Tyndale and defying the Pope

[MarkRohfrietsch]

<snip>
10) Christ's first and only coming did not fulfil nor setup everything that needed to be fulfilled and setup through his Holy Spirit within the timeframe of this earthly realm.

Interesting...

<snip>

Men saving men.

This is a lie!

First, men are not saving men; and yet you say that Christ's sacrifice was insufficient in your point 10.

This is so sad. I think you have spoken about a "once and for all sacrifice when you defame the Mass, yet in your point 10 you deny the concept of a once and for all sacrifice.

You have dug yourself into a hole with a paradox that can not be resolved.

One might say that you have created a sanctification "Limbo".

I expect no response, because such a paradox is indefensible.

 

[Serpentslayer]

I'm not a Catholic nor a Protestant for my communion is with Christ through His Holy Spirit.

Second coming doctrine is what has kept the captive congregation in a state of ecclesiastical control by the hierarchy of the church in order to place a false hope. Much like the false hope of Santa clause is soon coming, so make sure you listen to your parents and be good at all times. This second coming doctrine is a spiritual tranquilliser to subdue people from knowing the truth through scripture.

Scripture plainly declares that to be in the presence of Christ the faithful must be vigilant in faith onto death where the thief (death) comes in a day and hour that no man knows to destroy (kill) your earthly house (body).

Doctrines, dogmas and councils are to be compared to the unadulterated 1st century teachings and if it doesn't line up then it must be rejected.

The 1st century church didn't teach about the following:

1) Christ's kingdom has not yet been established in Heaven
2) The resurrection of the dead has not yet commenced
3) The heavenly measured court of the 24 kingly judges has not yet been established by Christ
4) Christ's white throne judgement with his seated inner court of 24 judges has not yet commenced in separating the sheep from the TARES in judging all nations.
5) There is no first judgement after death immediately when the earthly body is dissolved.
6) Departed Saints are not reigning with Christ
7) Confess your sins before a priest
8) Pay pennants for the departed serving in purgatory
9) The faithful in Christ go to purgatory
10) Christ's first and only coming did not fulfil nor setup everything that needed to be fulfilled and setup through his Holy Spirit within the timeframe of this earthly realm.

The Holy Spirit of God is the only forgiver, healer, sanctifier and resurrector of a justified by the blood of the lamb of God faithful.

Purgatory, penance and confession to a priest is man trying his best to say to God that he saves other men.

Men saving men.

This is a lie!

Please don't try to represent me because I believe the contrary to all the above 10 points, they were all fulfilled in Christ. Amen.

I believe in Christ and by His Holy Spirit all these are fulfilled:

1) Christ's kingdom has been established in Heaven
2) The resurrection of the dead has commenced
3) The heavenly measured court of the 24 kingly judges has been established by Christ
4) Christ's white throne judgement with his seated inner court of 24 judges has commenced in separating the sheep from the TARES in judging all nations.
5) There is first judgement after death immediately when the earthly body is dissolved.
6) Departed Saints are reigning with Christ in Heavenly New Jerusalem.

Today's church by the second coming doctrine DOES NOT supports all the 6 points above.

If you are waiting for a manifestation of Christ within the time based realm to finish the question of salvation onto resurrection then you would NOT agree with all the above 6 points.

Why you would NOT agree, is because you would clearly state that the Kingdom of Christ has not yet been establish in Heaven because there is no one with him in heaven because the resurrection of the dead has not happened until he comes back the second time.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yeah.

I was on a Calvinist forum some yrs [predestinarian.net] and a thread called "James Exposed".
That was one of the most hotly debated issues.
...

Yet another thread resurrection, brought to us by brother LittleLambofJesus

Let sleeping threads lie

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Yet another thread resurrection, brought to us by brother LittleLambofJesus

Monty Python Bring out Your Dead - YouTube

Let sleeping threads lie

 

[Erose]

No, actually it was a political act by the British Parliament in the late 18th or early 19 th. cent. I think.

i don't think it was a political act. As best as I can find is that the removal of these Sacred Writings in at least English Bibles was due to a decision of the Biblical Society to save money in Bible production. I never wrote that Luther removed these Sacred books, but rather his devaluation of them started the ball rolling.

Yes, the laity in our Church lost it for a time with the transition to English (the only English translation was the KJV w/o the Apocrypha; however the Church retained these in our Confessions and in our Liturgy. Over the years there have been a number of supplemental printings of these books; the latest is the: The Apocrypha: The Lutheran Edition with Notes

I'm glad to hear that at least some Lutherans continue to have some value for these sacred books.

Again, his devaluation was no more nor no less that that of many Catholic theologians, St. Jerome included.

This isn't true. Jerome was not a leader in the Church. He was not a bishop, and he was corrected by the leaders of our Church. He latter recanted his position by claiming he never held that position, but rather he was pointing out the Jewish position. The difference between Jerome and Luther was leadership. Luther's words carried much more weight with his followers.

There are no Catholic Bible Scholars that do not agree that these books (and the additions to Esther and Daniel) were written in intertestamental times. Likewise, there are no Confessional Lutheran Bible Scholars who will dispute there importance to the interpretation of Scripture, since they draw on the OT and are quoted and more often referenced in the NT.

There is no such thing as an inter-testament period. The period of the Old Covenant ended when Christ sacrificed Himself on the cross. These Sacred Books in Catholic Church have the exact same weight as all other OT books.

Please cut Luther and us Confessional Lutherans a bit of slack; Luther's ordering of these books was not without historic precedent, it was not an innovation. The British Parliament on the other hand....

Sadly I cannot. What Luther did is put doubt in the mind of those who would eventually become all these Protestant churches to the point where now a very large section of Christainity does not possess a full Bible. Was it all Luther's fault? No. But he definitely planted the seed.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

i don't think it was a political act. As best as I can find is that the removal of these Sacred Writings in at least English Bibles was due to a decision of the Biblical Society to save money in Bible production. I never wrote that Luther removed these Sacred books, but rather his devaluation of them started the ball rolling.

Actually it was excluded from the Cannon by the British Parliament in 1647 with the adoption of the Westminster Confession of Faith (which considered them merely "other human writings"). They were still printed until the British Foreign Bible society in the early 1800's refused to continue printing them.

I'm glad to hear that at least some Lutherans continue to have some value for these sacred books.

Thanks

This isn't true. Jerome was not a leader in the Church. He was not a bishop, and he was corrected by the leaders of our Church. He latter recanted his position by claiming he never held that position, but rather he was pointing out the Jewish position. The difference between Jerome and Luther was leadership. Luther's words carried much more weight with his followers.

One must give good scholarship it's due, and Jerome was the premier Bible Scholar of his time; but being the good Catholic that he was he did submit to the authority of the Church (the same authority that identified the good "scholarly" science of Galileo heretical).

It's also interesting to note that Oringen of Alexandrian noted that there were differences between the Apocrypha and the Hebrew Scriptures. Cyril of Jerusalem like Jerome also felt that these books should not be used for supporting Church Dogma.

There is no such thing as an inter-testament period. The period of the Old Covenant ended when Christ sacrificed Himself on the cross. These Sacred Books in Catholic Church have the exact same weight as all other OT books.

There is if one looks at the period between the OT minor prophets and the Gospels.

Sadly I cannot. What Luther did is put doubt in the mind of those who would eventually become all these Protestant churches to the point where now a very large section of Christianity does not possess a full Bible. Was it all Luther's fault? No. But he definitely planted the seed.

Actually, Luther did not plant the seeds either; as stated above it was Cyril and Jerome who planted the seeds; and while those seeds germinated and grew during the period known as the Reformation; they still yield fruit (for some Lutherans), in that through their historical record and their accounts of the beliefs and practices of the faithful they give us more depth and a fuller contextual understanding of the rest of the Bible.

 

[brinny]

didn't Tyndale die a tragic death? (sorry i might be getting Tyndale and Luther mixed up)

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

didn't Tyndale die a tragic death? (sorry i might be getting Tyndale and Luther mixed up)

Yes.
It is in the original OP post:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7495160-39/#post55593096


.

 

[brinny]

Sorry, i just read the OP (i had read it a while back, but had forgotten).....his death was tragic. Seems like he was hated beyond measure.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I wish I could both both "Tyndale was right in rejecting Roman Catholicism" and "Tyndale was a heretic."

 

[MoreCoffee]

I wish I could both both "Tyndale was right in rejecting Roman Catholicism" and "Tyndale was a heretic."

heh heh heh

I reckon he was wrong. I also reckon he was a heretic.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Sadly I cannot. What Luther did is put doubt in the mind of those who would eventually become all these Protestant churches to the point where now a very large section of Christainity does not possess a full Bible. Was it all Luther's fault? No. But he definitely planted the seed.

You say this as if Luther wasn't preceded by Jan Hus and John Wycliffe, and as though Luther founded the Reformed camp of Protestantism. Ulrich Zwingli is the father of the Reformed, and he came to his conclusions and conducted his work independently of Luther. It was Zwingli who inspired Heinrich Bullinger, Johannes Oecolampadius, Peter Martyr Vermigli, Jan Laski, and eventually John Calvin, quite independently of Luther. These two reform movements had separate sparks, and it was the Zwinglian spark that eventually developed into the Reformed movement, Congregationalism, Presbyterianism, Methodism, the Baptists, and all the rest. The exception is Anglicanism, wherein the influence was about equal. But any influence Luther and later Lutherans exerted on these movements was conservative and from the outside.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by GratiaCorpusChristi

I wish I could both both "Tyndale was right in rejecting Roman Catholicism" and "Tyndale was a heretic."
​

heh heh heh

I reckon he was wrong. I also reckon he was a heretic.

Noted

Tyndale was wrong in rejecting Roman Catholicism 13 10.32%
Armadillo, Bushido216, charsan2, christseeker45, Dark_Lite, fireof god98, IndieVisible, Kepha, MoreCoffee, MrPolo, plmarquette, Sarcalogos Deus, ServantJohn

Tyndale was a heretic 16 12.70%
Ave Maria, chilehed, Dylan Michael, Gottlieb, HarryCovert, JacktheCatholic, Kurama, LOCO, Nik0s, princess_ballet, Sander, Sphinx777, StThomasMore, tadoflamb, Virgil the Roman, Yab Yum



.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

You say this as if Luther wasn't preceded by Jan Hus and John Wycliffe, and as though Luther founded the Reformed camp of Protestantism. Ulrich Zwingli is the father of the Reformed, and he came to his conclusions and conducted his work independently of Luther. It was Zwingli who inspired Heinrich Bullinger, Johannes Oecolampadius, Peter Martyr Vermigli, Jan Laski, and eventually John Calvin, quite independently of Luther. These two reform movements had separate sparks, and it was the Zwinglian spark that eventually developed into the Reformed movement, Congregationalism, Presbyterianism, Methodism, the Baptists, and all the rest. The exception is Anglicanism, wherein the influence was about equal. But any influence Luther and later Lutherans exerted on these movements was conservative and from the outside.

Indeed. I just finished a book called Prince, People, and Confession: The Second Reformation in Brandenburg by Bodo Nischan. Rather than influencing the Calvinists, it seems that we not only shared the same concerns as the RCC, but not infrequently did we join to prevent the Calvinist influence in both the Lutheran and Catholic states.

Different time, different place, yet we are still seeing a theological threat from reformed protestants trying to raid orthodoxy.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Indeed. I just finished a book called Prince, People, and Confession: The Second Reformation in Brandenburg by Bodo Nischan. Rather than influencing the Calvinists, it seems that we not only shared the same concerns as the RCC, but not infrequently did we join to prevent the Calvinist influence in both the Lutheran and Catholic states.

Different time, different place, yet we are still seeing a theological threat from reformed protestants trying to raid orthodoxy.

Those naughty "Reformed" folk

 

[Erose]

Actually it was excluded from the Cannon by the British Parliament in 1647 with the adoption of the Westminster Confession of Faith (which considered them merely "other human writings"). They were still printed until the British Foreign Bible society in the early 1800's refused to continue printing them.

Interesting. Haven't heard this before. Mark, do you have any links to documents that support this? The Biblical canon and its establishment is an interest of mine, so that info would be important.

We had a while back a thread discussing this topic, and no Protestant/Evangelical could answer the question on who exactly decided to kick the Christian OT to the curve, and adopted the Masoretic OT as the norm.

Do you have any info on this subject possibly?

One must give good scholarship it's due, and Jerome was the premier Bible Scholar of his time; but being the good Catholic that he was he did submit to the authority of the Church (the same authority that identified the good "scholarly" science of Galileo heretical).

You can give scholarship its due; but at some point when scholarship goes off the rails, then that scholarship needs to be reined in. Jerome didn't reject the Sacred books that the Protestants did. At least not at the end of his life. But there were many bishops that corrected him on his understanding of canon, such as St. Pope Damasus and St. Augustine. The Galileo comment is beneath you. I expect better from you Mark. Besides, it wasn't Galileo's science that got him in trouble. What got him in trouble was when he called the most powerful man in the world at the time, his pope, an idiot. That is what got Galileo in trouble.

It's also interesting to note that Oringen of Alexandrian noted that there were differences between the Apocrypha and the Hebrew Scriptures. Cyril of Jerusalem like Jerome also felt that these books should not be used for supporting Church Dogma.

It should also be noted that Origen and St. Cyril of Jerusalem lived during the time when the Biblical canon was still pretty fluid. It wasn't until St. Damasus at the synod of Rome, I think in 397ad, that the Christian canon was fixed in the west; with the synods of Hippo and then the Carthage that it was set in the east. Well in the east one should say the minimum books considered sacred was fixed.

It should also be pointed out that none of the lists (that I have seen) before the 4th century of the Rabbinical canon is identical to the current Jewish/Protestant canon. There is much evidence that points to the Jews closing their canon somewhere between the 3rd and 6th centuries, with primarily the books of Esther, Epistle of Jeremiah, Baruch I, and Ezekiel being the ones in question.

There is if one looks at the period between the OT minor prophets and the Gospels.

Then you would have to remove Esther and Daniel from your canonical list then. This is an invention of Protestant apologists trying to justify why they rejected the Christian OT.

Actually, Luther did not plant the seeds either; as stated above it was Cyril and Jerome who planted the seeds; and while those seeds germinated and grew during the period known as the Reformation; they still yield fruit (for some Lutherans), in that through their historical record and their accounts of the beliefs and practices of the faithful they give us more depth and a fuller contextual understanding of the rest of the Bible.

Honestly Mark, I doubt very seriously that those who accepted the Rabbinical OT instead of the Christian OT, even considered Cyril and Jerome's positions. If they did then why? You have a few voices out of 1000s, who questioned the canonicity of a few books. Why are these the ones that Protestants decided to listen to? To give authority to, but only in this matter? No, Cyril and Jerome where brought up only by apologists who sought to defend the Protestant Canon, nothing more.

You can't deny that Luther planted the seeds. He may not have eliminated them from his Bible, but he did eliminate them from what he considered canonical. And the rest of Protestantism followed suit.

By the way this is the type of discussion I love Mark. Let us try to learn from each other and hopefully get a little smarter on the subject doing so.

I really would love to see the sources of your first comment though.

Oh yeah, one other question that you may have an answer for. It seems that you have an idea how the English Bible lost these books, but what about the non-English Protestants? Do you have any idea what spurred on them to devalue and remove them from their Bibles?

 

[Erose]

You say this as if Luther wasn't preceded by Jan Hus and John Wycliffe, and as though Luther founded the Reformed camp of Protestantism. Ulrich Zwingli is the father of the Reformed, and he came to his conclusions and conducted his work independently of Luther. It was Zwingli who inspired Heinrich Bullinger, Johannes Oecolampadius, Peter Martyr Vermigli, Jan Laski, and eventually John Calvin, quite independently of Luther. These two reform movements had separate sparks, and it was the Zwinglian spark that eventually developed into the Reformed movement, Congregationalism, Presbyterianism, Methodism, the Baptists, and all the rest. The exception is Anglicanism, wherein the influence was about equal. But any influence Luther and later Lutherans exerted on these movements was conservative and from the outside.

So did Jan Hus and John Wycliffe reject the contested Sacred books then as well? I haven't heard this one before. Any documentation to support this?

Also I am not speaking of doctrine or dogma here which I agree, but rather the Biblical canon and how the Protestant groups almost universally adopted the Rabbinical OT over the Christian OT. Any light on the subject would be appreciated.

Should this become a different thread?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Interesting. Haven't heard this before. Mark, do you have any links to documents that support this? The Biblical canon and its establishment is an interest of mine, so that info would be important.

We had a while back a thread discussing this topic, and no Protestant/Evangelical could answer the question on who exactly decided to kick the Christian OT to the curve, and adopted the Masoretic OT as the norm.

Do you have any info on this subject possibly?

Truth is, I have heard and read this here and there over the years. I'm bad with dates, so I did a quick and dirty search of the internet to find them (Google is my friend). I started with Apocrypha and British Parliament, then added and took away various parameters such as Canon, Anglican, Westminster Confession etc. Found a bunch of stuff; some of which was even relevant.

You can give scholarship its due; but at some point when scholarship goes off the rails, then that scholarship needs to be reined in. Jerome didn't reject the Sacred books that the Protestants did. At least not at the end of his life. But there were many bishops that corrected him on his understanding of canon, such as St. Pope Damasus and St. Augustine. The Galileo comment is beneath you. I expect better from you Mark. Besides, it wasn't Galileo's science that got him in trouble. What got him in trouble was when he called the most powerful man in the world at the time, his pope, an idiot. That is what got Galileo in trouble.

Yes, Galileo was a bit low I admit, but the point remains that one could be right, and still get thrown under the bus... I work in a factory and it happens to me all the time!

It should also be noted that Origen and St. Cyril of Jerusalem lived during the time when the Biblical canon was still pretty fluid. It wasn't until St. Damasus at the synod of Rome, I think in 397ad, that the Christian canon was fixed in the west; with the synods of Hippo and then the Carthage that it was set in the east. Well in the east one should say the minimum books considered sacred was fixed.

It should also be pointed out that none of the lists (that I have seen) before the 4th century of the Rabbinical canon is identical to the current Jewish/Protestant canon. There is much evidence that points to the Jews closing their canon somewhere between the 3rd and 6th centuries, with primarily the books of Esther, Epistle of Jeremiah, Baruch I, and Ezekiel being the ones in question.

Then you would have to remove Esther and Daniel from your canonical list then. This is an invention of Protestant apologists trying to justify why they rejected the Christian OT.


Honestly Mark, I doubt very seriously that those who accepted the Rabbinical OT instead of the Christian OT, even considered Cyril and Jerome's positions. If they did then why? You have a few voices out of 1000s, who questioned the canonicity of a few books. Why are these the ones that Protestants decided to listen to? To give authority to, but only in this matter? No, Cyril and Jerome where brought up only by apologists who sought to defend the Protestant Canon, nothing more.

You can't deny that Luther planted the seeds. He may not have eliminated them from his Bible, but he did eliminate them from what he considered canonical. And the rest of Protestantism followed suit.[/quote]

These things we discuss from our PoVs, as they have been formed by our traditions and our Teachers (ECF's included).

By the way this is the type of discussion I love Mark. Let us try to learn from each other and hopefully get a little smarter on the subject doing so.

Me too, this is why I keep coming back to CF; as much as we enjoy this sort of thing, I'm so looking forward to spending time with the theologians in paradise and find out exactly what they were thinking, and who was actually the most correct.

I really would love to see the sources of your first comment though.

Here's a good place to start: https://www.google.ca/search?q="Can...firefox-a&gws_rd=cr&ei=mb84Uv6-F8WZqgGw74GICQ

Oh yeah, one other question that you may have an answer for. It seems that you have an idea how the English Bible lost these books, but what about the non-English Protestants? Do you have any idea what spurred on them to devalue and remove them from their Bibles?

Here I'm a bit stumped, but I'm going to take a guess at it...

Even post reformation, theologians talked to each other; most often in Latin, regardless of their country of origin; heck Latin was still reasonably common in academia up until the mid 20th cent. Because of the world wide influence of the British Empire, and it being Anglican/Protestant from the RC PoV, they and their theologians had a great deal of influence both throughout the empire and world wide.

German Speaking Protestants gravitated to Luther's Bible, just as English speaking ones did to the KJV.

While I can not speak for the more progressive English Speaking Amish and Mennonites, the conservative old order ones we have in abundance around here still speak German, still worship in German, and still use Luther's translation with the Apocrypha; as did the Reformed Calvinist EUB Church from Germany and Alsace.

Apart from Anglicanism, it's my guess that it was the influence of British, Anglican, Methodist and Scottish reformed and Calvinist Presbyterians, as Britain colonized the world, that introduced the idea of an apocrypha free Bible.

As with so many things British, there may have been an exorbitant tax on paper too!

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

So did Jan Hus and John Wycliffe reject the contested Sacred books then as well? I haven't heard this one before. Any documentation to support this?

Not that I'm aware of.

Also I am not speaking of doctrine or dogma here which I agree, but rather the Biblical canon and how the Protestant groups almost universally adopted the Rabbinical OT over the Christian OT. Any light on the subject would be appreciated.

Should this become a different thread?

Understood.

You could start a new thread, but I don't have a whole lot to add; unlike some here, I do not have a dead horse to flog!

 

[fireof god98]

the Augsburg confession is not used often in Lutheran churches when teaching doctrines