Questions about when people get "saved"

[tgGodsway]

Totally agree, this is not a figure of speech, Jesus was being absolutely literal in this verse.

Well that makes sense. You agree along with the Jews who didn’t understand what He was saying.

They were taking His words literal just like you. But Jesus was clear when He said,

“… the words that I speak to you are SPIRIT, and they are life.” John 6:63.
His sayings in this figure of speech were all to be interpreted spiritually, not literally. and many of them, because they were confused, could not walk with Him as a disciple.

 

[tgGodsway]

Why do you ask?.. incidentally, Gorgias, as it turns out, William Tyndale, was a believer in Jesus Christ. He believed in His virgin birth, His death, and His resurrection. He believed in His second coming. He believed the bible is the word of God.

William Tyndale was a godly man who was misunderstood by the King and by the CC who were all bent on killing him because he was placing the word of God into the hands of English speaking people for the first time ever.

It saddens me that there seems to be no remorse over his life within the CC. I hope I am wrong about the remorse. One of God’s sheep died for his efforts to give the population the word of God.

 

[guanophore]

Baptism symbolizes a spiritual deliverance from one place to another. Israel was saved when the death angel passed over them at the sight of blood on the doorpost. But Israel was not saved temporally from their enemies of Egypt, until they went through the literal waters of God’s plan to bring into their promise.

We are in agreement on this point, except that we believe Baptism enacts what it signifies. There is a literal spiritual transformation as the person passes through the water.

Jesus said, do not prevent the children from coming to Me. We believe that, #1 God’s wrath on sin is quenched by the Cross of His Son. God is not angry anymore. He loves the little ones who are ignorant to the concept of sin. If they die in that state God will not judge them as sinners. Ro. 5:13.

It sounds like you believe that Jesus’ death on the cross got rid of original sin. This is not consistent with the Apostolic faith.

Well the John 10:27 passage you sighted is a figure of speech.

How did you determine that? Where does the text indicate that? I notice that when the literal understanding is “too Catholic” suddenly it must be a metaphor or a figure of speech! Don’t get me wrong, I love the metaphor or the Manna being faith as well, but that does not exclude that He was speaking literally of His Body. In the early church, those who rejected this understanding were referred to has “heretics”.

His message was always spiritual.

I agree, but that does not preclude that it was also literal.

But in the Day of Christ, it was suppose to be a spiritual feeding, not literal. If we will spiritually feed on Christ, we will have eternal life.

So you are saying that Christians misunderstood for 1500 years? Why did God wait so long to correct them?

Do you see the establishment of the doctrine of “essential doctrine and non-essential doctrine” anywhere in the Scriptures?

I think that is one of those extra biblical traditions - like the table of contents! The difference is that the extra biblical tradition of which books belong in the Bible goes back to the early post-Apostolic period, where the idea of “essential doctrines” is quite modern and innovative. tgGodsway accuses Catholics of creating innovations…

Eternal life is not treated as a journey to be received at the end of the road. Jesus always spoke of eternal life in the present tense, in the here and now when you “believe.”

For those who embrace the Apostolic faith, it is both. We enter it at Baptism, and achieve the fullness at the end of this life.

 

[guanophore]

Does water baptism play a part as a condition for eternal life?.. if it did, we wound find it consistently in the SUM of the equation. In other words, all bible authors would include it when they talk about salvation. They don’t. We find the word “baptized” in one particular passage in connection with “to believe,” which results in a deliverance. Mk16:16 But even this passage is obscure and sets no pattern.

The problem with this assessment is that it places modern needs and disagreements back into the NT texts. The NT was not written to be a complete compendium of the faith, or even to anticipate the needs of factions 2000 years after the facts. That is the role Jesus gave to the Church.

the NT was written to address specific needs and conditions in the first century. It does not claim to be exhaustive, so projecting back into the collection of books, written over the span of 70 years, that "every passage must consistently contain the “SUM” is ridiculous

“… the words that I speak to you are SPIRIT, and they are life.” John 6:63.

His sayings in this figure of speech were all to be interpreted spiritually, not literally. and many of them, because they were confused, could not walk with Him as a disciple.

Both things are true, tg, and the writings of the early fathers demonstrate that they understood these words both spiritually, and literally.

William Tyndale was a godly man who was misunderstood by the King and by the CC who were all bent on killing him because he was placing the word of God into the hands of English speaking people for the first time ever.

I think you might need to look at the history of translations of the Bible into English.

I agree that Tyndale expected to be better received, and was sincere in his desire to put the Word of God into the hands of the people. But he separated himself from the authority of the Church, and that is where it began to go downhill. Not long after, the Douay Rheims was published, which might have happened sooner had he been willing to work together with others. most of the early English translations were made by Catholic monks from the 7th century forward. This idea of the CC trying to keep the Scriptures away from the people lacks a lot of the facts in evidence.

All that being said, I do have great remorse about all faithful believers who lost their lives at the hands of ecclesiastical or secular rulers who felt threatened by them.

 

[MT1926]

William Tyndale was a godly man who was misunderstood by the King and by the CC who were all bent on killing him because he was placing the word of God into the hands of English speaking people for the first time ever.

Will you give it a rest. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but yet again you are parroting this nonsense without checking the facts.

This is what I am talking about. This is why no one takes you seriously. Statements like this prove you blindly believe anything your church teaches you.

Like I already said study some Church history.

Heck even wikipedia, which is usually not a fan of the Catholic Church states…

Old English[edit]
Main article: Old English Bible translations
Although John Wycliffe is often credited with the first translation of the Bible into English, there were, in fact, many translations of large parts of the Bible centuries before Wycliffe’s work. The English Bible was first translated from the Latin Vulgate into Old English by a few select monks and scholars…Very few complete translations existed during that time. … an allegorical rendering of the Bible was more common and translations of the Bible often included the writer’s own commentary on passages in addition to the literal translation.

Toward the end of the 7th century, the Venerable Bede began a translation of scripture into Old English (also called Anglo-Saxon)…

In the 10th century an Old English translation of the Gospels was made in the Lindisfarne Gospels: a word-for-word gloss inserted between the lines of the Latin text…

The Wessex Gospels (also known as the West-Saxon Gospels) are a full translation of the four gospels into a West Saxon dialect of Old English. Produced in approximately 990, they are the first translation of all four gospels into English without the Latin text.

In the 11th century, Abbot Ælfric translated much of the Old Testament into Old English.

Middle English[edit]
The Ormulum is in Middle English of the 12th century. Like its Old English precursor from Ælfric, an Abbot of Eynsham, it includes very little Biblical text, and focuses more on personal commentary.

Richard Rolle (1290–1349) wrote an English Psalter.

The 14th century theologian John Wycliffe is credited with translating what is now known as Wycliffe’s Bible, …

Now Tyndale was the first to use the printing press but other than that the Bible was already translated into English for Centuries.

Please start checking your facts before spewing them all over the web. All it does is make us think twice about everything else you say.

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

uhhh… no again MT… but I understand why you think that way. You do not see eternal life as a free gift. You see it as an earned gift, as you just stated here,

I do see eternal life as a free gift. Never said it wasn’t. However, just because something is free doesn’t mean you will receive it. I think this is the problem you think free gift means guaranteed free gift.

I read your Dale Moody commentary and not surprised. Many so-called protestants have been tweaking John 10:27,28 for years, along with some modern translations who do shameful disservice to the passage.

Really? Why would he tweak it to agree with the Catholic Church?

You seem to be missing his point. The point he is making is that the present tense in Greek here denotes a continuous action, not a one time event.

Even the reformed James White won’t deny that fact.

The wonderful promises that are provided by Christ are not for those who do not truly and continuously believe…JW

(The words I GIVE, can also be translated I AM GIVING, however, to do so without cherry picking which verses with similar sentence structure should be, and which shouldn’t, will cause you more trouble than you will bargain for, but go ahead.)

I give and I am giving both tell us that is this an ongoing event. You on the other hand are trying to make us read I GIVE and take it to mean I GAVE. As in a one time past event, which is why you have “caused yourself more trouble than you bargained for here.”

 

[hope]

Thus, we could conclude that Jesus’ words, “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail” have essentially a twofold meaning. Only the Spirit can accomplish the miracle of the Eucharist, and only the Spirit can empower us to believe the miracle.
What Catholics Believe about John 6

 

[hope]

You are being rude and I don’t understand why you aren’t called on your disrespect. The Catholic Church does not invent truth. You have already demonstrated that you have no grasp of history. The Catholic Church of today is the same one that Peter led. It has existed from the time of Pentecost. I understand why this is hard for you. It means that you are like Saul persecuting His Church.

 

[Latin]

Latin:

Do you believe MT, every child of God called to Eternal Life, at their Initial Justification receives God’s special grace His Gift of Final Perseverance which is an Eternal Protection of their Eternal Life, so they are Once Saved Always Saved?

Sorry my answer is still no.

The reason I answer no is because of the way you word the question. You say…

I believe every child of God called to Eternal Life

I say no because every child of God is not automatically called to eternal life.

You seem to respect Jimmy Akin, I’m quoting from his article: Are All True Christians Predestined to Persevere?

at their Initial Justification receives God’s special grace His Gift of Final Perseverance which is an Eternal Protection of their Eternal Life

Yes and no. Yes for the ones predestined to glory, no for the ones predestined to grace.

As Catholics we believe this occurs at Baptism. Do you honestly believe every Baptized Catholic is automatically given the grace of Final Perseverance and Eternal Protection?

so they are Once Saved Always Saved.

Back to the main reason I do not agree, there is no way you can know if you were predestined to Grace or predestined to Glory.

This was the answer I should have given you 8 months ago. All of the back and forth we had on how you could say you knew was basically true, you did know, but now that I read what Jimmy wrote you only know that you are predestined to grace in the Christian life. You have no way of knowing that you are predestined for glory.

Read the article hopefully it will help as much as the anathema article did.

God Bless

God bless you MT and God bless every readers of the CAF.
.
Yes I know Jimmy’s above article, when I read it some years ago, I said to myself: Wait a minute, This is a POSITIVE predestination and the destination of the predestination is hell.
.
The Catholic Church outright rejects positive predestination to hell.
.
So, as I cannot believe both (a. predestination to grace, + b. no positive predestination to hell) I have chosen to believe b. no positive predestination to hell and rejected a. predestination to grace which is a positive predestination to hell.
.
What do you think MT my above choice?

.
As you (no one) can believe both at the same time, which one do you believe MT, a. or b.?
.
I believe at baptism every true Catholic receives God’s grace The Gift if Final Perseverance, so they can never lose their salvation.
.

God bless you MT and God bless every readers of the CAF.

Latin

 

[guanophore]

I believe at baptism every true Catholic receives God’s grace The Gift if Final Perseverance, so they can never lose their salvation.

.

It seems that such a position would be indefensible in the light of scripture and Catholic teaching.

 

[Reuben_J]

Latin:

I believe at baptism every true Catholic receives God’s grace The Gift if Final Perseverance, so they can never lose their salvation.

.

It seems that such a position would be indefensible in the light of scripture and Catholic teaching.

Besides, it is not true at all in real life.

 

[Latin]

Latin:

I believe at baptism every true Catholic receives God’s grace The Gift if Final Perseverance, so they can never lose their salvation.

.

It seems that such a position would be indefensible in the light of scripture and Catholic teaching.

God bless you Guanophore and God bless every readers of the CAF.
.

It may seems like the position is indefensible but I believe the following teachings of the CC and the Scripture defends it.
.
.

The Catholic Church affirms predestination as a DE FIDE Dogma (the highest level of binding theological certainty).

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA

THE CATHOLIC DOGMA. – The predestination of the elect.
.
Consequently, the whole future membership of heaven, down to its minutest details, has

been IRREVOCABLY FIXED FROM ALL ETERNITY. Nor could it be otherwise. For if it

were possible that a predestined individual should after all be CAST INTO HELL or that

one not predestined should in the end REACH HEAVEN, then God would have been

MISTAKEN in his foreknowledge of future events; He would NO LONGER be omniscient.

.
(2) The second quality of predestination, the DEFINITENESS of the number of the elect,

follows NATURALLY from the first. For if the eternal counsel of God regarding the

predestined is UNCHANGEABLE, then the number of the predestined must likewise be

UNCHANGEABLE and DEFINITE, subject NEITHER to ADDITIONS nor to

CANCELLATIONS. Anything indefinite in the number would eo ipso imply a lack of

certitude in God’s knowledge and would DESTROY His omniscience. End quote.
.

THE THEORY OF PREDESTINATION prævisa merita

THIS THEORY, CHAMPIONED BY all Thomists and a few Molinists (as Bellarmine, Francisco Suárez, Francis de Lugo):

Asserts that God, by an absolute decree and without regard to any future supernatural merits, predestined from all eternity certain men to the glory of heaven, and then, in consequence of this decree, decided to give them all the graces necessary for its accomplishment. End quote.
.
.
FR. WILLIAM MOST TEACHES THE SAME ABOVE THEOLOGICAL FACTS

Tuesday, April 2, 2013 Fr. William Most

What does the Catholic Church teach on Predestination?

Predestination is gratuitous: For even before God considers human merits, He predestines, and because the sole and total cause of predestination is the goodness and love of the Father which moves spontaneously WITHOUT stimulus, merit, or condition. End quote.
.
Continue

 

[Latin]

Continuation
.

RESISTING AND COOPERATING WITH GOD James Akin

Of course, a Calvinist can say (as a Thomistic Catholic would say) that both cooperations in the giving and the embracing of the eternal call are themselves produced (not just enabled) by God’s grace, and this is perfectly fine. A Calvinist and a Catholic alike can say that our cooperation is produced by God’s operation. No problem at all. End quote.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/COOPERAT.htm
.
.

THE WAY GOD SAVES AND PROTECTS HIS CHILDREN CALLED TO ETERNAL LIFE
.
CCCS 1996-1998; God’s call to eternal life is supernatural, coming TOTALLY from God’s decision and surpassing ALL power of human intellect and will..
.

CCC 154; Believing is possible only by grace and the interior helps of the Holy Spirit. …
.
CCC 155; In faith, the human intellect and will cooperate with divine grace: "Believing is an act of the intellect assenting to the divine truth by command of the will MOVED by God through grace."
.

Phil.2:13; “For it is God who works in you BOTH TO WILL and TO ACT for His good pleasure.”
.
Aquinas said, “God changes the will without forcing it.
But he can change the will from the fact that He himself operates in the will as He does in nature,” De Veritatis 22:9.
.
.
ST. AUGUSTINE ON GRACE AND PREDESTINATION

De gratia Christi 25, 26:
"For not only has God given us our ability and helps it, but He even works [brings about] willing and acting in us; not that we do not will or that we do not act, but that without His help we neither will anything good nor do it."
.
De gratia et libero arbitrio 16, 32:
"It is certain that we will when we will; but He brings it about that we will good. . . . It is certain that we act when we act, but He brings it about that we act, PROVIDING MOST EFFECTIVE POWERS TO THE WILL."
.

Similarly, the Council of Orange Canon 25 states, "In every good work, it is not we who begin … but He (God) first inspires us." (#329.2)
.

CCC 2022; “The divine initiative in the work of grace PRECEDES, PREPARES, and ELICITS the free response of man. …”
.
In other words, when God commands, He capacities the hearer to respond.
.
Our cooperation with the grace of God is produced (not just enabled) by God’s operation.

Yet the ability to respond is also His gift.

.
.
I said true Catholics, (of course true Protestants; etc. included) every true Catholic has the grace of God’s call.

CCCS 1996-1998; God’s call to eternal life is supernatural, coming TOTALLY from God’s decision and surpassing ALL power of human intellect and will..
.
If even one of them would reject salvation related graces, could die in mortal sin, and end up in hell and God would instantly lose His omniscience. - We can be sure this will never happen.
.

God bless you Guanophore and God bless every readers of the CAF.

Latin

 

[guanophore]

I said true Catholics, every true Catholic has the grace of God’s call.

This is actually parallel to the Baptist position. Except they call them “true believers”. Catholics who fall away were never “true Catholics” in the first place?

I don’t believe that a person can “lose salvation”, because our salvation is not completed until the end of this life. We can’t lose something what we don’t yet have!

Perhaps this subject is beyond the scope of this thread.

 

[Latin]

Latin:

I said true Catholics, every true Catholic has the grace of God’s call.

This is actually parallel to the Baptist position. Except they call them “true believers”. Catholics who fall away were never “true Catholics” in the first place?

I don’t believe that a person can “lose salvation”, because our salvation is not completed until the end of this life. We can’t lose something what we don’t yet have!

Perhaps this subject is beyond the scope of this thread.

God bless you Guanophore and God bless every readers of the CAF.
.

As Predestined to Heaven we have our IRROVACABLE salvation at our Initial Justification at our baptism.
.

Anyone die after one second of his valid baptism, goes instantly to heaven.
.
.

RIGHTEOUSNESS AND MERIT by James Akin
.
Protestants who say … Catholics believe we must do good works in order to become justified — a position which was explicitly condemned at Trent, which taught “nothing that precedes justification, whether faith or works, merits the grace of justification” (Decree on Justification 8).

Catholic theology teaches we do not do good works in order to be justified, but that we are justified in order to do good works, as Paul says: “[W]e are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them” (Ephesians 2:10 ).

Justification is the cause, not the consequence, of good works.

However, these Protestants are still confused about the fact that Catholics do not teach we are made only partially righteous in justification.

The Church teaches that we are made totally righteous — we receive 100% pure righteousness — in justification.

Thus Trent declares:
“n those who are born again God hates nothing, because there is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism unto death . . . but, putting off the old man and putting on the new one who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, guiltless and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, joint heirs with Christ; so that there is nothing whatever to hinder their entrance into heaven” (Decree on Original Sin 5).

You don’t have to do a diddly-do-da thing after being justified by God in baptism in order to go to heaven.

**There is no magic level of works one needs to achieve in order to go to heaven. **

One is saved the moment one is initially justified. End quote.
.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/RIGHTEOU.HTM
.

God bless you Guanophore and God bless every readers of the CAF.

Latin

 

[MT1926]

Yes I know Jimmy’s above article, when I read it some years ago, I said to myself: Wait a minute, This is a POSITIVE predestination and the destination of the predestination is hell.

You might want to go back and reread the Article. I’m not sure if you realize it or not, but that was a debate article. Jimmy was showing you James White’s position (that God predestines some to heaven and some to hell) and he was showing you his arguments against JW’s position.

So, as I cannot believe both (a. predestination to grace, + b. no positive predestination to hell) I have chosen to believe b. no positive predestination to hell and rejected a. predestination to grace which is a positive predestination to hell.

.

What do you think MT my above choice?

You are going to have to explain how Jimmy’s explanation of Predestined to Grace equates to Predestined to Hell?

What Jimmy says here seems perfectly logical. Where do you think he got it wrong?

Thus in Ephesians 1:3-12we have a reference to predestination to grace and in Romans 8:28-30 we have a reference to predestination to glory. So my opponent’s claim that there is no exegetical distinction between being predestined to grace and predestined to glory goes up in smoke. It is just linguistically false. The word “predestined” is used in Scripture for both the entrance into the Christan life and entrance into heaven.

I believe at baptism every true Catholic receives God’s grace The Gift if Final Perseverance, so they can never lose their salvation.

AMEN, their is nothing wrong with this belief, Unless you also believe that you are one of the “true Catholics”.

There is no way you can know if you were one of the TRUE.

You do realize Hitler was Baptized a Catholic right? I don’t know if he believed he was a TRUE Catholic but he sure thought he was special anyway.

Now don’t get me wrong here, I’m not claiming I know Hitler is in Hell, but the very definition of perseverance is…

noun
1.
steady persistence in a course of action, a purpose, a state, etc., especially in spite of difficulties, obstacles, or discouragement.
2.
Theology. continuance in a state of grace to the end, leading to eternal salvation.

If Hitler was given the gift of final perseverance he took one Hell of a detour. (Pun intended)

All I am trying to show you is there is no way one can know they are among the elect.

Please reread Jimmy’s article, you misinterpreted his words the first time you read it.

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

RESISTING AND COOPERATING WITH GOD James Akin

Of course, a Calvinist can say (as a Thomistic Catholic would say) that both cooperations in the giving and the embracing of the eternal call are themselves produced (not just enabled) by God’s grace, and this is perfectly fine. A Calvinist and a Catholic alike can say that our cooperation is produced by God’s operation. No problem at all. End quote.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/COOPERAT.htm

No this isn’t the end of the quote keep reading…Jimmy goes on to say…

The point is that we cannot criticize as unbiblical the language of cooperating with God in salvific matters, and this is precisely what the Calvinist does.

Did you read Jimmy’s conclusion? or did you stop when you found something that fit your personal theology?

Endnotes:

[1] Although I am here speaking of the grace to which Paul is referring as God’s external call, this is for the Calvinist’s benefit, as it is the reading he would most likely give the text. Actually, I think that once a person gets over the idea that a true Christian can never lose salvation that the more natural reading of the text is that Paul is calling true but fallen Christians who to come back to salvation so that they will not have received the grace of God (their initial salvation) in vain (by dying without it). This is indicated by the fact that Paul is talking to Christians and, as always, Paul presumes unless there is evidence otherwise every Christian is a true Christian who was genuinely converted and genuinely received salvation, though they may have since fallen. If Paul meant the grace he refers to be the external call of God then this would make the passage very odd since his audience in the Corinthian church had already received the external call of God in evangelism and thus do not need an evangelistic appeal. Paul is not doing primary evangelism with them. He is not calling them to salvation but calling them back to salvation if they have forsaken it.

Jim outright says in his conclusion that a “TRUE CHRISTIAN” can lose salvation.

He goes on to say that Paul is calling Christians back before they die after losing God’s grace.

You need to say a prayer to the Holy Spirit for guidance, wipe you mind clean of everything you think you know and reread Jimmy’s articles with a clear mind.

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

Thus Trent declares:

“n those who are born again God hates nothing, because there is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism unto death . . . but, putting off the old man and putting on the new one who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, guiltless and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, joint heirs with Christ; so that there is nothing whatever to hinder their entrance into heaven” (Decree on Original Sin 5).

Once again you seemed to be misunderstanding what is being talked about here. This is a declaration on the removal of original sin in Baptism, this isn’t talking about all sin.

You seemed to have omitted the disclaimer that Trent added to you statement…

because there is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism unto death,[18] who walk not according to the flesh,

There is no condemnation for the Christian who walks NOT according to the flesh. You get Baptized, original sin is washed away and there is no condemnation, but DISCLAIMER, you start walking according to the flesh (SINNING) and there will be condemnation.

This statement brings this verse to mind…

Hebrews 10:26-27
26 For if we willfully persist in sin after having received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.

Also, Trent goes on to give a second disclaimer just to make sure people don’t think they are speaking about all sin here…

But this holy council perceives and confesses that in the one baptized there remains concupiscence or an inclination to sin, which, since it is left for us to wrestle with, cannot injure those who do not acquiesce but resist manfully by the grace of Jesus Christ; indeed, he who shall have striven lawfully shall be crowned.[22]

NO Condemnation only counts for you if you resist the inclination to sin.

So a baptized believer can be condemned if they return to their sinful ways.

Hope this helps,

God Bless

 

[Gorgias]

Why do you ask?

Because I can see, in the Scriptures, where we’re given “essential doctrine”. However, I can’t see the notion of “non-essential doctrine” anywhere.

William Tyndale, was a believer in Jesus Christ. He believed in His virgin birth, His death, and His resurrection. He believed in His second coming. He believed the bible is the word of God.

William Tyndale was a godly man who was misunderstood by the King and by the CC who were all bent on killing him because he was placing the word of God into the hands of English speaking people for the first time ever.

A couple of thoughts. First off, his English translation was not the “first time ever” that Scripture had been translated into English. There had been other Scripture translations into English prior to his; none were complete Bibles, however.

Second, I’ve read that these Bibles that existed were already not good sellers, so there’s a definite question of ‘demand’ here.

Moreover, the issue wasn’t “creating a vernacular translation of the Bible”, it was “creating an unauthorized translation of the Bible.” In the history of the Church, there had been more than a few attempts to take the Word of God and translate it in a way that changed what it said (in order to match a particular person’s or group’s theology) in opposition to the Church and her teachings. So, in the first place, even if he had good intentions, Tyndale was being insubordinate as a Catholic cleric.

Over and above that, as we look at his translation, we see that he did change words to fit his agenda: words dealing with church and clergy were changed to fit his particular ecclesiology.

Finally, as we read his preface, we see him castigating “popish doctors of dunce’s dark learning”, and comparing the Church to the Pharisees of the NT.

In short, in Tyndale we find a cleric of the Church who disobeyed Church decrees, modified Scripture, and publicly insulted the Church and her leaders. We might look at him and recognize him as helping advance the cause of vernacular translations of Scripture, but it would be difficult to not recognize that the accusations of ‘heresy’ have merit, in the context of the time and place in which he lived.

It saddens me that there seems to be no remorse over his life within the CC. I hope I am wrong about the remorse. One of God’s sheep died for his efforts to give the population the word of God.

Had he done so in a way that attempted to work within the Church, I would agree totally with you. Given that he acted against and in defiance to the Church… how should we regard him?

 

[Wannano]

tgGodsway:

Why do you ask?

Because I can see, in the Scriptures, where we’re given “essential doctrine”. However, I can’t see the notion of “non-essential doctrine” anywhere.

William Tyndale, was a believer in Jesus Christ. He believed in His virgin birth, His death, and His resurrection. He believed in His second coming. He believed the bible is the word of God.

William Tyndale was a godly man who was misunderstood by the King and by the CC who were all bent on killing him because he was placing the word of God into the hands of English speaking people for the first time ever.

A couple of thoughts. First off, his English translation was not the “first time ever” that Scripture had been translated into English. There had been other Scripture translations into English prior to his; none were complete Bibles, however.

Second, I’ve read that these Bibles that existed were already not good sellers, so there’s a definite question of ‘demand’ here.

Moreover, the issue wasn’t “creating a vernacular translation of the Bible”, it was “creating an unauthorized translation of the Bible.” In the history of the Church, there had been more than a few attempts to take the Word of God and translate it in a way that changed what it said (in order to match a particular person’s or group’s theology) in opposition to the Church and her teachings. So, in the first place, even if he had good intentions, Tyndale was being insubordinate as a Catholic cleric.

Over and above that, as we look at his translation, we see that he did change words to fit his agenda: words dealing with church and clergy were changed to fit his particular ecclesiology.

Finally, as we read his preface, we see him castigating “popish doctors of dunce’s dark learning”, and comparing the Church to the Pharisees of the NT.

In short, in Tyndale we find a cleric of the Church who disobeyed Church decrees, modified Scripture, and publicly insulted the Church and her leaders. We might look at him and recognize him as helping advance the cause of vernacular translations of Scripture, but it would be difficult to not recognize that the accusations of ‘heresy’ have merit, in the context of the time and place in which he lived.

It saddens me that there seems to be no remorse over his life within the CC. I hope I am wrong about the remorse. One of God’s sheep died for his efforts to give the population the word of God.

Had he done so in a way that attempted to work within the Church, I would agree totally with you. Given that he acted against and in defiance to the Church… how should we regard him?

Maybe like the priests who are announcing to their congregants that they are coming out of the closet? How is the Church handling that? I read last night that there are whole parishes that are openly gay?