Protestants: Why wasn't this guy the first Protestant?

[Harpazo]

“I spent all my life, in this monastery, applying myself entirely to the study of Scriptures.”

Venerable Bede, Hist. eccl., 5. 24

This quote is from the Venerable Bede, a pious monk that lived in the late 7th and early 8th centuries in England. He tirelessly studied Scripture and copied it for the next generations to have. If he studied Scripture on his own and had access to it, why did he not come to the same conclusions as the Reformers of the 16th-18th centuries?

This is not a baiting thread. I am curious to how many Protestants can think that all one needs to do is read the Scriptures and that’s that. This man did that and he did not come up with the same theology. So what gives?

Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew

 

[ckempston]

This quote is from the Venerable Bede, a pious monk that lived in the late 7th and early 8th centuries in England. He tirelessly studied Scripture and copied it for the next generations to have. If he studied Scripture on his own and had access to it, why did he not come to the same conclusions as the Reformers of the 16th-18th centuries?

This is not a baiting thread. I am curious to how many Protestants can think that all one needs to do is read the Scriptures and that’s that. This man did that and he did not come up with the same theology. So what gives?

Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew

Probably because it’s wasn’t the Authorized Version.

 

[jewelz]

it is one thing to just read Scriptures like an ordinary book.

it is another thing to study Scriptures to know about His story.

but Jesus said no matter how diligently you study Scripture,
if you do not come to Jesus Himself and believe him,
how can you be saved?

John 5
37 And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, 38nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent. 39You diligently study[c] the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, 40 yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

If, for example, Venerable Bede became a Reformer, what do you think would his fate be with the RCC?
Excommunicated? Persecuted? Martyred?
maybe out of fear, he just kept it to himself.
no one can really know for sure, if he did have a Reformer’s heart.

If you wanted to become a Reformer, would you have risked it all?

Everyone can come up with their own theologies, even Catholics if they only would try and want to, but because of their belief in the Infallibility of an Interpreter, it makes no sense to think for themselves what is truth or falsehood, or even to judge the intergrity (and hypocrisy) of the RCC leaders.

What one needs to do is READ and BELIEVE = OBEY
what God says to do in His timeless written Word.

 

[Hisalone]

This quote is from the Venerable Bede, a pious monk that lived in the late 7th and early 8th centuries in England. He tirelessly studied Scripture and copied it for the next generations to have. If he studied Scripture on his own and had access to it, why did he not come to the same conclusions as the Reformers of the 16th-18th centuries?

This is not a baiting thread. I am curious to how many Protestants can think that all one needs to do is read the Scriptures and that’s that. This man did that and he did not come up with the same theology. So what gives?

Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew

He the lived outside the sphere of Roman corruption.
There was no selling of indulgences. There was no Vatican tax. The Pope had not started selling cleric positions. Nor had the Vatican so inertwined itself in the affairs of state as it did in later years. None of that was in the 1st century when Christ and the apostles walked the earth.

 

[Pete_1]

He the lived outside the sphere of Roman corruption.
There was no selling of indulgences. There was no Vatican tax. The Pope had not started selling cleric positions. Nor had the Vatican so inertwined itself in the affairs of state as it did in later years. None of that was in the 1st century when Christ and the apostles walked the earth.

St. Peter denied Christ three times does this mean his teachings are false? I think we would both agree that it does not.

The sale of indulgences was an abuse, not church doctrine.

Here is a usefull article on indulgences in the Catholic encyclopedia:

newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm

 

[Harpazo]

He the lived outside the sphere of Roman corruption.
There was no selling of indulgences. There was no Vatican tax. The Pope had not started selling cleric positions. Nor had the Vatican so inertwined itself in the affairs of state as it did in later years. None of that was in the 1st century when Christ and the apostles walked the earth.

You’re right. He did live outside the errors that some of the leadership had committed. However, that does not answer the question.

Why was Venerable Bede not the first Protestant? He studied Scripture with great dilligence. Why didn’t he come to the conclusions that the Lord’s Supper is “only a symbol” or “baptism isn’t necessary for salvation” or other innovative doctrines that sprang up from the 16th centuries onward? Why didn’t he reach the conclusion that “salvation is by faith alone” or “the Bible is the sole authority of faith.”

This man was a Scripture scholar and yet never held to any of those positions. Why wasn’t he the first Protestant? He had access to all the things that Protestants had access to when they broke away.

Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew

 

[Lee]

He the lived outside the sphere of Roman corruption.
There was no selling of indulgences. There was no Vatican tax. The Pope had not started selling cleric positions. Nor had the Vatican so inertwined itself in the affairs of state as it did in later years. None of that was in the 1st century when Christ and the apostles walked the earth.

and neither were ministers with their outlandish houses and lifestyles. So what´s your point? If you want to find corruption
and faults, you can find it in every church. Most priests live humble lives, even the Pope himself nowdays. And why bring up things from 500 years ago? Are we talking about the beliefs of a church or the faults of its members?

 

[Hisalone]

You’re right. He did live outside the errors that some of the leadership had committed. However, that does not answer the question.

Why was Venerable Bede not the first Protestant? He studied Scripture with great dilligence. Why didn’t he come to the conclusions that the Lord’s Supper is “only a symbol” or “baptism isn’t necessary for salvation” or other innovative doctrines that sprang up from the 16th centuries onward? Why didn’t he reach the conclusion that “salvation is by faith alone” or “the Bible is the sole authority of faith.”

This man was a Scripture scholar and yet never held to any of those positions. Why wasn’t he the first Protestant? He had access to all the things that Protestants had access to when they broke away.

Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew

The Reformation was just that a reforming of what had gone on before it. You cannot seperate the reformation from the climate of the times. Much of the climate of the times was years of clerical corruption at the highest levels. Britian at the time of Bede was somewhat remote. Also Bede was before the the climate of the times.

 

[Hisalone]

St. Peter denied Christ three times does this mean his teachings are false? I think we would both agree that it does not.

The sale of indulgences was an abuse, not church doctrine.

Here is a usefull article on indulgences in the Catholic encyclopedia:

newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm

You contend that the widespread corruption that took place for many years had no lasting effect on the Catholic Church. I contend that it could not help but have a lasting effect which has resonated throughout history.

 

[Hisalone]

and neither were ministers with their outlandish houses and lifestyles. So what´s your point? If you want to find corruption
and faults, you can find it in every church. Most priests live humble lives, even the Pope himself nowdays. And why bring up things from 500 years ago? Are we talking about the beliefs of a church or the faults of its members?

Just as these ministers that live as you say have an effect on their members so did the abuse that took place for so many years had an effect on the Catholic institution.

 

[ckempston]

The Reformation was just that a reforming of what had gone on before it. You cannot seperate the reformation from the climate of the times. Much of the climate of the times was years of clerical corruption at the highest levels. Britian at the time of Bede was somewhat remote. Also Bede was before the the climate of the times.

And of course, there was never any corruption in the “Reformed” churches…

 

[mozart-250]

For once Harpazo, you actually are asking a good question.

The simplest answer is that folks tend to read Scripture according to how they were taught Scripture.

Will be interested in other thoughts here.

 

[ralphinal]

For once Harpazo, you actually are asking a good question.

The simplest answer is that folks tend to read Scripture according to how they were taught Scripture.

Will be interested in other thoughts here.

Great point. People also bring into Scripture that which they carry with them. Bede, if I am not mistaken, was monastic and had little if any contact with the outside world. He was Catholic through and through.

Luther, for example, might ahve been taught the same way Bede was, but his reading was altered by his life experiances, for better or worse.

 

[NDfan]

This quote is from the Venerable Bede, a pious monk that lived in the late 7th and early 8th centuries in England. He tirelessly studied Scripture and copied it for the next generations to have. If he studied Scripture on his own and had access to it, why did he not come to the same conclusions as the Reformers of the 16th-18th centuries?

This is not a baiting thread. I am curious to how many Protestants can think that all one needs to do is read the Scriptures and that’s that. This man did that and he did not come up with the same theology. So what gives?

Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew

To first clarify all the talk about corruption, the reformers did not break away because of corruption. Luther wanted the sale of indulgences fixed and had no intention of leaving the church over the issue. If you study church history the sale of indulgences was not the Pope’s fault and certainly was addressed in VII. Tetzel abused it because he received a commission on every donation that was made. Corruption exists in all churches because sadly preaching has become big business.

With that being said, the reformers broke away because of the fundamental disagreement on salvation and ultimate authority. Reformers argued that it was faith alone by the grace of God alone and not the combination of works and faith. Then argued that scripture alone was the ultimate authority on matters of faith and not scripture + sacred tradition.

To directly answer your question Andrew I would tend to believe that Bede did not come to the same conclusion that Luther or other reformers did. Let’s face it nowadays many people are very familiar with scripture and disagreements still exist on the interpretation. Calvinists will use parts of Romans to argue Predestination and the doctrine of the elect. RCs will use Luke to argue for Mary, and Matthew to argue for the Pope. All through church history the Pope’s made it clear that salvation could not be attained outside of the Catholic church. If Bede did disagree with RC interpretations of scripture he probably decided to affect change from within like Francis of Assisi did or didn’t bother out of fear of excommunication.

The problem with your question is the original premise is slightly flawed. Protestants don’t think that all one has to do is read scripture and that’s that as you say. That’s like saying that all one has to do to practice law is read a law book. Protestants just believe that on matters of faith scripture is the final authority. Protestants also believe that Christians have the right to read scripture but as RC Sproul clearly preaches, one cannot and should not interpret scripture on their own. That’s why we have such division today and it’s also why the RCC limited the availability of the Bible. To try and prevent all the divisions we have.

PEACE brother

 

[allhers]

Venerable Bede also understood that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth. He understood that as the one that Jesus founded on Peter.
What I don’t understand is why Protestants who believe that we all have the ability to read the Bible and interpret it for ourselves, don’t believe that Catholics have that same ability. I mean when we Catholics disagree we look to the Magisterium (teaching office of the Church), Tradition and the Sacred Scriptures, when some others disagree, they look to the Bible only and that leads them right back to the same disagreements. Then I’m told that the Holy Spirit is their authority, but if that were true, why do they disagree with one another about that too?

 

[NDfan]

Venerable Bede also understood that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth. He understood that as the one that Jesus founded on Peter.
What I don’t understand is why Protestants who believe that we all have the ability to read the Bible and interpret it for ourselves, don’t believe that Catholics have that same ability. I mean when we Catholics disagree we look to the Magisterium (teaching office of the Church), Tradition and the Sacred Scriptures, when some others disagree, they look to the Bible only and that leads them right back to the same disagreements. Then I’m told that the Holy Spirit is their authority, but if that were true, why do they disagree with one another about that too?

I don’t think any Protestant will disagree that Roman Catholics also have the right to read and interpret scripture. But that doesn’t then translate to the teaching Magisterium as being the final authority on the interpretation. If that were true then the teachings of the Magisterium would be consistent since the beginning and that certainly is not the case. Several teachings evolved over time which the church outright admits. This then implies that the church leaders today have a better understanding of events that happend 2000 years ago than those who more directly had contact with said events. That simply doesn’t make sense.

PEACE

 

[ralphinal]

I don’t think any Protestant will disagree that Roman Catholics also have the right to read and interpret scripture. But that doesn’t then translate to the teaching Magisterium as being the final authority on the interpretation. If that were true then the teachings of the Magisterium would be consistent since the beginning and that certainly is not the case. Several teachings evolved over time which the church outright admits. This then implies that the church leaders today have a better understanding of events that happend 2000 years ago than those who more directly had contact with said events. That simply doesn’t make sense.

PEACE

What about those doctrines that evolved as a result of heresy? For example, the definition of the Trinity. It is not saying that we know better about the events of the past, but that we needed new words and ways to explain it so that confusion would subside.

 

[NDfan]

What about those doctrines that evolved as a result of heresy? For example, the definition of the Trinity. It is not saying that we know better about the events of the past, but that we needed new words and ways to explain it so that confusion would subside.

I wouldn’t disagree on that one. The doctrine of the trinity was created to clarify what Christians believed in which is a tri-une GOD. Other doctrines were created to refute heresy but said doctrines came right from scripture. Point of fact, Ignatius was the first to push for an official canon to refute the writings of Marcion who began to re-write the Gospel of Luke and Paul’s letters while refuting other works like Revelations, James etc. All ECFs pointed to scripture in defense of the faith. And we clearly read in Acts that Paul’s teachings were benchmarked against scripture to gauge if he was preaching the truth.

But the church plainly states that in the case of Mary they have developed a better understanding of scripture which resulted in the doctrine of the assumption and the immaculate conception. If you really study church history with the best information we have you will see that no type of devotion to Mary existed until around the 5th century. That’s not to say that the ECFs didn’t respect and love Mary, but they never held the current beliefs nor did they write about them.

PEACE

 

[Robert_in_SD]

it is one thing to just read Scriptures like an ordinary book.

How is it that you conclude this is what Bede did? He was a priest and a monk who devoted his life to God. What makes you think he read Scripture just as he would read another “book.”

jewelz:

it is another thing to study Scriptures to know about His story.

And what do you think Bede studied scripture for, if not to ascertain the truth of the Gospel?

jewelz:

but Jesus said no matter how diligently you study Scripture,if you do not come to Jesus Himself and believe him,
how can you be saved?

This is not a response to the original question. But nevertheless, how is it that you can conclude a monk who gives his life in service to God and in charity to serve others by copying scriptures, has not “come to know Jesus Himself” just as the protestant who has an alter call one Sunday morning? It seems to me that if one devotes their entire life to study of scripture - as a monk - they have an abiding love and knowledge of the Savior. Call me crazy…

jewelz:

John 5
37 And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, 38nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent. 39You diligently study[c] the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, 40 yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

The man devoted himself to the Lord first, then to the scriptures. He was a monk who pledged himself to service out of love of God! Why would you conclude he did not “hear” the voice of the Lord? Because he was not a protestant?

jewelz:

no one can really know for sure, if he did have a Reformer’s heart.

We can read his writings to learn his heart, for starters. From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Venerable Bede:

Historian and Doctor of the Church, born 672 or 673; died 735. In the last chapter of his great work on the “Ecclesiastical History of the English People” Bede has told us something of his own life, and it is, practically speaking, all that we know. His words, written in 731, when death was not far off, not only show a simplicity and piety characteristic of the man, but they throw a light on the composition of the work through which he is best remembered by the world at large. He writes:

Thus much concerning the ecclesiastical history of Britain, and especially of the race of the English, I, Baeda, a servant of Christ and a priest of the monastery of the blessed apostles St. Peter and St. Paul, which is at Wearmouth and at Jarrow (in Northumberland), have with the Lord’s help composed so far as I could gather it either from ancient documents or from the traditions of the elders, or from my own knowledge. I was born in the territory of the said monastery, and at the age of seven I was, by the care of my relations, given to the most reverend Abbot Benedict [St. Benedict Biscop], and afterwards to Ceolfrid, to be educated. From that time I have spent the whole of my life within that monastery, devoting all my pains to the study of the Scriptures, and amid the observance of monastic discipline and the daily charge of singing in the Church, it has been ever my delight to learn or teach or write. In my nineteenth year I was admitted to the diaconate, in my thirtieth to the priesthood, both by the hands of the most reverend Bishop John [St. John of Beverley], and at the bidding of Abbot Ceolfrid. From the time of my admission to the priesthood to my present fifty-ninth year, I have endeavored for my own use and that of my brethren, to make brief notes upon the holy Scripture, either out of the works of the venerable Fathers or in conformity with their meaning and interpretation.
After this Bede inserts a list or Indiculus, of his previous writings and finally concludes his great work with the following words:

And I pray thee, loving Jesus, that as Thou hast graciously given me to drink in with delight the words of Thy knowledge, so Thou wouldst mercifully grant me to attain one day to Thee, the fountain of all wisdom and to appear forever before Thy face.

Does not sound to me like a man who failed to give his heart over to his Savior - Jesus Christ. But, hey, maybe I’m just another misguided Catholic…

jewelz:

If you wanted to become a Reformer, would you have risked it all?

Hypothetically speaking, Yes. If the Lord put it in my soul that my faith and the Church were in error, I would cling to the Lord. But He has not shown me such a thing. To the contrary, He has revealed to me the truth of His Catholic Church.

jewelz:

Everyone can come up with their own theologies, even Catholics if they only would try and want to, but because of their belief in the Infallibility of an Interpreter, it makes no sense to think for themselves what is truth or falsehood, or even to judge the intergrity (and hypocrisy) of the RCC leaders.

This comment completely misapplies the doctrine of infallibility. We Catholics are thinking human beings who apply logic and reason along with our faith and prayer, to our study of the Scriptures. The teaching authority of the Church is not a hindrance to the Truth. Sola Scriptura is the hindrance, because it presents an approach to scripture study that leads to confusion and conflict.

jewelz:

What one needs to do is READ and BELIEVE = OBEY what God says to do in His timeless written Word.

So, what you are suggesting is that even though Bede was a monk, who devoted his entire life to God through service to His Church, and although he professed abiding faith and love of Jesus Christ, his sincerity should be questioned because he did not come to the same conclusions as the Reformers? This is nothing but a rationalization to support your own reformed theology. Look harder at Bede
before you judge him so.
Peace,
-Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

He the lived outside the sphere of Roman corruption.
There was no selling of indulgences. There was no Vatican tax. The Pope had not started selling cleric positions. Nor had the Vatican so inertwined itself in the affairs of state as it did in later years. None of that was in the 1st century when Christ and the apostles walked the earth.

Bede was born in 672 or 673, and died in 735. The Church was a driving force in this period of time in Europe. What makes you think that Bede operated outside of Church authority in crafting his writings from a monastery in Brittain?

Peace,
-Robert