Posted on 10/25/2013 1:32:26 PM PDT by Gamecock
"I defy the pope and all his laws; and, if God spares me, I will one day make the boy that drives the plow in England to know more of the Scriptures than the pope does!" So said translation pioneer William Tyndale.
Born near Dursley, Gloucestershire, UK, between 1484 and 1496, Tyndale developed a zeal to get the Bible into the hands of the common man—a passion for which he ultimately gave his life.
Educated at Oxford and Cambridge, Tyndale became fluent in at least seven languages. In 1522, the same year Luther translated the New Testament into German, Tyndale was an ordained Catholic priest serving John Walsh of Gloucestershire. It was during this time, when Tyndale was 28 years of age, that he began pouring over Erasmus’ Greek New Testament. The more he studied the more the doctrines of the Reformation became clear. And like a great fire kindled by a lighting strike, so Tyndale’s heart was set ablaze by the doctrines of grace:
By grace . . . we are plucked out of Adam the ground of all evil and graffed in Christ, the root of all goodness. In Christ God loved us, his elect and chosen, before the world began and reserved us unto the knowledge of his Son and of his holy gospel; and when the gospel is preached to us openeth our hearts and giveth us grace to believe, and putteth the spirit of Christ in us: and we know him as our Father most merciful, and consent to the law and love it inwardly in our heart and desire to fulfill it and sorrow because we do not.
Rome’s Opposition to an English Translation
Nearly 200 years earlier, starting in 1382, John Wycliff and his followers (known as Lollards) distributed hand-written English translations of Scripture. The Archbishop of Canterbury responded by having Wycliffe and his writings condemned.
But Rome was not finished. In 1401, Parliament passed a law making heresy a capital offence. Seven years later, the Archbishop of Canterbury made it a crime to “translate any text of the Scripture into English or any other tongue . . . and that no man can read any such book . . . in part or in whole." The sentence was burning. Across Europe, the flames were ignited and the Lollards were all but destroyed. Rome was determined to keep God’s Word out of the people’s hands.
. . . as a boy of 11 watched the burning of a young man in Norwich for possessing the Lord’s Prayer in English . . . John Foxe records . . . seven Lollards burned at Coventry in 1519 for teaching their children the Lord’s Prayer in English.
John Bale (1495-1563)
Rome was not finished with Wycliffe either: 44 years after his death, the pope ordered Wycliffe’s bones exhumed, burned, and his ashes scattered.
Tyndale was truly in great danger.
Tyndale’s End
Fearing for his life, Tyndale fled London for Brussels in 1524 where he continued his translation work for the next 12 years. Tyndale’s time in exile was dreadful, as he describes in a 1531 letter:
. . . my pains . . . my poverty . . . my exile out of mine natural country, and bitter absence from my friends . . . my hunger, my thirst, my cold, the great danger wherewith I am everywhere encompassed, and finally . . . innumerable other hard and sharp fighting’s which I endure.
On the evening of May 21, 1535, Tyndale was betrayed to the authorities by a man he trusted, Henry Philips. For the next 18 months, Tyndale lived a prisoner in Vilvorde Castle, six miles outside of Brussles. The charge was heresy.
The verdict came in August, 1536. He was condemned as a heretic and defrocked as a priest. On or about October 6, 1536, Tyndale was tied to a stake, strangled by an executioner, and then his body burned. He was 42 years old. His last words were, “Lord! Open the King of England’s Eyes!”
Tyndale’s Legacy
Tyndale’s translations were the foundations for Miles Coverdale’s Great Bible (1539) and later for the Geneva Bible (1557). As a matter of fact, about 90% of the Geneva Bible’s New Testement was Tyndale’s work. In addition, the 54 scholars who produced the 1611 Authorized Version (King James) bible relied heavily upon Tyndale’s translations, although they did not give him credit.
Tyndale is also known as a pioneer in the biblical languages. He introduced several words into the English language, such as Jehovah, Passover, scapegoat, and atonement.
It has been asserted that Tyndale's place in history has not yet been sufficiently recognized as a translator of the Scriptures, as an apostle of liberty, and as a chief promoter of the Reformation in England. In all these respects his influence has been singularly under-valued, at least to Protestants.
This is an interesting debate. I will note for clarity an actual account of shutting down Bible reading. Remember the Jansenists? They were shut down hard we are told because of unauthorized Bible copying and reading. I think the real danger was they preached original sin, human depravity, the necessity of divine grace, and predestination.
Sound familiar? Sure one would say Calvin. However they backed up their unauthorized Bible studies with Augustine’s works. That was a danger to the Papacy that had to be crushed right away or the cat would have been out of the bag.
Augustine has been a thorn in the hind of the RCC for a very long time. Luther wasn’t even the first Augustinian monk to “let the cat out of the bag.”
“Besides getting upset, do you intend to actually answer my questions or not?”
1) I’m not upset. I expect Protestant anti-Catholics to be hypocrites. 2) I see no reason to define “merit” if you won’t define “earn”.
“Or, is the problem that you don’t understand it yourself?”
Understanding it or not understanding it can’t stop me from posting an definition from the CCC or another important published work. I think the real question is: Why do YOU seem so upset? And why are you not defining “earn”?
“Obviously everyone with a brain defines merits and works as meaning the same exact thing.”
REALLY? So, you actually would define an action (which you seem to be saying - erroneously - is exclusively done on the part of the human person) to be the same thing as what God gives the person who you say committed the action? That would be like saying - and I’ll use the erroneous Protestant anti-Catholic outlook here that you’re embracing - if a man wins a race at the Olympics that running of the race is actually the exact same thing as the gold medal he receives later on the awards stand. That’s an irrational view. They are not the same thing.
“Obviously grace can never be earned by anything, and can only be given gratuitously to someone who does not deserve it in any way.”
And that is exactly what I have said. God decides who merits and who doesn’t. Grace is ALWAYS A GIFT. Merit is not earning.
“Do you even understand what this actually means? It’s basically like you’re saying, “God will decide who is worthy to be saved, therefore it is not by our worthiness.””
Yes, I understand it very well. That’s exactly why I said: “According to God DECIDING who merits and who doesn’t. Again, that’s not “earning”.”
“Notice that you don’t actually explain “how they are different,””
No, I said: “They are different in time, effect, and relationship.” Do you even read the posts?
“...and now you are lapsing back to the obvious, that you say that it is not God who makes us righteous through his infallible power, but man who meets God in the middle, and is therefore earning the grace of salvation as a reward for his obedience.”
That is NOT what I said at all. It is amazing to me how you are twisting my words and claiming I said something I never said. I never said, “it is not God who makes us righteous through his infallible power”. I am saying THE EXACT OPPOSITE. What you’re claiming is THE EXACT OPPOSITE of everything I have EVER posted on this topic! Why is it that Protestant anti-Catholics so often resort to making things up out of thin air???
“So, can you please tell me exactly “how” they are different?”
If you’re going to completely make up things I never, EVER, said why would it matter what I say to you? Won’t you just make up whatever you want? If I give you an answer you don’t like, won’t you just create a sentence or two I never said and claim I said them? Seriously, do you not see why that is wrong?
“So now you’re getting your theology from someone who isn’t even a Catholic?”
No, I used something he commented upon to make a point. How is that wrong?
“And what do you even MEAN by it?”
It was clear. If it isn’t to you, then I suggest the problem lies with you.
“You should spend more time answering my questions instead of saying random stuff about screwtape.”
No. Paraphrasing CS Lewis is much better than answering your questions since CS Lewis isn’t around to make things up and claim I said them when I never did. If you can’t see why you should define “earn”, and if you will just make up things I have never claimed in my entire life then why should I spend any time answering your questions?
“But of course we all know the Scriptures cannot be that difficult if Fishermen and goat herders got it.”
Did they all get it? One fisherman was sure that wasn’t happening: 2 Peter 3:16.
“Merit” “earn” matters not. Both are bunk in the eyes of the Father.
The Father delights in the Son and it is The Son’s Righteousness that matters. Those who are in Christ have His reckoned (imputed) righteousness.
So it was NEVER about us at all. It is all about Jesus, because The Father delights in the Son.
“This is an interesting debate. I will note for clarity an actual account of shutting down Bible reading. Remember the Jansenists?...However they backed up their unauthorized Bible studies with Augustine’s works. That was a danger to the Papacy that had to be crushed right away or the cat would have been out of the bag.”
No. The Jansenist Paschaste Quesnel insisted that Bible study was necessary “at all times, in all places, and for every kind of person, to study and to know the spirit, the piety, and the mysteries of Sacred Scripture.”
Also, the Jansensists required no authorization for the Bible studies - until they deviated from Church teaching. Quesnel, as a member of the congregation of the Oratory, had every right to study, teach and write about scripture as every other member as discerned by the discretion of the Oratory’s leader.
““Merit” “earn” matters not. Both are bunk in the eyes of the Father.”
No.
“The Father delights in the Son and it is The Son’s Righteousness that matters. Those who are in Christ have His reckoned (imputed) righteousness.”
No. Imputed righteousness is a half measure. Christ didn’t die on the cross to give us a half measure. He didn’t bleed out His last sacred drop of blood to give us a half measure. The Father doesn’t pretend we are holy - which is what imputed righteousness really implies. Christ died so that we could REALLY become holy - not just be imputed to be holy or righteous.
http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2012/11/infused-v-imputed.html
“So it was NEVER about us at all. It is all about Jesus, because The Father delights in the Son.”
And that is what I have said: Jesus is the beginning, the middle, and end.
“1) I’m not upset. I expect Protestant anti-Catholics to be hypocrites. 2) I see no reason to define “merit” if you won’t define “earn”.”
Okay, to “earn” something is to receive something as a reward for one’s merits.
“Understanding it or not understanding it can’t stop me from posting an definition from the CCC or another important published work. “
Okay, please provide the CCC definition for a “merit” that is not, in fact, meritorious.
“REALLY? So, you actually would define an action (which you seem to be saying - erroneously - is exclusively done on the part of the human person) to be the same thing as what God gives the person who you say committed the action? That would be like saying - and I’ll use the erroneous Protestant anti-Catholic outlook here that you’re embracing - if a man wins a race at the Olympics that running of the race is actually the exact same thing as the gold medal he receives later on the awards stand. That’s an irrational view. They are not the same thing.”
I’m not quite sure what it is you’re trying to argue is “irrational.” From the theological perspective, “running” for the prize is just as much a merit as winning the race for the prize, since it shows your obedience and willingness to chase after the prize, and is boast worthy, since not everyone does that. And, presumably, from the Papist perspective, it is God who will walk you across the finish line, provided you run half way and earn his help. If you are saying that your own argument is irrational, then I suppose you would be correct. It also isn’t the scriptural view:
Rom 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
If the mercy of God cannot make your will righteous, and preserve you to your death, then it is the obedience of man that is willingly cooperating with God. If you are willingly cooperating with God with your faithfulness and obedience, and this same faithfulness and obedience is not created in you by God alone, then your salvation is a reward for that cooperation, since not everyone cooperates, only some people, and the mercy of God, by itself, cannot make your will righteous, give to you faith, or keep you from falling away. Therefore grace, as the catechism suggests, is given as a reward for your continual obedience and works done after the initial grace that is not merited.
“Yes, I understand it very well.”
I don’t think you do, because instead of responding to what I said, you basically just confirmed it. So you admit that what you’re saying is identical to: “God chooses who it is that is worthy enough to be saved. Therefore, our worthiness does not earn salvation.” It’s a completely absurd statement, of course.
“No, I said: “They are different in time, effect, and relationship.” Do you even read the posts?”
At this point you’re literally just repeating yourself. How does saying “they are different in time, effect, and relationship” answer the question “how are they different in time, effect and relationship?”
If one of them cannot be merited, but the other one is merited, what, actually, is the difference, if the word “merit” isn’t actually something that is due a reward?
“That is NOT what I said at all. It is amazing to me how you are twisting my words and claiming I said something I never said. I never said, “it is not God who makes us righteous through his infallible power”. I am saying THE EXACT OPPOSITE. What you’re claiming is THE EXACT OPPOSITE of everything I have EVER posted on this topic! Why is it that Protestant anti-Catholics so often resort to making things up out of thin air???”
I suspect this is what cognitive dissonance looks like. If God is making us righteous through His infallible power, what is it that man can possibly add to that work of God? If God’s power is not sufficient to make a man righteous by itself, but rather a man must cooperate with that power in order to make it effectual, then God’s power is not strong enough to do it by itself.
But if you hold to my position, that the power of God is powerful enough to both make the will of man righteous, and preserve him to everlasting life, it does not follow that anyone is receiving a reward for merits. Since, merits are only given as a result of a salvation already secured, and which have no bearing whatsoever on that salvation. It is only an evidence that that salvation, or work of God, exists within the individual predestinated to eternal life before the world began. In other words, there is nothing left to receive as a reward for one’s merits, because it is by God’s grace that we produce any works at all. Therefore salvation is by the grace of God only, for the purpose of creating faith and works in an individual who is already washed totally clean by the blood of Christ.
Though our works are not perfect, as even Paul complained of constant sins within his body. But any sense of earning salvation, or of lacking anything, and having to go through purgatory, or possessing any native goodness in us, or any hope in earning salvation by our works, is done away completely, since we can trust completely in the work of God.
“No. Paraphrasing CS Lewis is much better than answering your questions since CS Lewis isn’t around to make things up and claim I said them when I never did. If you can’t see why you should define “earn”, and if you will just make up things I have never claimed in my entire life then why should I spend any time answering your questions?”
I have a sense that you’re going a little crazy at this point. I like it!
“No. Imputed righteousness is a half measure. Christ didn’t die on the cross to give us a half measure. He didn’t bleed out His last sacred drop of blood to give us a half measure. The Father doesn’t pretend we are holy - which is what imputed righteousness really implies. Christ died so that we could REALLY become holy - not just be imputed to be holy or righteous.”
If Christ’s righteousness is not imputed on us, but rather, we actually become as holy as Christ, it does not explain Paul who, in chapter 7, deals with the constant sins of the flesh that he possessed, as well as the other verses which say that an inability to follow the entire law perfectly makes you guilty of the whole. If one is made guilty by the whole, then it does not follow that we can ever be holy in the sight of God by our own merits. Therefore, the only option is that the perfection of Christ is imputed on us, who are not perfect at all.
“Okay, to “earn” something is to receive something as a reward for one’s merits.”
That is incorrect. Try again. Seriously, try again.
“If Christ’s righteousness is not imputed on us, but rather, we actually become as holy as Christ...”
And there you go making things up again. Please show me where I ever claimed “we actually become as holy as Christ...”.
If you can’t show me where I said that, then you’ll have to start over with your paragraph there. I see no reason to just let you keep making things up I never actually said. Protestant anti-Catholics might think it is moral to lie - that sure seems to be the case - but I see no reason to accept such thing.
“That is incorrect. Try again. Seriously, try again”
How, exactly, is that incorrect? What do the words “earn” and “merit” even mean then? If a merit is something you possess which is worthy of reward, and, in the case of the catechism, is something that we have which can receive both early benefits and eternal rewards for possessing. And if to earn something is to be worthy to receive something due to possessing some merit, then, in either case, you are receiving grace as a debt (you are earning it) for your merits.
If not, then what is the definition of merit? Why is meriting being mentioned at all, if actually you receive nothing for your merits? And why did your link argue that salvation is a reward for good works, if your purpose was to deny that?
“And there you go making things up again. Please show me where I ever claimed “we actually become as holy as Christ...”.
If you can’t show me where I said that, then you’ll have to start over with your paragraph there. I see no reason to just let you keep making things up I never actually said. Protestant anti-Catholics might think it is moral to lie - that sure seems to be the case - but I see no reason to accept such thing.”
How am I lying? If the infusion of Christ’s holiness or righteousness in us, does not actually make us Holy or righteous, then what is it for then? I’m not putting words into your mouth. I’m asking you to be consistent with the meaning of words.
What does it mean to be “holy?” or to be “righteous”? God is described as Holy. God is perfect. Therefore, why is it that the “holiness” of man is something that is not also perfect?
And why does Christ say that no one is good, except for Him?
Luk_18:19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.
And what does it mean when Paul declares that none are actually righteous?
The only logical conclusion is that we are not righteous, but are considered righteous because of our faith in the sight of God. In fact, none of our good works are even our own, but are given to us directly by God who is the true author of them. Therefore man has no merits at all, but is utterly sinful in the sight of God, and are blessed to have the actual merits of Christ alone whose perfection is imputed onto us.
Therefore, Christ’s righteousness is not infused in us. It is imputed onto us, exactly as the scripture says:
Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
“How, exactly, is that incorrect?”
You don’t know? If you don’t, then how can you compare it to merit which only now you want me to define? This is the hubris of Protestant anti-Catholics on display.
Please show me where I ever claimed “we actually become as holy as Christ...”.
if you cannot show me where I said that, then you can’t claim I said it or believe it.
Now, show me where I ever claimed “we actually become as holy as Christ...”.
“You don’t know? If you don’t, then how can you compare it to merit which only now you want me to define? “
What makes you think I don’t know? I already told you it, and I am correct. If it is not correct, why can’t you define it and explain how it is not correct? You even challenged me to define it, because, I guess, you think that to define the word “earn” is so hard, even though we use it every day when we are “earning our paycheck,” or “earning our day off,” for the merit of our hard work.
So I met your challenge. Will you give me the proper definitions for “earning” and “merits,” which, I guess, ought to mean the exact opposite of what they plainly mean? And then, having done so, can you apply it to the sentence from CCC 2010 and explain what it means?
“Please show me where I ever claimed “we actually become as holy as Christ...”.
if you cannot show me where I said that, then you can’t claim I said it or believe it.
Now, show me where I ever claimed “we actually become as holy as Christ...”.”
When you said that we are infused with the righteousness of Christ. If the righteousness of Christ does not make us as righteous as Christ, once infused onto us, then can you please tell us what it is you actually mean, and answer all my other questions in that post?
“What makes you think I don’t know?”
Your erroneous definition.
“So I met your challenge.”
Nope. You did not define “earn”. You posted something other than the definition. Try again.
You wrote:
“When you said that we are infused with the righteousness of Christ.”
Where in that do you see: “we actually become as holy as Christ...”?
“If the righteousness of Christ does not make us as righteous as Christ, once infused onto us, then can you please tell us what it is you actually mean, and answer all my other questions in that post?”
When you tell me where I ever said “we actually become as holy as Christ...” we might be able to move forward.
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.