Protestants: Hypothetical Question

[roadrunner570]

I will say that for many people, it wouldn’t hurt to learn HOW to interpret scripture. I’m taking a class on Biblical interpretation right now, and while it hasn’t changed my theological beliefs, it has changed how I read the Bible, and I’ve learned a lot about passages that are often mis-(name removed by moderator)terpreted by people.

Not to mention that in learning these methods, and matching up my interpretation with most scholars down the many centuries, I’ve found that my interpretation is either the same as theirs, or not too far off. So like I said above, when done properly and when allowing the Holy Spirit to do its work, it can be done. I’m pretty sure I’m not a heretic.

 

[Church_Militant]

roadrunner570:

Well, I guess it would depend. Right now we all have a lot of freedom and can read the scripture ourselves and determine what lines up with what and so on.

This is just plain factually inaccurate.

If you think that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is a good thing you have only to look as far as the myriad schisms that have occurred (and occur daily) to see that that is not the case at all.

At the time of Luther, laypeople could not even read the scriptures. And most people were very oppressed by the Church at the time, like I saw mentioned on another thread, people being coereced and frightened into buying indulgences, etc.

And just why couldn’t the average Joe at that time not read the scriptures?

1. Bibles had to be hand copied which made them extremely rare and too expensive for them to afford.
2. They were largely illiterate anyway, since education as we have it today did not exist and few could read in any language, their vernacular or Latin either one.

Factually: Prior to the birth of Martin Luther in 1493 there were 9 editions of the Bible in German and 27 editions in German before Luther published his own in 1520.

Before the first Protestant Bible was printed, more than 600 editions of the Catholic Bible had already been printed in Europe, of which 198 were in the languages of the people.
(Henry G. Graham, Where We Got the Bible, Catholic Answers, 1997)

Luther was not perfect and I don’t agree with all his teachings, but I do agree with a lot of them, especially salvation by faith alone (which I’m not going to debate on this thread lol) And also sola scriptura.

And we’re surprised by any of that?

I mean, if we want to say is it okay to follow Luther’s teachings because of this that or whatever,

The point is that Luther was the founder of the doctrines that you mention and particularly his Sola Fide doctrine is (and still is today) based upon his altered texts of scripture and taken out of the context of the New Testament as a whole. You can proof text Sola Fide til your head explodes and you still won’t be in line with what the NT teaches in it’s own total context.

then one could also ask is it okay to follow Catholic teachings when they allowed people to be toturtured, murdered and burned at the stake regardless of age, or gender, until they agreed with the authority of the Catholic Church. Does that mean that no one at all, ever should follow Catholic teachings?

This final remark is just a great example of the same old anti-Catholic rhetoric that we get all the time. The logic that holds us responsible for all that would also allow us to attack non-Catholic religions for their less than all-out opposition to abortion and artificial birth control, the death toll from which makes the Inquisition and any other such look like a garden party.

Furthermore…you prove that you would just as soon ignore the atrocities that Protestants have perpetrated upon Catholics both in Europe, England and even in this country. (Ever hear of the Ku Klux Klan and the Know Nothings?)

The resounding answer is YES…everyone should follow Catholic teaching since if I was not totally convinced that it was the fullness of Christian truth, then I sure as Vitam Aeternam wouldn’t follow it so I wouldn’t have to constantly field crazy allegations and misinformation that people like you have been led to believe and propound as the truth.

So… to answer the OP’s question:

But for Grace Say a man decides to do the following:

*Remove books from the canon of scripture,
*regulate other books to an unpaginated appendix,
*alter verses by inserting words to support his personal opinion,
*and teaches his opinion of the Gospel based off of this altered canon.

What should he be considered? Are these objective moral evils? Why?

1. A heretic
2. Yes they are.
3. Because these are clearly efforts to teach the traditions of men as if they were the Word of God.
   Pax vobiscum,

 

[roadrunner570]

Church Militant:

This is just plain factually inaccurate.

If you think that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is a good thing you have only to look as far as the myriad schisms that have occurred (and occur daily) to see that that is not the case at all.And just why couldn’t the average Joe at that time not read the scriptures?

1. Bibles had to be hand copied which made them extremely rare and too expensive for them to afford.
2. They were largely illiterate anyway, since education as we have it today did not exist and few could read in any language, their vernacular or Latin either one.

Factually: Prior to the birth of Martin Luther in 1493 there were 9 editions of the Bible in German and 27 editions in German before Luther published his own in 1520.

Before the first Protestant Bible was printed, more than 600 editions of the Catholic Bible had already been printed in Europe, of which 198 were in the languages of the people.
(Henry G. Graham, Where We Got the Bible, Catholic Answers, 1997)And we’re surprised by any of that? The point is that Luther was the founder of the doctrines that you mention and particularly his Sola Fide doctrine is (and still is today) based upon his altered texts of scripture and taken out of the context of the New Testament as a whole. You can proof text Sola Fide til your head explodes and you still won’t be in line with what the NT teaches in it’s own total context.This final remark is just a great example of the same old anti-Catholic rhetoric that we get all the time. The logic that holds us responsible for all that would also allow us to attack non-Catholic religions for their less than all-out opposition to abortion and artificial birth control, the death toll from which makes the Inquisition and any other such look like a garden party.

Furthermore…you prove that you would just as soon ignore the atrocities that Protestants have perpetrated upon Catholics both in Europe, England and even in this country. (Ever hear of the Ku Klux Klan and the Know Nothings?)

The resounding answer is YES…everyone should follow Catholic teaching since if I was not totally convinced that it was the fullness of Christian truth, then I sure as Vitam Aeternam wouldn’t follow it so I wouldn’t have to constantly field crazy allegations and misinformation that people like you have been led to believe and propound as the truth.

So… to answer the OP’s question:

1. A heretic
2. Yes they are.
3. Because these are clearly efforts to teach the traditions of men as if they were the Word of God.
   Pax vobiscum,

Why is one anti-catholic simply for disagreeing with Catholics? I was using the torturing/burning scenario as an example. The OP was asking if it was okay to “follow” a man who had done such things, but yet, the Catholic Church has a few skeletons in its history as well. Once again, because it is led by men. Luther was a man, therefore, not perfect. The Catholic Church is led by men, so once again, not perfect. Does this make me anti-Catholic? I don’t believe I have made an anti-catholic statement yet. But I guess that depends on what your version of “anti-Catholic” is.

And here’s my other question. If you guys don’t believe in sola scriptura, why would it be heresy to change scripture if you don’t view it as final authority?

 

[roadrunner570]

And no, I have not ignore any protestant atrocities. I know they were committed by both sides, and it was dead wrong for either side to kill or torture people the way they did. I don’t recall Jesus burning people at the stake, so I don’t think anyone should do it, period.

 

[But_for_Grace]

roadrunner - Paul did tell us what the pillar of the truth was…

1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. (DRB)

and as to the false teachers, Paul says that they are the cause of division in the body of Christ

 

[Church_Militant]

roadrunner570:

Actually, God gave us the Bible, not the Catholic Church. And as I pointed out earlier, the scripture used to go against sola scriptura is a big stretch at best. I can’t believe a person thinks it is heresy for a follower of Christ to study God’s word for themselves.

As far as saying teachers not getting it right, I"m saying that any teacher is human and subject to error. I see no place in any part of the Bible giving one man authority over all believers. Christ is the head of the church.

This is also factually inaccurate since Chist founded His church (see Matthew 16:18), and not a book and in fact never commissioned the apostles to write a book except in St. John’s case in the Revelation, so the fact is that the Catholic Church (see this passage of Chapter 8 of The Letter of Ignatius of Antioch) did indeed give us the Bible as we have it today.

No Catholic will tell you that it is heresy to study the Word of God for oneself…what we will tell you is that we are not going to go against the teachings of the church that Jesus Christ founded and that has come down to us from the apostles and the early church. SS and SF do not align with the teachings that we have in writing from the early church…the believers who paid the price in their own blood for the faith. (Ignatius of antioch- fed to wild animals. Polycarp-burned alive singing hymns, just as examples.)

We will tell you that since the early church taught the things that we believe to this day that your church (or just you…we can’t tell) reject that we are staying faithful to that, while you follow the teachings and traditions of a man (and subsequent men) of a new wind of doctrine less than 500 years old, regardless of all the proof texts that are offered by proponents who (as I said before) pull their teachings out of the total context of the Word of God.

If you believe

Christ is the head of the church.

as you say, then it would seem to me that you would bow to His wisdom in his own choice as to whom He chose to “feed my lambs” and “feed my sheep” (Matthew 21:15-17) and that the office of apostle and that authority continues to this day as per the New Testament (Ephesians 4:11).
Non-Catholic religions teach only parts of the Biblical truths of Christianity and as a result do not make sense.
Pax vobiscum,

 

[sandusky]

I don’t k now where scripture warns of people interpreting the Bible, but I see a TON of warnings against false teachers

Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.

2Peter 1:20

This does not say that one cannot interpret Scripture. It says that no prophecy was a matter of personal interpretation, but came as the Holy Spirit moved the prophet/writer.

This is not a prohibition against interpreting Scripture

 

[Church_Militant]

roadrunner570:

Why is one anti-catholic simply for disagreeing with Catholics? I was using the torturing/burning scenario as an example. The OP was asking if it was okay to “follow” a man who had done such things, but yet, the Catholic Church has a few skeletons in its history as well. Once again, because it is led by men. Luther was a man, therefore, not perfect. The Catholic Church is led by men, so once again, not perfect. Does this make me anti-Catholic? I don’t believe I have made an anti-catholic statement yet. But I guess that depends on what your version of “anti-Catholic” is.

And here’s my other question. If you guys don’t believe in sola scriptura, why would it be heresy to change scripture if you don’t view it as final authority?

If you’ll slow down, take a deep breath, and go back and re-read post 22 again RR you’ll see that you overreacted and missed the chance to respond to the really important parts of that post.

I didn’t say that you were anti-Catholic my friend… I said that the rhetoric is anti-Catholic and that you just repeated it, I assume because that is what someone taught you. Besides, if both sides are guilty, then why even bring it up in a discussion with Catholics? If it’s no issue to the point of authorative teaching…?

Meanwhile, how about an answer to this part of my post:

And just why couldn’t the average Joe at that time not read the scriptures?

1. Bibles had to be hand copied which made them extremely rare and too expensive for them to afford.

1. They were largely illiterate anyway, since education as we have it today did not exist and few could read in any language, their vernacular or Latin either one.

Factually: Prior to the birth of Martin Luther in 1493 there were 9 editions of the Bible in German and 27 editions in German before Luther published his own in 1520.

Before the first Protestant Bible was printed, more than 600 editions of the Catholic Bible had already been printed in Europe, of which 198 were in the languages of the people.
(Henry G. Graham, Where We Got the Bible, Catholic Answers, 1997)

In answer to this:

And here’s my other question. If you guys don’t believe in sola scriptura, why would it be heresy to change scripture if you don’t view it as final authority?

It doesn’t have to be the “final authority” in the sense that SS proponents use it, it’s still the Word of God and shouldn’t be played with, such as the factual removal of the 7 Deuterocanonical books from the OT as well as the removal of 4 NT books from the canon.

The Catholic Church has compiled and guarded the Word of God since it was first written. We certainly won’t stop now. Non-Catholic religions follow the teachings of men that had no such compunctions.
Pax tecum,

 

[itsjustdave1988]

roadrunner570,

At the time of Luther, laypeople could not even read the scriptures.

Rubbish.

Before Luther’s sinful rebellion, the publisher of the Catholic German Cologne Bible 1480] wrote . . . :

All Christians should read the Bible with piety and reverence, praying the Holy Ghost, who is the inspirer of the Scriptures, to enable them to understand . . . The learned should make use of the Latin translation of St. Jerome; but the unlearned and simple folk, whether laymen or clergy . . . should read the German translations now supplied, and thus arm themselves against the enemy of our salvation.

You said:

The only Catholics reading scripture were priests and scholars who could read Greek or Latin.

Your ridiculous assertion is simply anti-Catholic propoganda which you seem to have trusted uncritically.

There were 18 editions of the Bible in German before Luther’s translation. Did you know that? Did you even check?

See more here:
**The Bible kept from ordinary Catholics? - **View

 

[itsjustdave1988]

roadrunner570,

According to a PROTESTANT scholar…

It can no longer be said that the Vulgate alone was in use and that the laity consequently were ignorant of Scripture . . . We must admit that the Middle Ages possessed a quite surprising and extremely praiseworthy knowledge of the Bible, such as might in many respects put our own age to shame.

{E. v. Dobschutz, Deutsche Rundschau, 101, 1900, pp. 61ff.}

 

[Mystophilus]

RobNY:

I (try to) follow Christ as well. If you love him, why do you not obey him (to paraphrase Scripture)? Christ instituted a Church and gave it authority, thus, we are compelled to follow his Church, whether we like it or not.

When did Christ give the Church authority over its members?

 

[RobNY]

Mystophilus:

When did Christ give the Church authority over its members?

The Keys are symbols of authority. He gives the keys individually to Peter, and then [see my edit, I made a mental fart] to the apostles. Who else would they be exercising authority over?

EDIT: I’m not thinking clearly, the power to bind and loose (to both), the keys to peter… eh…

 

[Mystophilus]

But for Grace:

Say a man decides to do the following:

*Remove books from the canon of scripture,
*regulate other books to an unpaginated appendix,
*alter verses by inserting words to support his personal opinion,
*and teaches his opinion of the Gospel based off of this altered canon.

What should he be considered?

I would say that he should be considered “Martin Luther” for most of them, although I do not recall him doing #3. Which verses did he alter?

However, the other reformers could also be included, on the basis that they (largely) agreed with Luther, the new canon being decided after negotiation between them.

Are these objective moral evils? Why?

I do not believe so, because they have no reason to be considered such. First, this is because the term is self-contradictory: morals are not objective. Second, such actions could only be described as evil if they were performed with the conscious knowledge that they would result in net damage, which Luther himself did not believe: he thought that he was doing the right thing.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I would say that he should be considered “Martin Luther” for most of them, although I do not recall him doing #3. Which verses did he alter?

He added the word “alone” to Roman 3:28. So, instead of, “For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.” (Rom 3:28), Luther’s translation said, “For we hold that a man is justified by faith ALONE apart from works of law.”

When he was criticized for it, Luther responded in his rather usual unsaintly way…

You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word ‘alone’ is not in the text of Paul. If your Papist makes such an unnecessary row about the word ‘alone,’ say right out to him:

’Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,’ and say: ‘Papists and asses are one and the same thing.’ I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word ‘alone’ is not in the Latin or the Greek text, and it was not necessary for the Papists to teach me that. It is true those letters are not in it, which letters the jackasses look at, as a cow stares at a new gate…

It shall remain in my New Testament, and if all the Popish donkeys were to get mad and beside themselves, they will not get it out." (Rebuilding a Lost Faith, John Stoddard, p. 136-137)

So which is it…are the papists asses or cows? He can’t seem to make up his mind.

Well. I guess Luther can add whatever words he likes to the word of God, as long as Luther’s “will is reason enough.” http://www.theologyreview.com/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

BTW, no Protestant that I know of has kept it in their NT, not even those calling themselves Lutherans, so I guess the “popish donkeys” were right after all.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

roadrunner570:

God inspired men to write his word, but they wrote what he led them to write. God also saw to it that his word has been preserved through the ages. Do you honestly think that books would or wouldn’t make it into the Bible that God didn’t want there?

And to read and interpret scripture is not claiming sole authority over God’s word, that is for the Holy Spirit. And yes, I’m well aware of the catholics interpretation of Matt 16:18.

And the 33,000 denominations is a gross exaggeration. There are few major denominations, and several spinoffs of those main ones. And I addressed this issue earlier.

Peace be with you!

If the Holy Spirit guides everyone in sola scriptura interpretations, then He certainly has been ineffective at His job. If you say that you are the correct interpretator, then you are in essence saying that you (and those who agree with you) are the only ones the Holy Spirit is working through…hence everyone should conform to your interpretations.

Check the World Christian Encyclopedia by David B. Barrett, George T. Kurian, and Todd M. Johnson (2001 edition). He refers to “over 33,000 denominations in 238 countries” in Table 1-5, vol 1, page 16.

What is the “real” meaning of Mt. 16:18?

In Christ,
Rand

 

[roadrunner570]

Rand Al'Thor:

Peace be with you!

If the Holy Spirit guides everyone in sola scriptura interpretations, then He certainly has been ineffective at His job. If you say that you are the correct interpretator, then you are in essence saying that you (and those who agree with you) are the only ones the Holy Spirit is working through…hence everyone should conform to your interpretations.

Check the World Christian Encyclopedia by David B. Barrett, George T. Kurian, and Todd M. Johnson (2001 edition). He refers to “over 33,000 denominations in 238 countries” in Table 1-5, vol 1, page 16.

What is the “real” meaning of Mt. 16:18?

In Christ,
Rand

I never said I was the correct interpetor of scripture. But I’m confident that my beliefs line up with what scripture says and for what it was intended.

As far as Matt 16:18, perhaps we should start a different thread on that so as not to derail this one.

For those who say my history is wrong, perhaps there is a protestant version and Catholic version. I say this because I’m a Bible ministry major at a well respected Missionary college (www.bethelcollege.edu if anyone wants to check it out) and this is not only what they taught in the school, but in the recommended readings they suggested. So no, I did not get anti-catholic propaganda off the web. Actually, most of my profs have a lot of respect for Catholics and their traditions, even though they disagree with some things. I"ve already explained why I even pointed the atrocities out to begin with. One can easily demonize early Protestant founders just as much as one can demonize the early Catholic church. Doesn’t make either one right for doing what they did.

So, perhaps each side has altered their own view of events perhaps. I know this wouldn’t be the first time such a thing happened in history.

Also, to let everyone know, I am not one of those who automatically thinks all Catholics are going to Hell. I believe we share a common belief in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour, which is the most essential doctrine of any belief. Without Jesus, the rest falls apart. Everything else is just “extra” stuff. I don’t agree with a lot of Catholic teachings, but I don’t think one is condemned for believing them. Anyway, I wanted to get that cleared up since it was mentioned earlier that a lot of anti-catholic type people come on here badmouthing you guys.

 

[Mystophilus]

RobNY:

The Keys are symbols of authority.

The fact that I could lock you within or outside of my house does not give me authority over you, only a very limited kind of power. Keys are a device/symbol of access, which is a certain kind of power, but not a power of governance per se.

 

[angelmessenger]

----“Actually, God gave us the Bible, not the Catholic Church. And as I pointed out earlier, the scripture used to go against sola scriptura is a big stretch at best. I can’t believe a person thinks it is heresy for a follower of Christ to study God’s word for themselves.”

God gave us the Old testament scriptures. Jesus preached and never commanded any Apostle or disciple to write. Christ’s Church, which He instituted, gave us the New testament. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit the gospels were written down and together with the letters from the Disciples were compiled into the Bible. God, through the Catholic Church, gave us the New Testament and to say otherwise just doesn’t make any sense!

look at the many churches who preach sola scriptura and look at the many pastors who interpret for them.–I have had first hand witness of this— Most believe anything they want.–Is the Holy Spirit an author of confusion? Catholics go by the Apostolic Tradition which had interpreted scripture almost 2000 years ago. The Apostles and disciples preached the Word and their words were recorded and kept intact by the Holy Spirit. These same Apostles had the gift to interpret and as they preached they taught the true doctrines. For any man to come along and throw Apostolic Tradition away and to reinterpret scripture which had been kept intact by the Holy Spirit is heresy–plain and simple!

If sola scriptura was a true doctrine then what happened to all those people who never came in contact with scripture? Did they have to hear the Word from the Church–Yes of course they did. With the arrival of the printing presses more people were able to see and read scripture for themselves–but until then they had Tradition and the truth of the faith–handed down by the Church. It is this same Apostolic tradition we believe and interpret scripture by today.

----“As far as saying teachers not getting it right, I"m saying that any teacher is human and subject to error. I see no place in any part of the Bible giving one man authority over all believers. Christ is the head of the church.”

Any teacher is subject to human error but the Church isn’t! Christ promised us this. The Pope can be a great sinner but when he speaks infallibly—Peter speaks! Christ speaks!----Scripture is clear on his placing Peter as the head of His Church—you have no problem with Abraham and Moses and David–do you??—we have another leader–God can do anything he wants. Most people cannot comprehend the idea of a mortal man being head of the Church here on earth yet David, who sinned, also Moses who never got to see the promised land because of his actions were chosen by God. Think about this–it makes sense and scripture bears me out on this truth.

God bless

Jan

 

[Zooey]

roadrunner570:

"

**The only Catholics reading scripture were priests and scholars who could read Greek or Latin. **

This is just so not true.
People who could read, read the Bible. They read it in Latin. The reason that the Latin Bible is called the “Vulgate” is because it was a translation from Greek, Hebrew, & Aramaic, into the common–“vulgar” tomgue of the people, which was Latin.
I know it seems unlikely to folks of today, but we have largely (http://bestsmileys.com/sad/6.gif) lost the use of Latin. The fact remains that as late as the 19th century, the language of the ordinary marketplace was Latin…(My Welsh & Irish ancestors, in other words, bought their groceries in Latin. So did the rest of the civilized world).

The mistake you are making on this point is to attribute to the whole of Europe, the situation that existed in England.
England did in fact have laws forbidding the Bible to the non-Latin reading person. That was a political move on the part of the British monarchy…It oppressed Catholics & Protestants alike, but this was not carried out by the Catholic church. (Indeed, Catholics were smuggling in Bibles right alongside their protestant brethren…It was the only way to outwit the Crown).
In fact, one of the biggest offenders in this regard may well have been King James of KJV fame…His principal motive in allowing the KJV translation was to control the Biblical texts his subjects read, by controlling its language so as to favor his insistence upon the “divine right of kings”.

But the rest of Europe had Bibles, in Latin, and (later) in the individual languages of the countries in which they appeared. Folk were not only allowed, but encouraged to read them.
The supposed “banning of Bibles” by the Catholic church is one of the world’s oldest Urban Myths still au courant in modern society.

Incidentally, lest you think I am giving you the “Catholic version” of history, I am a United Methodist, and what I have given here is just as it was taught to me growing up in the Wesleyan tradition.
God bless.

 

[angelmessenger]

Zooey:

roadrunner570:

—"This is just so not true.
People who could read, read the Bible. They read it in Latin. The reason that the Latin Bible is called the “Vulgate” is because it was a translation from Greek, Hebrew, & Aramaic, into the common–“vulgar” tomgue of the people, which was Latin.
I know it seems unlikely to folks of today, but we have largely (http://bestsmileys.com/sad/6.gif

) lost the use of Latin. The fact remains that as late as the 19th century, the language of the ordinary marketplace was Latin…(My Welsh & Irish ancestors, in other words, bought their groceries in Latin. So did the rest of the civilized world)."

Actually I was talking about the times before the Bible came into existance—I mean there were assorted scriptures–but no one knew which was to be included in the final canon.

The supposed “banning of Bibles” by the Catholic church is one of the world’s oldest Urban Myths still au courant in modern society."

I’m glad you pointed this out.

God bless

Jan