“False charge. Tyndale preached salvation by faith just as Paul preached.”
St. Paul preached a gospel of grace - not “sola fide”. Nor did St. Paul preach a gospel of grace through “sola fide”.
You can see this in his use of the phrase “obedience of faith”.
https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2016/12/18/the-obedience-of-faith/
Even Protestants today are struggling with their own erroneous interpretation of St. Paul. Hence, the whole “New Perspective on Paul” movement.
“Wow. Tyndale sure seems to be hiding his heresy cleverly here. It almost sounds like he translated the passage you cited to have the same essential meaning as Douay-Rheims.”
First, since Tyndale’s translation work in no way figured into his trial it was probably viewed as irrelevant and could be read by none of his judges. Most likely they never even saw his translation unless he had copies with him when arrested and even then they couldn’t read it.
Second, Tyndale’s translation of the verse may have been perfectly correct, but his understanding and use of it, or the theological teaching behind it, would be the issue since he was a heretic and propagated heresy.
“It is in this sense that James and Paul do not contradict each other. Salvation is not earned. It is a gift. Those who teach working for salvation are heretics.”
Yes, and that’s why we don’t do it. But Protestants teach that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone and that is condemned by James as wrong (James 2:24). That’s why Luther, whom Tyndale so admired, threatened to “throw Jimmy into the stove” (i.e. burn the Letter of James because it did not agree with his theology).
[1] Fratres mei, nolite in personarum acceptione habere fidem Domini nostri Jesu Christi gloriae. [2] Etenim si introierit in conventum vestrum vir aureum annulum habens in veste candida, introierit autem et pauper in sordido habitu, [3] et intendatis in eum qui indutus est veste praeclara, et dixeritis ei : Tu sede hic bene : pauperi autem dicatis : Tu sta illic; aut sede sub scabello pedum meorum : [4] nonne judicatis apud vosmetipsos, et facti estis judices cogitationum iniquarum? [5] Audite, fratres mei dilectissimi : nonne Deus elegit pauperes in hoc mundo, divites in fide, et haeredes regni, quod repromisit Deus diligentibus se?
[6] vos autem exhonorastis pauperem. Nonne divites per potentiam opprimunt vos, et ipsi trahunt vos ad judicia? [7] nonne ipsi blasphemant bonum nomen, quod invocatum est super vos? [8] Si tamen legem perficitis regalem secundum Scripturas : Diliges proximum tuum sicut teipsum : bene facitis : [9] si autem personas accipitis, peccatum operamini, redarguti a lege quasi transgressores. [10] Quicumque autem totam legem servaverit, offendat autem in uno, factus est omnium reus.
[11] Qui enim dixit : Non moechaberis, dixit et : Non occides. Quod si non moechaberis, occides autem, factus es transgressor legis. [12] Sic loquimini, et sic facite sicut per legem libertatis incipientes judicari. [13] Judicium enim sine misericordia illi qui non fecit misericordiam : superexaltat autem misericordia judicium. [14] Quid proderit, fratres mei, si fidem quis dicat se habere, opera autem non habeat? numquid poterit fides salvare eum? [15] Si autem frater et soror nudi sint, et indigeant victu quotidiano,
[16] dicat autem aliquis ex vobis illis : Ite in pace, calefacimini et saturamini : non dederitis autem eis quae necessaria sunt corpori, quid proderit? [17] Sic et fides, si non habeat opera, mortua est in semetipsa. [18] Sed dicet quis : Tu fidem habes, et ego opera habeo : ostende mihi fidem tuam sine operibus : et ego ostendam tibi ex operibus fidem meam. [19] Tu credis quoniam unus est Deus : bene facis : et daemones credunt, et contremiscunt. [20] Vis autem scire, o homo inanis, quoniam fides sine operibus mortua est?
[21] Abraham pater noster nonne ex operibus justificatus est, offerens Isaac filium suum super altare? [22] Vides quoniam fides cooperabatur operibus illius : et ex operibus fides consummata est? [23] Et suppleta est Scriptura, dicens : Credidit Abraham Deo, et reputatum est illi ad justitiam, et amicus Dei appellatus est. [24] Videtis quoniam ex operibus justificatur homo, et non ex fide tantum? [25] Similiter et Rahab meretrix, nonne ex operibus justificata est, suscipiens nuntios, et alia via ejiciens?
[26] Sicut enim corpus sine spiritu mortuum est, ita et fides sine operibus mortua est.
Tyndale was a heretic. He was arrested for it, tried for it, and executed for it. Those are the facts. No amount of posting or outright falsehoods from any Protestant or non-Protestant can change those facts. Tyndale was a heretic.
Though we will probably remain at an impasse over many issues for the foreseeable future, I have reconsidered your complaint over my accusation that you “justify the torture and murder of those who disagree with you.” You asserted that I would be unable to substantiate this. And I have decided to concede the point.
I also recognize that you did earlier allow that “if you want to call that his faith, fine” in #185.
In my zeal to force your hand, I demanded that you defend your position, by insisting that you also condemn Tyndale’s accusers and executioners. But, just as I support the Constitutional protections to allow freedom of religion and to prevent cruel and unusual punishments, I must also recognize that people have the right to express their opinions and also to not be forced to testify against themselves.
So, while I do not follow the logic of your position on Tyndale, I withdraw my harsh allegation against your moral character. I leave that to yourself and God. It is not my place to condemn you for words that you have not actually uttered. For me to utter them and put these words in your mouth does constitute a straw man argument.
Speaking of straw, I am aware of what you said about the book of James. Luther, if my memory serves me, did not consider it canon and called it a work of “straw.” It appears that he had trouble reconciling his understanding of the Pauline epistles and the writings of James.
We could probably debate endlessly over the correct understanding of justification. I will state a brief overview of my position on this topic. I do not expect to convince you, but I intend to reply to what you asserted thus far.
You posted this link:
https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2016/12/18/the-obedience-of-faith/
It contains this statement:
“The coming of God’s Messiah is sheer grace – a grace that disrupts established patterns and powers, not to destroy, but to repair and make whole. ‘The obedience of faith’ is the one possible response to the awe-filled deed God has wrought in Jesus Christ.”
While I do not disagree with this statement, I wish to show how it is possible to twist a person’s words as a pretext for heresy. “Sheer” means “nothing other than.” So sheer grace is no different than saying “grace alone.”
If a Protestant such as Tyndale advocates “faith alone” and “grace alone” it is clear that he recognizes that grace and faith operate together and are not “alone” in every sense of the word. Grace alone, which is another way that a person could say that salvation is sheerly by grace, refers to the Bible doctrine that we do not earn our salvation. Our redemption was paid for with the life of Christ, i.e. His blood, and nothing else. His blood paid the full price. It is not like a coupon where we pay a discounted rate for some purchase. We do not pay anything for our redemption. It might be said that we owe a debt of love and gratefulness, but it is a debt we can never repay.
I am glad to have learned some things through our debate. I learned more about Tyndale, Joan of Arc, Thomas More, the Reformation, and even Catholic doctrine. I am glad to learn that the official Catholic doctrine is that no one can earn their salvation. It was the complaint of abuses and misrepresentations of Catholic doctrine that led to the Reformation movement, in my opinion.
So statements like “faith alone” were specifically in response to these issues. In context, faith alone does not refer to the wrong idea that faith abides alone and is not accompanied by other things including works. Justification (being called just) by God happens when someone believes, and the works follow. Contextually he is addressing the issue of salvation being a grace, i.e. a gift, rather than something earned like wages. Death is the wages of sin, but eternal life is a gift.
James, on the other hand is not comparing works and grace, but he is contrasting faith that works with faith that does not. He is addressing the qualitative difference between faith that saves and faith that does not. Everyone believes in something. But a mental or verbal assent, even if correct, is not enough to qualify as saving faith. Paul describes a sincere faith. Does this mean that he demands two qualities: faith and sincerity? Do we evaluate our faith based on how sincere we feel? No. But not all faith is saving faith. James says not to have faith in Christ with the hypocrisy of “respect of persons.” He also clarifies that saving faith is faith that works. Paul says the same thing by telling us that those who are chosen for salvation are chosen to do good works. Paul speaks of justification (being declared righteous) by God. James speaks of being declared righteous or just by our works. That is, our works justify us. Our works speak about our faith, and either confirm or deny the reality of genuine faith.
Works of faith declare us to be just or righteous. When God declares a man just on the basis of faith rather than works, He is accounting the man to be forgiven and to have received the imputed righteousness of Christ. This happens when a person believes the Gospel, putting his faith in Christ for salvation. This response to God’s foreknowledge and calling are the starting point of salvation, which is a process of transformation. Salvation begins with forgiveness, continues with justification and sanctification, and culminates with glorification at the resurrection when Christ returns. So Paul says “our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed.”
The justification by God which Paul describes is one in which we become just by God declaring it so. The justification James describes is one in which a true believer is acting in accordance with his faith, and his works validate that he is a just man. Paul’s justification is about a sinner becoming a righteous man. James’ justification describes how the man who has been made righteous by faith will act consistently with this reality. Paul describes “good works” that follow justification by faith, while James describes works of faith (not necessarily “good works”) that prove that genuine faith resides in a person’s heart rather than merely being lip-service.
Back to the article you linked. “’The obedience of faith’ is the one possible response to the awe-filled deed God has wrought in Jesus Christ.” Notice the word “one.” Is this literally true? Is this not the very heresy that Tyndale was accused of? Faith is the one response. No. Contextually it is correct. Of course faith does not stand by itself, even if it is the “one” response expected and required.
Why put forward such a doctrinal statement as “faith alone?” It is simply a way to state that there is one sole distinguishing factor that separates those who have received Christ from those who have not. This only applies to those whose faith is in Christ through the message of the Gospel. The thief on the cross did not need to come down off of the cross and do some works in order to have received Christ’s forgiveness. He did not need to do penance. He did not need to do acts of charity or give anything in order to receive the free gift of eternal life. But of course we immediately see the evidence that his faith is real based on his change of demeanor and words that he says following his belief.
Faith alone, does not exclude grace, works, the blood of Christ, repentance, the agency of the Holy Spirit, or any other essential element of our salvation. It is simply a statement of the criteria of receiving the gift of eternal life. Saving faith has many non-optional qualities. It is a faith that works. It is a faith that perseveres. It is a sincere faith. It is a faith in Christ. It is a faith in the cross. It is a faith in the Gospel. It is a faith in the truth of God’s Word. It is a faith in the faithfulness of God. These are not separate qualities but part of a unity that constitutes the singular requirement for receiving the gift of eternal life: faith.
The relationship between a believer with the law of God is in stark contrast with that of the unbeliever. For believers, the law of bondage has been replaced with the “law of liberty” as James describes in James 2. The law of the knowledge of sin has been replaced with the “law of faith” as Paul describes in Romans 3. The handwritten law has been replaced by the law God has written on our hearts in Hebrews 10:16. The law of wrath (Romans 4:15) has been replaced by the law of love (Romans 13:10).