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 ...
“We are in the end days - and have been since the time of Christ.”
Not according to Christ and His apostles.
“Jesus gave authority to the Apostles.”
To support His authority, not supplant it.
“Not according to Christ and His apostles.”
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.”
“To support His authority, not supplant it.”
Actually to be WITHIN it (hence, in persona Christi).
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.”
That was written 2,000 years ago. “These last days” refers to days 2,000 years ago, not today!
Yet more evidence of the error inherent in Roman Catholic dogma.
The quotations from Tyndale included updates spelling. Apart from standardized spelling, it reads like a translation made in the last 50 years.
http://www.faithofgod.net/WTNT/
Jesus taught, but he was a carpenter. The Apostles were fishermen. They were not priests. They were not legal scholars. “When they saw the boldness of Peter and John, And knew that they were unlearned men and lay people, they marvelled...”
Paul’s quote, a bit fuller:
“But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 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.”
From childhood - does that sound like you need to be a scholar? My kids read the Bible. Do yours?
It is not hard to read the Bible, if you are content to read what it says. It takes a lot of ‘learning’ to twist it to meet Catholic theology...
“The quotations from Tyndale included updates spelling. Apart from standardized spelling, it reads like a translation made in the last 50 years.”
But it doesn’t - because it wasn’t printed with modern spelling in 1526. My point was simple: You can claim your congregation easily understood it but that is because you didn’t read an altered version. Show them the original and see what happens. They will struggle with it. Anyone would (today). The original Douay Rheims is not perfect either, but it is often easier to understand in its original form than Tyndale’s Bible. It has some passages which are all but inscrutable to modern readers.
“mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins,” Do you know what they are? That’s from the KJV. How many people know what crisping pins are?
“From childhood - does that sound like you need to be a scholar?”
1) Studying it from childhood might very well make you a scholar of it. But did I say anything about scholars? No. It amazes me how many times you build strawmen. Why do you do that?
2) Who was Timothy getting that letter from? St. Paul. Was St. Paul a scholar? Yes, yes, he was. So, even though I don’t believe in your strawman premise you just undercut it on your own. Way to go!
“My kids read the Bible. Do yours?”
I never discuss my family online because a foulmouthed, angry, anti-Catholic bigot of a Protestant (a home church pastor no less) once threatened to harm me. He was mentally ill (he admitted that himself). He did not know my real name and knew no firm details about my family. It will stay that way. I know his real name, his address, the authorities in his home town were contacted. I know what he looks like, and if he shows up at my door I will defend me and mine. For that reason, I share nothing about my family, its size, location, jobs, travel plans, etc. You’ll just have to deal with that. Thus, the easiest way to answer your question is to say: every Catholic I associate with on a daily basis reads the Bible often.
I just got a few used books in the mail today - including two Bibles (one Protestant - the Blackaby Bible, I like the NKJV), a Catholic commentary on the Psalms, and a Protestant Bible commentary (New Layman’s Bible Commentary), a Catholic concordance of Bible names, and my third copy of the classic With The Church Meditations On The Missal And The Breviary by Mathias Goossens which is soaked with scripture. I had a nice discussion with a Catholic priest who was a former Lutheran minister about the Bible (mostly the gospels of Matthew and Mark, early dating of the gospels, etc), and prayed the liturgy of the hours (which is almost all scripture). Quite frankly much of that is a pretty typical day for me.
“It is not hard to read the Bible, if you are content to read what it says. It takes a lot of ‘learning’ to twist it to meet Catholic theology...”
No, twisting is necessary.
“But it doesn’t - because it wasn’t printed with modern spelling in 1526.”
The 1526 edition also used heavy Gothic font. The font isn’t the point. It is the words used to make the translation. And the Tyndale translation was a very good translation. It is also available with modernized spelling, although my copy retains the original spelling.
“The 1526 edition also used heavy Gothic font. The font isn’t the point….It is the words used to make the translation. And the Tyndale translation was a very good translation. It is also available with modernized spelling, although my copy retains the original spelling.”
I understand all that. If you buy a modernized spelling copy of the original D-R, you’ll find it to be – in most parts – just as easy to read as any part of Tyndale’s NT. That was the point.
Fair enough.
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.