Catholicism
(05-09-2020, 01:15 AM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(05-07-2020, 08:23 AM)josh987654321 Wrote: Look at King Henry himself who created his own State Church because he didn't like Christ's teaching on adultery, I suppose he should've done his own translation and just tweaked those bits he didn't like and then palm it off to the masses?

You mean like Luther did? Dropping entire books, and portions of others, from the Bible that Christians had used for over a thousand years, trying to drop the Epistle of St James which he called 'an Epistle of straw', and making subtle changes to support his heresies?

Again, we come back to that question of authority. By what authority did Luther simply discard parts of Holy Scripture that all Christians had accepted until he came along? Of course, in his arrogance, he is reported to have said, 'My opinion is God's opinion and God's opinion is my opinion'.

Well, most Protestants today don’t agree 100% with everything Luther said. After all, the Book of James and the others he didn’t like are still included in the Bible. If we accepted everything he said we would all be anti-Semitic as well and that is simply not the case.

MM rightly pointed out that the RC Church had a duty to safeguard the Scriptures and regulate the Scriptural translations but that doesn’t mean that all vernacular translations rendered by Reformers were unfaithful translations. The KJV came to us via the original tongues and was compared with the other vernaculars of the day (Geneva, Matthew, Great, Bishops’, etc.) which led to the English Revised and American Standard Versions, the Revised Standard Version and then the English Standard Version which is very popular and trusted among Protestants and Catholics alike. Check out the ESV-CE here: 
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/catholic.mar...le-esv-ce/.

Protestants know how to be faithful and understand that Scripture has its own authority and faithful translators never departed from that. The RC Magisterium understands that as well. Why do they think they are the only ones who can be trusted with this? You speak as though all Protestants are like Thomas Jefferson who re-wrote the New Testament by editing out all the parts he didn’t like. You can’t say all Protestants are unfaithful because of men like him anymore than Protestants can say all RCs are cruel and dishonest because of a few bad popes.
Reply
Quote:The RC Magisterium understands that as well. Why do they think they are the only ones who can be trusted with this?


I don't know. It almost like the Church thinks Jesus Christ founded it and vested it with authority in His name or something.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Justin Tertius's post:
  • MiserereMeiDeus
Reply
(05-09-2020, 07:57 AM)Wingfold Wrote: No doubt there were some bad translations and the Church had to police that but that doesn’t that mean all the English or vernacular translators had nefarious intentions. And it sure doesn't justify Tyndale’s execution.

You don't have to have nefarious intentions in order to get something wrong. Incorrect translations done through ignorance lead souls to hell just as easily as ones done intentionally.

(05-09-2020, 07:57 AM)Wingfold Wrote: Protestants know how to be faithful and understand that Scripture has its own authority and faithful translators never departed from that.

Where in Scripture does it say which books are Scripture? If Protestants know how to be faithful to Scripture, why do they disagree on so many issues? And you're saying that there's no such thing as a faithful Catholic translation of Scripture, since the Catholic interpretation disagrees with Protestant ones.
[-] The following 2 users Like Paul's post:
  • MagisterMusicae, MiserereMeiDeus
Reply
(05-09-2020, 01:41 PM)Paul Wrote:
(05-09-2020, 07:57 AM)Wingfold Wrote: No doubt there were some bad translations and the Church had to police that but that doesn’t that mean all the English or vernacular translators had nefarious intentions. And it sure doesn't justify Tyndale’s execution.

You don't have to have nefarious intentions in order to get something wrong. Incorrect translations done through ignorance lead souls to hell just as easily as ones done intentionally.

(05-09-2020, 07:57 AM)Wingfold Wrote: Protestants know how to be faithful and understand that Scripture has its own authority and faithful translators never departed from that.

Where in Scripture does it say which books are Scripture? If Protestants know how to be faithful to Scripture, why do they disagree on so many issues? And you're saying that there's no such thing as a faithful Catholic translation of Scripture, since the Catholic interpretation disagrees with Protestant ones.

Scripture is its own authority because it is the written Word of God whose life is Himself. The Old Testament bears witness to the New Testament because the Old is the New concealed and the New is the Old revealed, as they say. As far as I understand it, RCs believe that, too. All Wycliffe and Tyndale wanted to do was have the Bible published in English and their work was faithful work. Apart from the deuterocanonicals, there is no difference between a Catholic and Protestant Bible. It doesn’t matter that Luther wanted to exclude certain books. He failed to do so and no Protestant today would endorse his actions.
Reply
(05-09-2020, 02:21 PM)Wingfold Wrote: Scripture is its own authority because it is the written Word of God whose life is Himself. The Old Testament bears witness to the New Testament because the Old is the New concealed and the New is the Old revealed, as they say. As far as I understand it, RCs believe that, too. All Wycliffe and Tyndale wanted to do was have the Bible published in English and their work was faithful work. Apart from the deuterocanonicals, there is no difference between a Catholic and Protestant Bible. It doesn’t matter that Luther wanted to exclude certain books. He failed to do so and no Protestant today would endorse his actions.

Well, actually, yes, they do. The deutercaninical books were considered canon up to that point for 1,000 years up to that point. And as far as I am aware Protestants don't recognize them as Sacred Scripture. 

Luther wanted those books removed because they contradict his theology. Who gave him this authority?

Luther wanted to remove James from the New Testament as well precisely because it contradicts his theology of faith only. Again, who gave him this authority?

That doesn't build confidence it him as the founder of a religious movement which prides itself as following 'sola scriptura'.
Reply
(05-09-2020, 02:54 PM)Justin Tertius Wrote:
(05-09-2020, 02:21 PM)Wingfold Wrote: Scripture is its own authority because it is the written Word of God whose life is Himself. The Old Testament bears witness to the New Testament because the Old is the New concealed and the New is the Old revealed, as they say. As far as I understand it, RCs believe that, too. All Wycliffe and Tyndale wanted to do was have the Bible published in English and their work was faithful work. Apart from the deuterocanonicals, there is no difference between a Catholic and Protestant Bible. It doesn’t matter that Luther wanted to exclude certain books. He failed to do so and no Protestant today would endorse his actions.

Well, actually, yes, they do. The deutercaninical books were considered canon up to that point for 1,000 years up to that point. And as far as I am aware Protestants don't recognize them as Sacred Scripture. 

Luther wanted those books removed because they contradict his theology. Who gave him this authority?

Luther wanted to remove James from the New Testament as well precisely because it contradicts his theology of faith only. Again, who gave him this authority?

That doesn't build confidence it him as the founder of a religious movement which prides itself as following 'sola scriptura'.

Luther was presumptuous about some things because he was sinful like all of us. It doesn’t mean he was wrong about everything. In fact, in The RC Church’s counter-Reformation, they tacitly acknowledged that he was right about indulgences and the simony involved in them. As for Protestants regarding Luther, it’s a matter of eating the meat and spitting out the bones.
Reply
(05-09-2020, 03:30 PM)Wingfold Wrote: Luther was presumptuous about some things because he was sinful like all of us. It doesn’t mean he was wrong about everything. In fact, in The RC Church’s counter-Reformation, they tacitly acknowledged that he was right about indulgences and the simony involved in them. As for Protestants regarding Luther, it’s a matter of eating the meat and spitting out the bones.

I think the key here is not that Catholics are declaring that Luther's outrage at the abuse of indulgences were not justified, but why follow in the footsteps of a man (or footsteps of men inspired by said man) who got it so unbelievably wrong on virtually everything else.

Jan Hus the proto-Protestant are largely celebrated by Protestants and seen as a martyr, what they fail to acknowledge was that this same "martyr" this same "holy man of God" also gave birth to one of the bloodiest and cruel revolts led by mob rule during the 16th-century which sparked a civil war even among the Hussites themselves. Huss couldn't even get his own facts straight which is why there was a break in the Hussite camps during the Bohemian War.

As you said "it's a matter of eating the meat and spitting out the bones." What we are saying is that if the entire carcass is diseased, eating the meat is still going to make you sick regardless if you spit out the bones.
[-] The following 2 users Like austenbosten's post:
  • jovan66102, MiserereMeiDeus
Reply
(05-09-2020, 02:21 PM)Wingfold Wrote: Scripture is its own authority because it is the written Word of God whose life is Himself. 

I've always been curious as to the Protestant viewpoint on Scriptural authority and the books/concepts that are not included in the Protestant Bible. 

Is it necessary for a Protestant to have all of scripture?  What does he do if he does not have it all?  Does that matter to him?

If there is something missing from the written word of God as a Protestant understands that term, how does he/she figure out everything that God expects that person to believe?   

For instance, do you believe that the Bible teaches that all of Saint Paul's epistles are inspired?  Where does that idea come from?
[-] The following 3 users Like DJRESQ's post:
  • austenbosten, jovan66102, MiserereMeiDeus
Reply
Quote:I've always been curious as to the Protestant viewpoint on Scriptural authority and the books/concepts that are not included in the Protestant Bible. 

Is it necessary for a Protestant to have all of scripture?  What does he do if he does not have it all?  Does that matter to him?

If there is something missing from the written word of God as a Protestant understands that term, how does he/she figure out everything that God expects that person to believe?   

For instance, do you believe that the Bible teaches that all of Saint Paul's epistles are inspired?  Where does that idea come from?


This.

The idea of Sola Scriptura is self contradictory. It states that all things a Christian needs to know for salvation are found in the bible. But where are the Books of Sacred Scripture ever enumerated in Scripture? Where is the list of what is Scripture in Scripture? It isn't there. By the standard set, a Protestant really can't know infallibilly that the list of Books contained in the Bibles are what constitute Scripture. 

And it can't be what is quoted in the New Testament. St. Jude quotes the book of 1 Enoch and that isn't Scripture. St. Paul quotes a pagan philosopher, and that isn't Scripture. 

Christ didn't definitively settle the issue of the canon which the Jews were debating.

The historical fact is that the Canon of the Bible was settled in the late 4th and early 5th century by the Roman Catholic Church. Protestant just assume that the Catholic Church's decision was right, in part, but then just leave it there. Infallible only once.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Justin Tertius's post:
  • MiserereMeiDeus
Reply
(05-09-2020, 05:14 PM)DJRESQ Wrote:
(05-09-2020, 02:21 PM)Wingfold Wrote: Scripture is its own authority because it is the written Word of God whose life is Himself. 

I've always been curious as to the Protestant viewpoint on Scriptural authority and the books/concepts that are not included in the Protestant Bible. 

Is it necessary for a Protestant to have all of scripture?  What does he do if he does not have it all?  Does that matter to him?

If there is something missing from the written word of God as a Protestant understands that term, how does he/she figure out everything that God expects that person to believe?   

For instance, do you believe that the Bible teaches that all of Saint Paul's epistles are inspired?  Where does that idea come from?

Yes, Protestants want to have all of Scripture, a complete canon. Now, here’s where you tell me that if the deuterocanonicals aren’t included in a Protestant’s Bible, it is incomplete, so how can a Protestant be satisfied with that? Then I say that he/she is content that he/she has the whole canon and then you say, on what/who’s authority do you say that. The Church’s? The Church includes them. 

Ok, consider this. The deuterocanonicals weren’t included in the Hebrew Scriptures of Jesus’ day; He quoted them often and considered them a complete, closed canon. The Jews had the books arranged in a different order from Genesis to Chronicles which puts into proper perspective the bookended murders Jesus referred to in Matthew 23:34-35.  

My turn for a question. Given the RC Church’s tendency to create Tradition and equate it with the Bible, how do Protestants know that the deuterocanonicals are not just Catholic add-ons like the doctrines added to Tradition? Because the Magisterium said so?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)