Posted on 08/30/2009 2:03:16 PM PDT by NYer
It gets difficult to pin down because prior to mercantalism currency was in a perpetual state of massive inflation and deflation. However, what you said is about a Bible costing as much as a house is probably accurate, but remember that well over 90% of the population COULD NOT AFFORD A HOUSE, they lived in a hut made of mud and straw that they built on land they didn't own. Also, keep in mind that the average person had no disposable income and no savings to speak of.
Just as difficult is the fact that the average person lived nowhere near a monastary where books were inscribed. If a person somehow managed to save the money, they would have to WALK for several days through territory which was seldom safe. Then they would have to pay for the Bible and wait for several years for it to be completed, how the monks would ever let a person with no address know that their book is ready is beyond me.
The feudal system in western Europe did not really begin to break down until the Black Death turned the economy upside down and changed things forever. This is when people started moving to cities and larger towns and mercantalism developed and with it a middle class began to emerge. Less than a century later Gutenberg's printing press came into being and within a few decades Bibles WERE available for the middle class, but before this it was an impossibility.
Wish you were here to comment on this thread, old friend. I miss you.
The Protestants I have read seem to consider “Paulism” as a form of proto-Protestantism. I have not heard that they embraced Nestorism before.
I've never heard a Catholic say "Aquinas said it, I believe it," either. What's your point?
We quote COMMENTATORS who provide ARGUMENTS, not AUTHORITIES.
A distinction without a difference.
Luther’s writings (and Augustine’s) are interesting. God’s writings are revealed truth. The latter judges the former.
Obviously. Why do you think we believe any differently?
You mean the esteemed senator from Chappaquiddick? Um, no he won’t.
"Those who deny scripture" == dispensationalists?
Dispensationalists say (quite loudly, in fact) that they're "Bible-believing Christians". You seem to be saying that they're not.
Whom should I trust? Both you and they claim to follow the Bible.
There are Protestants who admit their church is an innovation and like it that way. At least they are honest. Those Protestants tend to consider the orthodox past of the church (small o in orthodox) as anachronistic and that they are ‘evolving’ with the times to reflect modern values like female clergy and pro homosexual unions.I don’t agree with them but they are honest. They are not creating a DaVinci code conspiracy dating back 1,800 years.
Considering that the vast majority of Catholics and Orthodox not only accept nineteenth century liberal Protestant Biblical criticism, but see it as one of their main distinctions from "fundamentalists," it seems to me that there is a certain amount of hypocrisy in attacking evangelicals for having modern "fathers."
Where would Catholics and Orthodox be without the Reformation which gave birth to such men? They'd be "fundamentalists" themselves.
The Nestorianism starts right around this post (it’s not a real long thread):
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2316615/posts?page=46#27
That is false/incorrect.
The term fundamentalism was originally coined to describe a narrowly defined set of beliefs that developed into a movement within the Protestant community of the United States in the early part of the 20th century, and that had its roots in the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy of that time. Until 1950, there was no entry for fundamentalism in the Oxford English Dictionary; the derivative fundamentalist was added only in its second 1989 edition. (per wikipedia; but it is accurate as far as I can tell).
Hey ZC, nice to see you here. Now this party can really get started!! :)
Did something happen to wideawake?
Those are liberal Protestant churches. Liberal Protestant churches agree with Catholics and Orthodox about evolution and Biblical criticism, and I notice that Catholics and Orthodox don't bash liberal Protestants nearly as much as they do fundamentalist Protestants.
What is it about the historicity of events described in the Bible that so offends the Catholic and Orthodox minds?
James White gives a good summary of what Sola Scriptura means:
“The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience.
To be more specific, I provide the following definition: The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self- authenticating.
The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby.”
So where do you get the idea that every believer must possess a Bible? I agree it is an admirable goal, but it is entirely possible for scripture “to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church” without every believer holding a copy in his or her hand.
The problem for the Catholic Church is that many of its controversial teachings are contrary to scripture - Purgatory, indulgences, primacy of the Pope.
I find that statement bizarre. Also, I try not to bash - disagreement is not bashing though I can see why it looks that way.
From an Orthodox Christian perspective having a conservative female married clergy with kids is just as heretical as a female lesbian one who is pro abortion. Should we show preference for one heretic over the other? What's the point?
Ok good question. Let's flesh this out a bit. Let's take a society pre-printing press where the people are mostly illiterate. Only a select few people--really probably only the heads of churches--have anything close to a collection of the Sacred Books. Now...how do you see Sola Scriptura working in this context?
The people rely on the pastor preaching. Now suppose the pastor says something that is contrary to Scripture. How would people find out? Who would correct him?
LOL. Chapter and verse please. Otherwise, you posted a fine tradition of men.
“Why do you think we believe any differently? “
Because I’ve read papal proclamations. The ones I read cited various saints for authority, rather than explaining how their arguments had validity.
An argument has no authority because it comes from Luther or Augustine. For authority, it need to comply with scripture. That is the difference between citing authorities and reading commentary.
The Apostolic Churches predates the New Testament and in fact wrote them and compiled them decades later. The Church was formed after Pentecost without any New Testament scripture.
While I am not Protestant and reject sola scriptura I am even more opposed to the sort of hypocrisy which Catholic and Orthodox are engaging in on this thread. We have people here putting down Fundamentalist Protestantism and boasting of their devotion to antiquity when they do not accept all the teachings of the church fathers but only those they agree with.
Yes, the church fathers taught the real presence. They also taught that the world was created in six days. They also accepted the historicity of the events described in the "old testament." Yet here we have Catholics and Orthodox who blatantly reject the fathers' teachings on these matters condemning Fundamentalists for not accepting the fathers!
If the fathers were wrong about the Tower of Babel or the Flood of Noah being real events, then why should their teaching on anything else be considered authoritative? If science can sit in judgment on the fathers' teachings on creation, why can't it sit in judgment on all their other teachings?
Why is it all right for Catholics and Orthodox to accept the Bible criticism of nineteenth century liberal Protestantism whole cloth (in contradiction to the fathers) while it is wrong for Fundamentalist Protestants to accept the historicity of scriptural events and personages?
I wish you guys would explain this to me.
From an Orthodox Christian perspective having a conservative female married clergy with kids is just as heretical as a female lesbian one who is pro abortion. Should we show preference for one heretic over the other? What's the point?
The point is that Catholics and Orthodox are hypocrites. They reject what the church fathers taught about the historicity of Genesis (on the grounds that "they didn't know back then what we know now") while scolding Fundamentalist Protestants for not accepting the teaching of the church fathers on the real presence. They are hypocrites for condemning Protestantism when they have themselves accepted the Biblical criticism of nineteenth century liberal Protestants whole cloth.
If you get your view of the Bible from liberal Protestants, don't condemn Fundamentalist Protestants for not accepting the church fathers!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.