Tyndale and defying the Pope

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Fortunately, I doubt that anyone here is deriving their moral cues from secular society. Would that there were more Christians in society and not a handful of us debating how many angels can dance on the head of Tyndale.

Says the individualist Christian. Face it. Modern Protestantism and evangelicalism are products of the Great Awakenings.

 

[Rhamiel]

my dearest brother in Christ, and my friend, what does that mean? What kind of angels are we speaking of and would that be of God? :o

my comments were a bit uncharitable
but I was being honest

it is possible he repented before he died, but history does not seem to have any record of that

 

[brinny]

repented from what? It is tragic when anyone dies in such a manner he did. I would not wish that on my most earnest enemy, nor Hitler, nor Saddam Hussein, nor anyone else. And i would be suspect of any "angels" dancing on the head of anyone. The question becomes whose angels they are and who their "authority" is.

and certainly a "dancing" on anyone's head should not be celebrated.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

my comments were a bit uncharitable
but I was being honest

it is possible he repented before he died, but history does not seem to have any record of that

And why exactly would Tyndale be in hell? Or Hus, for that matter.

 

[MoreCoffee]

And why exactly would Tyndale be in hell? Or Hus, for that matter.

One cannot know if either man is in hell. Both men were, however, condemned as heretics. Heresy is a serious sin. Unrepented serious sin separates from sanctifying grace and that, typically, is as close to being hell-bound as can be known by folk here on Earth.

Obviously serious sins do bring God's judgement if we are to believe the stories in Genesis and in Israel's history (1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings etc). In our 21st century culture it is considered uncharitable (and bad) to say "so-and-so is a hell bound sinner" or "such-and-such got what he/she deserved" when they are executed. In the bible such observations are in the text.

So, rather than take brother Rhamiel to task for reflecting on the heresies of Huss and Tyndale why not examine the texts in scripture that do the same and more and then tell us why those texts are true (if one says that they are true)?

When the LORD saw how great was man's wickedness on earth, and how no desire that his heart conceived was ever anything but evil, he regretted that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was grieved. So the LORD said: I will wipe out from the earth the men whom I have created, and not only the men, but also the beasts and the creeping things and the birds of the air, for I am sorry that I made them.
(Genesis 6:5-7)

But I say this to you, anyone who is angry with a brother will answer for it before the court; anyone who calls a brother "Fool" will answer for it before the Sanhedrin; and anyone who calls him "Traitor" will answer for it in hell fire.
(Matthew 5:22)

'Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; fear him rather who can destroy both body and soul in hell.
(Matthew 10:28)

'Alas for you, Chorazin! Alas for you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. Still, I tell you that it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on Judgement Day than for you. And as for you, Capernaum, did you want to be raised as high as heaven? You shall be flung down to hell. For if the miracles done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have been standing yet. Still, I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on Judgement Day than for you.'
(Matthew 11:21-24)

'You serpents, brood of vipers, how can you escape being condemned to hell?
(Matthew 23:33)

 

[1Co13]

Unrepented serious sin separates from sanctifying grace and that

Jas 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
Jas 2:11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
Jas 2:12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.

 

[MoreCoffee]

And why exactly would Tyndale be in hell? Or Hus, for that matter.

One cannot know if either man is in hell. Both men were, however, condemned as heretics. Heresy is a serious sin. Unrepented serious sin separates from sanctifying grace and that, typically, is as close to being hell-bound as can be known by folk here on Earth.

Obviously serious sins do bring God's judgement if we are to believe the stories in Genesis and in Israel's history (1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings etc). In our 21st century culture is it considered uncharitable (and bad) to say "so-and-so is a hell bound sinner" or "such-and-such got what he/she deserved" when they are executed. In the bible such observations are in the text.

So, rather than take brother Rhamiel to task for reflecting on the heresies of Huss and Tyndale why not examine the texts in scripture that do the same and more and then tell us why those texts are true (if one says that they are true)?

When the LORD saw how great was man's wickedness on earth, and how no desire that his heart conceived was ever anything but evil, he regretted that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was grieved. So the LORD said: I will wipe out from the earth the men whom I have created, and not only the men, but also the beasts and the creeping things and the birds of the air, for I am sorry that I made them.
(Genesis 6:5-7)

But I say this to you, anyone who is angry with a brother will answer for it before the court; anyone who calls a brother "Fool" will answer for it before the Sanhedrin; and anyone who calls him "Traitor" will answer for it in hell fire.
(Matthew 5:22)

'Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; fear him rather who can destroy both body and soul in hell.
(Matthew 10:28)

'Alas for you, Chorazin! Alas for you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. Still, I tell you that it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on Judgement Day than for you. And as for you, Capernaum, did you want to be raised as high as heaven? You shall be flung down to hell. For if the miracles done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have been standing yet. Still, I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on Judgement Day than for you.'
(Matthew 11:21-24)

'You serpents, brood of vipers, how can you escape being condemned to hell?
(Matthew 23:33)

Jas 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
Jas 2:11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
Jas 2:12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.

I'm not sure if your verse quote post is intended to agree or to disagree with the post to which it replied.

 

[1Co13]

I'm not sure if your verse quote post is intended to agree or to disagree with the post to which it replied.

It was. You referred to serious sin vs minor sin, and i responded to that part.

 

[MoreCoffee]

It was. You referred to serious sin vs minor sin, and i responded to that part.

No. I made no comment about 'minor sin'. Your stated claim above is simply not the truth.

 

[1Co13]

No. I made no comment about 'minor sin'. Your stated claim above is simply not the truth.

The existence of serious sin (which you mentioned) means there must also be minor sin.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The existence of serious sin (which you mentioned) means there must also be minor sin.

Glad that you think so. It's an interesting admission.

If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.
(1 John 5:16-17)

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

One cannot know if either man is in hell. Both men were, however, condemned as heretics. Heresy is a serious sin. Unrepented serious sin separates from sanctifying grace and that, typically, is as close to being hell-bound as can be known by folk here on Earth.

Obviously serious sins do bring God's judgement if we are to believe the stories in Genesis and in Israel's history (1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings etc). In our 21st century culture is it considered uncharitable (and bad) to say "so-and-so is a hell bound sinner" or "such-and-such got what he/she deserved" when they are executed. In the bible such observations are in the text.

So, rather than take brother Rhamiel to task for reflecting on the heresies of Huss and Tyndale why not examine the texts in scripture that do the same and more and then tell us why those texts are true (if one says that they are true)?

Naturally, heresy is a major sin. No argument there, although I would contend that none of the verses actually warrant heresy trials and secular, bodily punishment. Sorry, but if I'm American in any area, it's in my belief that people shouldn't be burned at the stake for religious differences.

But, ignoring that issue, I can understand Tyndale. The Catholic Church considers the Lutheran/Reformed belief in forensic justification by grace alone through faith alone to be heresy. So Tyndale is right out. And, Tyndale argued against prayer to/through the saints, and of course translated the Bible into English.

What I'm amazed by is that someone like Hus, whose positions were that the laity should be able to receive communion in both kinds and that the Bible and parts of the liturgy should be available in the vernacular should have been burned to death. By an ecumenical council no less! Apparently the Council of Constance had no regard for the Latin rite's own history or the continuing history of the Eastern Orthodox, and apparently in the end that particular council could be overruled when Vatican II completely accepted Hus' positions.

When Luther said at Worms that councils have erred and contradicted themselves, this is precisely what he was talking about. He was accused of being a Hussite at the Leipzig disputation by Johann Eck, and later discovered (much to his inital horror) that he was indeed a Hussite. Well, guess what? We're all Hussites now!

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

The existence of serious sin (which you mentioned) means there must also be minor sin.

Catholics and Lutherans would agree on this much: sins have a twofold nature.

Before God all sin is serious sin, and all sin is equally serious. There is no "minor sin" before God.

However, before humans, not all sins are equal. I can go to jail for murder, but not for lying in a non-contractual private context.

And because the church, as the body of Christ, has both a divine and human nature, the church is obligated to deal with sins on both levels. Lutherans and Catholics disagree on how exactly the spiritual equality of sin and the carnal scale of sin relate, but we do have to deal with sins on some sort of a scale.

Consider the case of a pastor:

If a pastor sexually abuses little boys in the congregation, it's a serious sin and needs to be dealt with through defrocking, excommunication, and contacting the authorities.

However, lets say a pastor has lustful thoughts about one of his parishoners but doesn't act on them. It's still a sin. Then, he confesses it to an elder or deacon and moves on. That doesn't mean that elder or deacon needs to lead an effort to defrock the pastor!

So just as God deals with all sin equally, and the state deals only with serious sin, so the church has ways of dealing with sin both as an equally serious offense to God in all circumstances, and as a seriously in increasing offenses.

 

[1Co13]

Glad that you think so. It's an interesting admission.

​

My admission was to speak as if we are judged by the law of liberty.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Naturally, heresy is a major sin. No argument there, although I would contend that none of the verses actually warrant heresy trials and secular, bodily punishment. Sorry, but if I'm American in any area, it's in my belief that people shouldn't be burned at the stake for religious differences.

Fair enough. I am not from the USA and I too regard physical punishment for religious error an inappropriate response. Guess that the USA is following the trends set elsewhere on that matter. However, weren't the Tyndale and the Huss matters dealt with before the USA existed? It is, I think, rather tempting to import 21st century mores into the actions of late 14th to early 16th century disputes but doing so is just bad history.

It's fairly bad theology too

But, ignoring that issue, I can understand Tyndale. The Catholic Church considers the Lutheran/Reformed belief in forensic justification by grace alone through faith alone to be heresy. So Tyndale is right out. And, Tyndale argued against prayer to/through the saints

So he was in heresy then, right? And he was tried according to the law of the land at the time he went into heresy. It's no surprise, therefore, that he was sentenced according to the law of the land. His sentence was to be executed. Nothing illegal was done to him, it seems.

Isn't it true that a number of USA states have a death penalty and execute prisoners in our own times? Isn't it also the case that among the crimes for which a person might be executed is treason?

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Capital punishment (also called the death penalty) in the United States is limited under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and, in practice, is used almost exclusively for aggravated murders committed by mentally competent adults. However since 1994 the death penalty can be used against people who sell illegal narcotics and those accused of treason

So, one can still be executed for doing things against the law of the land, and specifically, for something rather similar to the crimes for which Tyndale was executed - he was not only regarded as a heretic but also as a traitor.

In 1530, [Tyndale] wrote The Practyse of Prelates, opposing Henry VIII's planned divorce from Catherine of Aragon, in favour of Anne Boleyn, on the grounds that it was unscriptural and was a plot by Cardinal Wolsey to get Henry entangled in the papal courts of Pope Clement VII.[22] The king's wrath was aimed at Tyndale: Henry asked the Emperor Charles V to have the writer apprehended and returned to England under the terms of the Treaty of Cambrai, however, the Emperor responded that formal evidence was required before extradition.[23] Tyndale developed his case in An Answer unto Sir Thomas More's Dialogue.

, and of course translated the Bible into English.

Translating the bible into the English language was not a crime. Tyndale was not a criminal on that count. His crimes were heresy and treason.

snipped the text about Jan Hus because answering it would make this post too long.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Says the individualist Christian. Face it. Modern Protestantism and evangelicalism are products of the Great Awakenings.

And the contemporary Catholic Church is the product of the Counter-Reformation. The reality is that broad cultural changes have affected every church, including the Lutheran church and there is not a single denomination which can honestly claim that they are precisely the same as when they were founded.

 

[1Co13]

Fair enough. I am not from the USA and I too regard physical punishment for religious error an inappropriate response. Guess that the USA is following the trends set elsewhere on that matter. However, weren't the Tyndale and the Huss matters dealt with before the USA existed? It is, I think, rather tempting to import 21st century mores into the actions of late 14th to early 16th century disputes but doing so is just bad history.

It's fairly bad theology too
So he was in heresy then, right? And he was tried according to the law of the land at the time he went into heresy. It's no surprise, therefore, that he was sentenced according to the law of the land. His sentence was to be executed. Nothing illegal was done to him, it seems.

Isn't it true that a number of USA states have a death penalty and execute prisoners in our own times? Isn't it also the case that among the crimes for which a person might be executed is treason?

​

So, one can still be executed for doing things against the law of the land, and specifically, for something rather similar to the crimes for which Tyndale was executed - he was not only regarded as a heretic but also as a traitor.

​

Translating the bible into the English language was not a crime. Tyndale was not a criminal on that count. His crimes were heresy and treason.

Yep getting burnrd at the stake because the church branded you a heretick is the price we pay, do the crime, do the time

 

[bbbbbbb]

Naturally, heresy is a major sin. No argument there, although I would contend that none of the verses actually warrant heresy trials and secular, bodily punishment. Sorry, but if I'm American in any area, it's in my belief that people shouldn't be burned at the stake for religious differences.

But, ignoring that issue, I can understand Tyndale. The Catholic Church considers the Lutheran/Reformed belief in forensic justification by grace alone through faith alone to be heresy. So Tyndale is right out. And, Tyndale argued against prayer to/through the saints, and of course translated the Bible into English.

What I'm amazed by is that someone like Hus, whose positions were that the laity should be able to receive communion in both kinds and that the Bible and parts of the liturgy should be available in the vernacular should have been burned to death. By an ecumenical council no less! Apparently the Council of Constance had no regard for the Latin rite's own history or the continuing history of the Eastern Orthodox, and apparently in the end that particular council could be overruled when Vatican II completely accepted Hus' positions.

When Luther said at Worms that councils have erred and contradicted themselves, this is precisely what he was talking about. He was accused of being a Hussite at the Leipzig disputation by Johann Eck, and later discovered (much to his inital horror) that he was indeed a Hussite. Well, guess what? We're all Hussites now!

Yes, we are all Hussites now. Some of us seem to be Tyndalites and I should hope that in due time we should all be Christians.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

And the contemporary Catholic Church is the product of the Counter-Reformation. The reality is that broad cultural changes have affected every church, including the Lutheran church and there is not a single denomination which can honestly claim that they are precisely the same as when they were founded.

Well of course. No dispute there. And I'm glad you recognize that.

But you were claiming no one was taking their moral cues from modern secular society, and that just isn't true. Our understanding of morality- even those of us who consider ourselves conservative- are definitely affected by modern secular understandings. Obvious example- I'm sure no one here believes that heretics should be burnt at the stake, even though heresy is a grave sin. But that's a post-Enlightenment moral idea. It may also be a genuinely Christian idea, but the Christian rediscovery of that Christian moral truth was certainly sparked by the Enlightenment.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Yes, we are all Hussites now. Some of us seem to be Tyndalites and I should hope that in due time we should all be Christians.

I should hope that Catholics and Protestants, whether Hussites or "Tyndalites" (not a word), are all already Christians.