[daniel1212]

The issue with Bible literacy is that Rome could have been committed to Biblical literacy but was not, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2661829/posts?page=352#352 while as for

How can Protestants be certain that they have an infallible collection of Books in Holy Scripture?

- How can the Bible be the sole rule of faith, if no one knows with certainty which books belong in the Bible?

The second presumes a negative answer to the first, and that sola scripture always requires a finished canon.

The first has been responded as referring to how writings were established as Scripture before Rome’s claims, and without an assuredly infallible interpreter, and by such means those who hold to SS have an assuredly infallible body of books by which to judge and establish truth by.

Regarding how Scripture was established, “its means of establishment was essentially the same as how a true man of God is established as such, by his/her unique qualities and supernatural effects, which conform to that which God prior established by the same means. The manna from heaven owes its enduring acceptance to what it is and thus does, more than church decrees, as valid and helpful as they can be.” See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2661829/posts?page=314#314

The fact is that Rome herself did not have an infallibly defined canon before Trent, as documented in post 213 which you might have missed, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2661829/posts?page=217#217, nor was Luther the first to exclude certain books. Yet she did consider whatever belonged to that class of revelation called Scripture to be authoritative, as do those who hold to SS, though Rome effectively makes oral tradition equal to it, and herself the supreme authority. And yet she has no final complete infallible canon of either tradition or infallible pronouncements.

While the canon has become settled after the same manner that O.T. books were considered Scripture by the time of Christ, sola scriptura essential means that whatever books are considered to be Scripture are the supreme authority on doctrine, Scripture being the only objective authority that is affirmed to be wholly inspired of God, and thus assuredly infallible. In contrast, this is not provided for Rome’s formulaic (scope and content based) infallible magisterium, and its claim to be so effectively rests upon its own declaration to be infallible, when speaking according to its own infallible defined criteria.

We know that the early church did teach infallible truth in Acts 15 as it is recorded in Scripture, and was solidly based upon Scripture and scriptural attestation. But to extrapolate out of that a formulaic infallibility for whatever Rome decrees is another issue, and for the pope you must convince both the EOs as well as the Prots.

[Cronos]

Mr Rogers --> common men not getting their hands on scripture
Jvette --> it is ridiculous to say that the Church avoids scripture in light of the considerable effort she had put forth for its preservation
Mr Rogers --> hid scripture, and didn’t want it to get into the hands of common men

Mr. Rogers, I dispute your statement. Let's view it in light of history:
Literacy levels

Before the 1400's, the vast majority of people in Europe were illiterate as most people never had the opportunity to learn to read because there were few schools and books. Although some people at every level of society could read, most literate people belonged to the upper classes.

In the 1440's, the German printer Johannes Gutenberg became the first European to print a book from movable type. As a result, reading material was eventually mass-produced in Europe and inexpensive books became more widely available. One of the first books printed in Europe was the Bible. During the 1500's, the Protestant Reformation and Roman Catholic Counter Reformation spurred people's desire to read the Bible for themselves.

The literacy rate in Europe can be judged by the literacy rate in France in 1700 which was just 30%. From wikipedia

In 12th and 13th century England, the ability to read a particular passage from the Bible entitled a common law defendant to the so-called benefit of clergy provision, which entitled a person to be tried before an ecclesiastical court, where sentences were more lenient, instead of a secular one, where hanging was a likely sentence. This opened the door to literate lay defendants also claiming the right to the benefit of clergy provision, and - because the Biblical passage used for the literacy test was invariably Psalm 51 (Miserere mei, Deus... - "O God, have mercy upon me...") - an illiterate person who had memorized the appropriate verse could also claim the benefit of clergy provision.[23]

As Roman authority disappeared in the west, cities, literacy, trading networks and urban infrastructure declined. Where civic functions and infrastructure were maintained, it was mainly by the Christian Church. Augustine of Hippo is an example of one bishop who became a capable civic administrator.

Saint Benedict wrote the definitive Rule for western monasticism during the 6th century, detailing the administrative and spiritual responsibilities of a community of monks led by an abbot.[9] The style of monasticism based upon the Benedictine Rule spread widely rapidly across Europe, replacing small clusters of cenobites. Monks and monasteries had a deep effect upon the religious and political life of the Early Middle Ages, in various cases acting as land trusts for powerful families, centres of propaganda and royal support in newly conquered regions, bases for mission, and proselytization. They were the main outposts of education and literacy.

From here

The center of life throughout Europe in the Middle Ages was the Roman Catholic Church. For the better part of the period the church was the most powerful institution in all of Europe and the only one to span the separate kingdoms. The church was the keeper of knowledge and learning, maintaining books and literacy at a time when most people could not read

Or the best article I've read is from sarah woodbury

What it means to be literate is not an absolute standard even now. This was even more true in the Middle Ages when the majority of the population couldn’t read at all, a certain percentage could read and not write, and the only way to be ‘literate’ at the time was if a person could read Latin. Literacy in other languages didn’t count.

“A Companion to Britain in the Later Middle Ages“makes the argument that literacy in England began increasing starting in 1100, after which all the kings were literate in Latin and French, although there was again a difference between reading and writing. By 1500, he estimates the literacy among males still did not exceed 10-25%.

During the early centuries of Christianity, the world of Latin literacy changed from one where a significant percentage of the population was literate and all governmental and business affairs were carried out in writing, to one where written literacy shrank to occupy the enclaves of Christianity which spread like little islands in non-literate barbarian cultures and select writing offices of the new barbarian royalty. These latter were most likely in no way separate from the monasteries, but a specialised extension of their literate functions.

Note this -- By 1500, he estimates the literacy among males in England still did not exceed 10-25%. --> we can extrapolate that to all of Europe and settle on say 15% for all of Northern Europe (the main centres of learning were still in Italy). The fact is that most didn't read the Bible because most (85%) did not know how to read and it didn't really matter as books were not available (no printing press) or reasonably priced (since they were copied by hand they cost more than a few years of labor)

Secondly, most of those 15% who COULD read and write did so in Latin, so reading the Latin Vulgate was pretty do-able for the literates in Europe

========================================================

Between the fall of W Roman Empire 430 and the 1500s the division wasn't between those who could read Latin and those who couldn't, but between those who could read Latin and those who couldn't read at all.

As a result of widespread illiteracy, the masses had to learn biblical truths in other ways, and these were richly provided by the Church. Monks and priests taught Bible stories. Sacred dramas, paintings, statues, frescoes, and stained glass windows were used as were passion plays.

Far from trying to keep the Bible from the laity, the Catholic Church used every means at its disposal to educate the faithful in the truths of Holy Writ.

There were vernacular translations of scripture too --> you can see this in the preface of the 1611 Authorized Version (the King James Version), which says that "to have the Scriptures in the mother tongue is not a quaint conceit lately taken up, either by the Lord Cromwell in England [or others] . . . but hath been thought upon, and put in practice of old, even from the first times of the conversion of any nation."

St. Thomas More wrote in the sixteenth century that "the whole Bible was long before his [Wycliffe's] day, by virtuous and well-learned men, translated into the English tongue; and by good and godly people, and with devotion and soberness, well and reverently read." The Venerable Bede died in 735 as he was finishing the translation of the Gospel of St. John. A manuscript containing a complete Anglo-Saxon interlinear translation of the Book of Psalms, dating from 825, is still preserved in what is known as the Vespasian Psalter.

King Alfred the Great also undertook the work of translating the psalms into the vernacular English of his time. The abbot Aelfric about 990 translated many parts of both the Old and the New Testaments into English.

Misuse of the sacred text by the Albigensians in France, by the Lollards in England, by the Hussites in Bohemia, and by other heretics compelled the Church to adopt a conservative attitude as we see in the history of early first century heresies

[Cronos]

Jvette, Mr Rogers, one point our friends miss is that a lot of what Boettner et al say is half-truths out of context. For example
The Latin language, used in prayer and worship, imposed by [Pope] Gregory I [A.D.] 600

This neglects the fact that Latin was used in worship far earlier than 600

The Church spread from the Greek-speaking East to the Latin-speaking West (for example, to Rome) during apostolic times. One of Paul’s letters was written to the Christians in Rome. More than one of his letters was written from Rome. And there were Christians in Caesar’s household in Paul’s day (Phil. 4:22). Worship, not surprisingly, was undertaken in the vernacular language, which was Greek in much of the East and Latin in the West (though at the beginning, Greek was used even in the West because it was then the lingua franca of the Roman Empire).

Or even "Bible forbidden to laymen, placed on the Index of Forbidden Books by the Council of Valencia . . . [A.D.] 1229."

Boettner has his history completely wrong. The first thing to note is that the Index of Forbidden Books was established in 1559, so a council held in 1229 could hardly have listed a book on it.

The second point is that there apparently has never been any Church council in Valencia, Spain. If there had been one, it could not have taken place in 1229 because Muslim Moors then controlled the city. It is inconceivable that Muslims, who were at war with Spanish Christians, and had been off and on for five centuries, would allow Catholic bishops to hold a council in one of their cities. The Christian armies did not liberate Valencia from Moorish rule until nine years later, 1238. So Valencia is out.

But there is another possibility, and that is Toulouse, France, where a council was held in 1229. And, yes, that council dealt with the Bible. It was organized in reaction to the Albigensian or Catharist heresy, which held that there are two gods and that marriage is evil because all matter (and thus physical flesh) is evil From this the heretics concluded that fornication could be no sin, and they even encouraged suicide among their members. In order to promulgate their sect, the Albigensians published an inaccurate translation of the Bible in the vernacular language rather like the Jehovah’s Witnesses of today publishing their severely flawed New World Translation of the Bible, which has been deliberately mistranslated to support the sect’s claims). Had it been an accurate translation, the Church would not have been concerned. Vernacular versions had been appearing for centuries. But what came from the hands of the Albigensians was an adulterated Bible. The bishops at Toulouse forbade the reading of it because it was inaccurate. In this they were caring for their flocks, just as a Protestant minister of today might tell his flock not to read the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation.