only thing I am at odds with is your interpretation.”
I have not offered any interpretation. Stop projecting.
“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.”
Case in point of your projection on interpretation: these are the “last days” according to YOU, your creeds, and your sect, all of which stand in direct opposition to the plainly written and recorded words of Christ and His apostles.
“None of them lied and I am still right.”
They didn’t lie. However you are clearly wrong, as demonstrated by the relevant passages.
“Has the world ended? No.”
“World” has several meanings, one of which has nothing whatsoever to do with the manner in which you understand it. Instead of tacitly calling Christ and the apostles “liars”, perhaps you should adjust your view of the word to theirs.
“The Catholic Church was founded by Christ...”
The “catholic” church founded by Christ isn’t represented solely by the Roman sect of it, neither is the Pope the “catholic” church’s authority over it.
Christ is the head of His church: not the Pope.
Yes, Christ is the Head of His Church.
So why would this fact diminish the authority of His Church?
Jesus said, "If he will not listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector."
From this simple statement, important conclusions necessarily follow.
Christ's Church existed in His time.
Christ's Church was visible.
Christ's Church had teaching authority EQUAL to Christ's, since Christ could have said, "if he will not listen to Me."
Christ's Church must have a unified body of doctrine, if it teaches with the Authority of Christ.
Christ said that "the gates of hell" would not prevail against His Church. Christ's Church must still exist today.
Only the Orthodox and Catholic Churches can trace their origin to Apostolic times.
“Only the Orthodox and Catholic Churches can trace their origin to Apostolic times.”
Tradition is not truth or integrity. It is tradition. The RCC has shown itself throughout history to be bereft of both, regardless of its much heralded, self-proclaimed tradition.
Might be a good idea to remember that.
Jesus said, “If he will not listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector.”
Got a verse for that, or should we take your sect’s word for it?
“No, that is taking the relevant texts (of which there are many) literally and logically. “
That is a form of interpretation. It is, in fact, the first step in any interpretation. You can try and dodge it, but that is interpretation.
“I have not offered any interpretation. Stop projecting.”
Stop projecting about your own projection. You interpreted scripture. It’s just that simple.
“The “catholic” church founded by Christ isn’t represented solely by the Roman sect of it,”
There is no Roman sect at all. There is the Roman Church. Only Protestants have sects. And there are about twenty-two Churches in the Catholic Church. No one is claiming the Roman one is the only one. What is certain is that none of them are Protestant.
“neither is the Pope the “catholic” church’s authority over it.”
Actually he is, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
“Christ is the head of His church: not the Pope.”
On earth, Christ entrusted the Church to the pope and the Holy Spirit to guide him.
“That in no way means no one else sought permission to make a translation.”
Since none has ever found a copy, and there is no record of one ever being made, the burden of proof lies on you. I can prove PROTESTANTS made translations. Where is your proof that CATHOLICS did?
““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.”
Most of the German translations were not in the vernacular. Nor were they marketed to commoners. That is why Luther’s translation (a much better translation than previous attempts, marketed to commoners) sold 100,000 copies from one printer alone. The DEMAND was there, but not the SUPPLY.
“And the KJV had borrowed from the Douay Rheims.”
The KJV did bring in some deliberate mistranslations, per Catholic belief, because King James had noted, “No Bishop, No King” - if congregations were free to pick their pastors, might they not soon decide to pick their government?
“How much of the KJV is Tyndale’s work?
In answering this question, David Daniell accepts the work of Mormon writers Jon Nielson and Royal Skousen. They noted that previous estimates of Tyndale’s contribution to the KJV ‘have run from a high of up to 90% (Westcott) to a low of 18% (Butterworth)’. They tested this by using a statistically accurate and appropriate method of sampling - based on eighteen portions of the Bible - to show that Tyndale’s contribution to the New Testament amounts to about 83% of the text, and in the Old Testament 76%.”
http://theav4ever.blogspot.com/2011/10/william-tyndale-rock-foundation.html
Even now, someone reading Tyndale’s translation can see how well it stands the test of time:
“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.”
I’ve read Tyndale’s translation from 1526 to modern congregations, and no one blinked an eye. They assumed it was a modern translation. Nearly 500 years later, it still reads well.
“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.”
Thank you for the honest and accurate summary of Catholic belief about vernacular translations. Do I REALLY believe it is good for commoners to read the Word of God, and see what it says for themselves, knowing they might interpret it badly?
YES! A thousand times, YES! The Jews of Jesus’ time did. Jesus cited scripture repeatedly. Paul wrote, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”
Or in Tyndale’s translation, “For all scripture given by inspiration of God, is profitable to teach, to improve, to inform, and to instruct in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, and prepared unto all good works.”
You have done a fine, 2 sentence job of showing the difference between the Catholic and Protestant view of scripture:
“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.”
“And there are about twenty-two Churches in the Catholic Church.”
You do realize this is a contradiction, right?
“Christ entrusted the Church to the pope and the Holy Spirit to guide him.”
Clearly, that is about as unscriptural as it gets. Paul wrote that Christ is the head of His church, period. The Holy Spirit gives gifts to many to administer local churches, but this “gift” is not vested in a single, world-wide authority. That post is reserved or Chris alone, according to the apostles!
“What is certain is that none of them are Protestant.”
Christ said, “wherever two or three are gathered in His name”, He would be in their midst. Thousands of Protestant denominations gather every week (sometimes more than once) to worship Christ. Who are you to say they are not part of His holy catholic church???
Roman Catholics like you are no better than certain Baptist extremists who say the same thing about the RCC. I really have no use for either.
"That is a form of interpretation. It is, in fact, the first step in any interpretation. You can try and dodge it, but that is interpretation." __________________________________________________
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John, who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near. Revelation 1:1-3
And he said to me, "These words are faithful and true"; and the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent His angel to show to His bond-servants the things which must soon take place. Revelation 22:6
"But as for you, Daniel, conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time...Daniel 12:4
And he *said to me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near. Revelation 22:10
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
The world is passing away...Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour. 1 John 2:17-18
The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you. Romans 16:20
I could go on, but really, people of this corrupt, ignorant, and arrogant generation will continue to believe these verses all apply to us, living 2,000 years later, against all reason. If I am guilty of applying any "interpretation" to these verses, I am in the same "guilty" company of the apostles who "interpreted" Christ's words to mean He was talking about them when He said this:
"Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." Matthew 16:28
Both Orthodox and Protestant churches have gotten His words wrong for hundreds of years, which, for this reason alone, is reason enough not to trust any church which applies these words to us.
It’s clear that there are certain Roman Catholic extremists who are as legalistic in their approach to others as are some Protestant legalists (SDA and certain fundy Baptist denominations come to mind.)
According to some of these extremists, if you don’t “do” the Roman liturgy, read the Bible in Latin, partake and believe in the Eucharist exactly as prescribed by the Roman sect’s tradition, pray the rosary, pray to saints, and venerate Mary, then you are going to hell.
I suspect many of these legalists will find themselves as much on the outside of heaven looking in as will some of those Protestants who are just as legalistic in their views.
Truth should be the standard by which we live, not tradition. If truth is not in the tradition, scrap the tradition. And that should apply to all sects within Christianity, not just the sect emanating from Rome.
I guess Matthew 18:17 isn't preached on much in Protestant churches.
If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
I went to Biblegateway and I did a search on "tradition." Below are some passages that I found.
1 Corinthians 11:2
Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.
2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.
2 Thessalonians 3:6
Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.
So clearly, the traditions handed on by the apostles, whether oral or written, are essential and valid. Catholics call these traditions, Apostolic Tradition.
On the other hand, erroneous human traditions are condemned in Scripture.
Colossians 2:8
See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.
Mark 7:8
You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”
“Since none has ever found a copy, and there is no record of one ever being made, the burden of proof lies on you.”
No. It is one thing to finish a translation and another to request permission to do so. You’re assuming the absence of the former means the latter was never requested.
“I can prove PROTESTANTS made translations. Where is your proof that CATHOLICS did?”
We know Catholic translations of Biblical books were made. We cannot say that there were any made of the entire Bible. We also cannot say that none were made. We can only say none were printed in English until 1582/1609.
“Most of the German translations were not in the vernacular. “
If it was a German translation that means it was the vernacular.
“Nor were they marketed to commoners.”
All of them were. As I noted already: 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)
“That is why Luther’s translation (a much better translation than previous attempts, marketed to commoners) sold 100,000 copies from one printer alone. The DEMAND was there, but not the SUPPLY.”
No. Luther’s translation borrowed heavily from previous translations. Luther may have been a better writer of German, but he was not an expert in Greek or Hebrew. His translation sold so well because it was the book used by the Lutheran movement. This has been noted by historians for decades and brought into focus in recent years by historian Andrew Gow:
Scholars who acknowledge the wide circulation of vernacular Bibles often argue that they were linguistically inferior, claiming that Luther relied exclusively on the ‘original Greek’ text of the New Testament in his translation (which places more weight on Erasmus’ faulty 1516 edition of the New Testament in Greek and on Luther’s use of it than either can bear, ignores Luther’s reliance on both earlier German translations and the Vulgate,9 and gives him more credit as a philologist than he deserves). Even stronger is the old Protestant-nationalist German claim, couched as linguistic scholarship, that Luther’s German Bible formed or even invented the standard form of early modern German; and a few other lesser ones. In the Microsoft Encarta, one of the main sources from which many students draw their information on such topics, we read “Condemned by the emperor [in 1521], Luther was spirited away by his prince, the elector Frederick the Wise of Saxony, and kept in hiding at Wartburg Castle. There he began his translation of the New Testament from the original Greek into German, a seminal contribution to the development of a standard German language.”10 Yet in 1969, W. B. Lockwood noted that
It has been a common error of criticism to regard the Mentel Bible [1466] as typical of the pre-Luther stage of biblical translation. Recent researches however have shown that the elements of Luther’s style are already present in a large measure in the manuscript literature of the fourteenth and especially the fifteenth centuries.
“The KJV did bring in some deliberate mistranslations, per Catholic belief, because King James had noted, “No Bishop, No King” - if congregations were free to pick their pastors, might they not soon decide to pick their government?”
The KJV’s “deliberate mistranslations” have everything to do with governmental control of religion and nothing to do with the Catholic faith. The Anglicans invented their own via media theology and that is what the KJV supports.
“I’ve read Tyndale’s translation from 1526 to modern congregations, and no one blinked an eye. They assumed it was a modern translation. Nearly 500 years later, it still reads well.”
Maybe – if you read it TO them. Much the same happens with the original Douay Rheims as well. What would happen, however, if you had that congregation READ Tyndale’s New Testament as it was actually printed?
“Saul yet brethynge out threatnynges and slaughter against the disciples of the lorde went vnto the hye preste and desired of hym letter to damascon to the sinagoges: that yf be founde eny of this waye whether they wer men or wemen he might brynge them bounde vnto Jerusalem.”
Now, I choose that passage completely at random.
Here is how the original Douay-Rheims New Testament put it:
“And Saul as yet breathing forth threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of our Lord came to the high priest, and asked letters of him vnto Damascus to the fynagogs, that if he had found any men and vvomen of this vvay, he might bring them bound vnto Jerusalem.”
Which one is more readable? The answer is that they’re both readable – especially for the people of their times. The D-R is more easily understood in its original spelling than Tyndale’s but that is because English – by that time – was quickly becoming standardized in spelling and grammar. And, yes, there are several passages of the original D-R which are very difficult for modern readers to understand. I think many modern readers would struggle with Tyndale’s spelling in general. So?
“Thank you for the honest and accurate summary of Catholic belief about vernacular translations.”
I offered none. Why do you make things up I never said? Do Protestants believe it is wrong to lie?
“Do I REALLY believe it is good for commoners to read the Word of God, and see what it says for themselves, knowing they might interpret it badly? YES! A thousand times, YES! The Jews of Jesus’ time did. Jesus cited scripture repeatedly.”
Yes, Jesus did so - authoritatively. Jesus was not a “commoner”. You do realize that, right?
“Paul wrote, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.””
Nothing in there even remotely suggests that St. Paul was urging people to interpret scripture on their own as if they were authorities. St. Paul taught authoritatively. He was commissioned by Christ and the Church. And don’t forget, what St. Paul wrote was read out in Church and taught by those he left behind in authority.
“Or in Tyndale’s translation, “For all scripture given by inspiration of God, is profitable to teach, to improve, to inform, and to instruct in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, and prepared unto all good works.””
That is not really Tyndale’s translation. This is Tyndale’s translation:
“For all scripture geven by inspiracion of god is profitable to teache to improve to informe and to instruct in reighteousness that the man of god maye be perfet and prepared vnto all good works.”
And here it is in the 1582 Douay Rheims NT:
“All Scripture inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to argue, to correct, to inftruct in iuftice: that the man of God may be perfect, inftructed to euery good vvorke.”
Again, we see the original Douay Rheims is at least as intelligible as Tyndale’s Bible.
“You have done a fine, 2 sentence job of showing the difference between the Catholic and Protestant view of scripture:”
Yes, I have – by simply asking the obvious: Do you think God wants man to “just make up new interpretations of the Bible?” And apparently you do. That means you cannot believe in truth. You’re a relativist. Thanks for proving what so many of us already knew about Protestantism.
“Got a verse for that, or should we take your sect’s word for it?”
“I guess Matthew 18:17 isn’t preached on much in Protestant churches.
If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. “
Actually, it is. But you treat the passage as though it codifies the Roman Catholic Church as THE only church, when Christ - by the context of that passage - stipulates that a church is convened whenever “two or three gather in my name!”
Again, Roman Catholics LOVE to use the term “catholic” to obfuscate, but there is clearly a difference between what Christ described as His “catholic” church (universal and invisible bound together by a common profession of faith in Him) and the manner in which Roman Catholics view their particular sect of it.
Roman Catholicism is NOT the sum of Christ’s church, and Roman Catholic claims to the contrary only further diminish it in the eyes of Protestants, who routinely gather in Christ’s name, too.
““You do realize this is a contradiction, right?”
There was no contradiction.
“Clearly, that is about as unscriptural as it gets. Paul wrote that Christ is the head of His church, period.”
He is the head, but He is not here on earth and sent out leaders with the Church. He did not leave the Church with no visible leaders.
“The Holy Spirit gives gifts to many to administer local churches, but this “gift” is not vested in a single, world-wide authority.”
In some ways it is. The Holy Spirit cannot contradict Himself. Protestant sects cannot but help to contradict each other every day. Just bring up infant baptism in a room full of Protestants and you’ll see what I mean.
“That post is reserved or Chris alone, according to the apostles!”
Jesus gave authority to the Apostles.
“Christ said, “wherever two or three are gathered in His name”, He would be in their midst. Thousands of Protestant denominations gather every week (sometimes more than once) to worship Christ. Who are you to say they are not part of His holy catholic church???”
Protestants gather in a multitude of sects every weekend. Yes, they gather – and God in His infinite mercy listens to them and loves them even though they belong to sects rather than be in full communion with His Church. We have a generous and merciful God. That doesn’t change the fact that Christ started nary a one of the Protestant sects.
“Roman Catholics like you are no better than certain Baptist extremists who say the same thing about the RCC. I really have no use for either.”
I am not “Roman Catholic”. I am just Catholic. And Baptists are simply wrong and their sect never even existed before 1600 – as proven by Protestants. But God loves Baptists anyway – no matter how wrong they might be. That doesn’t change the fact that they are wrong, but is does mean God will continue to call them to the truth.
We are in the end days - and have been since the time of Christ. That won’t change.
“Both Orthodox and Protestant churches have gotten His words wrong for hundreds of years, which, for this reason alone, is reason enough not to trust any church which applies these words to us.”
We have been in the final days for almost 2,000 years. That’s just the way it is. You don’t have to believe me. It’s true even if you don’t believe me.
I went to Biblegateway and I did a search on “tradition.”
You assume that all tradition observed by Roman Catholicism is set forth by the apostles.
It is not, hence the Reformation. The Reformation is proof enough that Roman Catholicism does not and did not hold to apostolic teaching, otherwise sinful, abhorrent practices like the sale of indulgences never would’ve happened.
There are more than enough “traditions of men” inside Roman Catholicism to make its claims of “apostolic authority” suspect.
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.