Dr. Reeves great video brother! I would like to thank you for this UA-cam page! It's been a wonderful help to me and really wet my pallet for Church History.
Isn't Wyclif considered the Morningstar of the Reformation? His English publication of the bible from the true Latin Vulgate caused the established Catholic church much consternation. The Lollards were so numerous that a priest complained that every other man he met was a Lollard.
Yes and yes, just depends on the context. Morning Star of the Reformation is what the reformers called him and the name didn't stick until later. This is trying to understand Wycliff in his own day. The Lollardy piece I'm only tweaking a bit. Meaning, it's very strong in some cities and does not exist in others. So the priest who says he meets them everywhere is very important, but it's also important to historians not to read one quote onto the entirety of the country. Just a bit of common sense from historians really, not denying Lollardy itself. :)
I think one have to distinguish between the Lollardy as a heretical religious movement and the term "Lollardy" as a fighting word for the church and the authorities. No one really could have known for sure who was a Lollard, i.e. the term was used for a diffuse group of people which gathered and acted mostly in the underground. So it's quite interesting to see how the term "Lollard" was kind of instrumentalized/politicized through the decades (and the next century) to ultimately accuse random people as heretics.
Interesting to note regarding the criticism of Wyclif's considering the study of Greek and Hebrew unnecessary as a tool to better understand the bible. A recent publication, Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography, (Taylor, 2006, Eerdman's), a collection of twelve essays from the top Greek linguists of our day agreeing that all current Greek study tools are misleading, obsolete, and in need of a complete overhaul. One calls the state of Greek study tools a slum.
VegasKJV Thus, if we want to know the Greek, we should actually listen to the Greek Orthodox who preserved the Greek language in liturgy. I use the Douay Bible that translates the Vulgate.
John Wyciffe wrote that we should be "weary of any" who preach justification by anything but faith... I don't see how we can say that he doesn't address the issue of Justification by faith.
You have here one stray quote from Wycliffe, and one that is without much substance. Everyone in the middle ages talked about justification by faith--it's right there in Paul, after all. The point is what they MEAN by it. Besides my point is not that he doesn't have a doctrine of some sort on justification, but that he never wrote books on it and we have so very little of his works on the subject. Instead, as I am stressing in the video, he focused almost exclusively in his writings on 1) the abuse of the pope and 2) the errors of the new doctrine of transubstantiation. In this sense he is very much like Luther, but it takes Luther for justification by faith ALONE (don't forget Luther's focus on the word 'alone') that made him unique. Maybe another way to put it: many talked about justification by faith before Luther, but we would not say they are Lutherans in the middle ages as a result. Besides no one ever accused Wycliffe of teaching errors on the issue of justification, which raises doubts as to whether he was really poking the papal bear on this subject.
“Trust wholly in Christ; rely altogether on His sufferings; beware of seeking to be justified in any other way than by His righteousness. Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ is sufficient for salvation. There must be atonement made for sin, according to the righteousness of God. The Person to make this statement must be God and man.”
I love history and I learned quite a bit, thank you, however I will be honest I think that this video does overlook many important, very forward thinking things that Wycliffe does bring to the table, things which certainly do aid the reformatoin in England; though I agree that England did need the Reformation in order to reform. What about the influence of Wycliffe on John Huss (Jan Hus) who would eventually somewhat influence Luther, heavily influence the Moravians, and through the Moravians bring reformation to the Wesleys and revival to all England
Hey Kevin, A few things to say in response. 1) The common assumption about the role of Wycliffe in the English Reformation is dramatically overplayed and without any direct or significant evidence. (My PhD was on English Reformation.) A.G. Dickens played up the Lollard connection, but the evidence of significant connection is really limited to several stray connections in the city of London. 2) I have an entire video on Hus and I do comment on the connections there. Being forced to deal with every connection or impact Wycliffe had wasn't the focus of this video. It was a lecture on the connection of Wycliffe in his own day. 3) The Wycliffe to Lollard to Moravian connection is nearly as weak as any of these other connections. You're talking a span of 300+ years. Trying to connect these threads overtly, and therefore make Wycliffe the father of everything from Anglicanism to Moravianism to the Methodists is simply hero worship and impossible in terms of real historical research. 4) Hus had absolutely no influence on Luther in the way you describe here. Luther was already Protestant and committed to Justification by Faith when he uttered the phrase "Yes, I am a Hussite", and during the debate Luther actually had to call for a break so he could go and read Jan Hus to determine if he agreed with him. Luther is just lobbing bombs at that point and is more thrilled to find someone he never knew agreed with him. 4) In many ways your response is exactly why I didn't go over these elements in the video: Wycliffe is too often understood merely for how he would be used by later figures and rarely understood as a man of 14th century England. All that to say, there are actual scholarly reasons why I was inclined not to play up these themes, but most important of all: that's not what the video was about. The video was just about Wycliffe in his own day.
Ryan Reeves May I bother you for the link of the full Hus video? Love your work here by the way especially as you try to stay as historically accurate as possible. Thanks again ☺
Ryan Reeves, I'm not sure these things are all open to historical research. Ideas that are around, but get you condemned as subversive if committed to paper, are not going to be easy to trace.
I find it quite interesting that the kings of England (King John to Edward), the citizens of England and the Reformation theologians,like Wycliffe, finally stood up and fought to break away from the Papacy of Rome, just like the pilgrims tried to break away from King George. I read that around the time of King John came the Magna Charta, and we had to bring about the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Just find the similarities interesting. As they say, history repeats itself. :)
you need to learn a bit more history. henry the 8th broke away, none of the people you mentioned. and he did it wanting a divorce and putting his paws on the wealth of the church. the pilgrims didn't break away, or even tried, that came a lot later as did king george. as far as the magna carta and the declaration of independence and the constitution, very different. the declaration of independence and the constitution established the first secular country and government, and the magna carta gave protection of the church's rights and to the rebel barons. it was issued and annulled at least 5 times. it was not around the time, it was an agreement signed by king john. he did not honor it and the pope annulled it. i don't think the comparison you are trying to make is valid, and it is certainly not history repeating itself.
Vicki Lynn - If you really want to read about a fascinating period in history, check out Simon de Montfort, 6th Earl of Leicester (c. 1208 - 4 August 1265) Make sure it's this Simon (the 6th). At first a friend to King Henry III (Simon married Henry's sister Eleanor), he eventually became Henry's bitter enemy after Henry, through a Papal Bull issued in 1261, rescinded the Magna Carta. By the way, King Henry III was King John's son. Simon led the forces against Henry in the Second Baron's Revolt, in which Henry was defeated and taken hostage. Simon became the de facto King of England until he was killed by Henry's son, Edward Longshanks (later King Edward I) at the Battle of Evesham. Truly a terrific story! Simon is considered by many to be the father of representative government in England...which, in turn, as you well know, eventually led to the U.S. Constitution. Here's a really good book about that whole period...it's in novel form, but is very historically accurate. A great read! www.goodreads.com/book/show/77448.Falls_the_Shadow
Dr. Reeves great video brother! I would like to thank you for this UA-cam page! It's been a wonderful help to me and really wet my pallet for Church History.
Isn't Wyclif considered the Morningstar of the Reformation? His English publication of the bible from the true Latin Vulgate caused the established Catholic church much consternation. The Lollards were so numerous that a priest complained that every other man he met was a Lollard.
Yes and yes, just depends on the context. Morning Star of the Reformation is what the reformers called him and the name didn't stick until later. This is trying to understand Wycliff in his own day. The Lollardy piece I'm only tweaking a bit. Meaning, it's very strong in some cities and does not exist in others. So the priest who says he meets them everywhere is very important, but it's also important to historians not to read one quote onto the entirety of the country. Just a bit of common sense from historians really, not denying Lollardy itself. :)
I think one have to distinguish between the Lollardy as a heretical religious movement and the term "Lollardy" as a fighting word for the church and the authorities. No one really could have known for sure who was a Lollard, i.e. the term was used for a diffuse group of people which gathered and acted mostly in the underground. So it's quite interesting to see how the term "Lollard" was kind of instrumentalized/politicized through the decades (and the next century) to ultimately accuse random people as heretics.
Thank you for your precious informations. Keep up the good work. God bless you
very important history interesting well done and to the point
Interesting to note regarding the criticism of Wyclif's considering the study of Greek and Hebrew unnecessary as a tool to better understand the bible. A recent publication, Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography, (Taylor, 2006, Eerdman's), a collection of twelve essays from the top Greek linguists of our day agreeing that all current Greek study tools are misleading, obsolete, and in need of a complete overhaul. One calls the state of Greek study tools a slum.
VegasKJV May I ask where that publication can be found?
VegasKJV Thus, if we want to know the Greek, we should actually listen to the Greek Orthodox who preserved the Greek language in liturgy. I use the Douay Bible that translates the Vulgate.
Lollards- Interesting “possible” name comparison. "Lullaby" prayers. La - La - La. Thanks again!
Do you have any examples of historians that claimed Wycliffe to be the main instigator of the Peasants Revolt?
John Wyciffe wrote that we should be "weary of any" who preach justification by anything but faith... I don't see how we can say that he doesn't address the issue of Justification by faith.
You have here one stray quote from Wycliffe, and one that is without much substance. Everyone in the middle ages talked about justification by faith--it's right there in Paul, after all. The point is what they MEAN by it.
Besides my point is not that he doesn't have a doctrine of some sort on justification, but that he never wrote books on it and we have so very little of his works on the subject. Instead, as I am stressing in the video, he focused almost exclusively in his writings on 1) the abuse of the pope and 2) the errors of the new doctrine of transubstantiation. In this sense he is very much like Luther, but it takes Luther for justification by faith ALONE (don't forget Luther's focus on the word 'alone') that made him unique.
Maybe another way to put it: many talked about justification by faith before Luther, but we would not say they are Lutherans in the middle ages as a result. Besides no one ever accused Wycliffe of teaching errors on the issue of justification, which raises doubts as to whether he was really poking the papal bear on this subject.
“Trust wholly in Christ; rely altogether on His sufferings; beware of seeking to be justified in any other way than by His righteousness. Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ is sufficient for salvation. There must be atonement made for sin, according to the righteousness of God. The Person to make this statement must be God and man.”
Who is Chris? And why does Wycliffe think that he is physically present at the mass?
I love history and I learned quite a bit, thank you, however I will be honest I think that this video does overlook many important, very forward thinking things that Wycliffe does bring to the table, things which certainly do aid the reformatoin in England; though I agree that England did need the Reformation in order to reform. What about the influence of Wycliffe on John Huss (Jan Hus) who would eventually somewhat influence Luther, heavily influence the Moravians, and through the Moravians bring reformation to the Wesleys and revival to all England
Hey Kevin,
A few things to say in response.
1) The common assumption about the role of Wycliffe in the English Reformation is dramatically overplayed and without any direct or significant evidence. (My PhD was on English Reformation.) A.G. Dickens played up the Lollard connection, but the evidence of significant connection is really limited to several stray connections in the city of London.
2) I have an entire video on Hus and I do comment on the connections there. Being forced to deal with every connection or impact Wycliffe had wasn't the focus of this video. It was a lecture on the connection of Wycliffe in his own day.
3) The Wycliffe to Lollard to Moravian connection is nearly as weak as any of these other connections. You're talking a span of 300+ years. Trying to connect these threads overtly, and therefore make Wycliffe the father of everything from Anglicanism to Moravianism to the Methodists is simply hero worship and impossible in terms of real historical research.
4) Hus had absolutely no influence on Luther in the way you describe here. Luther was already Protestant and committed to Justification by Faith when he uttered the phrase "Yes, I am a Hussite", and during the debate Luther actually had to call for a break so he could go and read Jan Hus to determine if he agreed with him. Luther is just lobbing bombs at that point and is more thrilled to find someone he never knew agreed with him.
4) In many ways your response is exactly why I didn't go over these elements in the video: Wycliffe is too often understood merely for how he would be used by later figures and rarely understood as a man of 14th century England.
All that to say, there are actual scholarly reasons why I was inclined not to play up these themes, but most important of all: that's not what the video was about. The video was just about Wycliffe in his own day.
Ryan Reeves May I bother you for the link of the full Hus video? Love your work here by the way especially as you try to stay as historically accurate as possible. Thanks again ☺
Ryan Reeves,
I'm not sure these things are all open to historical research. Ideas that are around, but get you condemned as subversive if committed to paper, are not going to be easy to trace.
I find it quite interesting that the kings of England (King John to Edward), the citizens of England and the Reformation theologians,like Wycliffe, finally stood up and fought to break away from the Papacy of Rome, just like the pilgrims tried to break away from King George. I read that around the time of King John came the Magna Charta, and we had to bring about the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Just find the similarities interesting. As they say, history repeats itself. :)
you need to learn a bit more history. henry the 8th broke away, none of the people you mentioned. and he did it wanting a divorce and putting his paws on the wealth of the church. the pilgrims didn't break away, or even tried, that came a lot later as did king george. as far as the magna carta and the declaration of independence and the constitution, very different. the declaration of independence and the constitution established the first secular country and government, and the magna carta gave protection of the church's rights and to the rebel barons. it was issued and annulled at least 5 times. it was not around the time, it was an agreement signed by king john. he did not honor it and the pope annulled it. i don't think the comparison you are trying to make is valid, and it is certainly not history repeating itself.
Vicki Lynn - If you really want to read about a fascinating period in history, check out Simon de Montfort, 6th Earl of Leicester (c. 1208 - 4 August 1265) Make sure it's this Simon (the 6th). At first a friend to King Henry III (Simon married Henry's sister Eleanor), he eventually became Henry's bitter enemy after Henry, through a Papal Bull issued in 1261, rescinded the Magna Carta. By the way, King Henry III was King John's son.
Simon led the forces against Henry in the Second Baron's Revolt, in which Henry was defeated and taken hostage. Simon became the de facto King of England until he was killed by Henry's son, Edward Longshanks (later King Edward I) at the Battle of Evesham. Truly a terrific story!
Simon is considered by many to be the father of representative government in England...which, in turn, as you well know, eventually led to the U.S. Constitution. Here's a really good book about that whole period...it's in novel form, but is very historically accurate. A great read! www.goodreads.com/book/show/77448.Falls_the_Shadow
When did the burning of heretics or at least the executing of them begin?
+NoName // Earliest dates on record are around the 12th century. It's quite late in church history.
Jackues Le Goff writes in his book about the culture of the middle ages that the first burnings started in 1022 in Orleans
At least the burning at stakes began in England with the "Heretico Comburendo" 1401.
PS: Thanks for Upload!
Does anyone know where I can find the picture from 26:26?
Is it true he does not want prayers to be said for the dead.
+Fguramafia // No he never affirmed this or really spoke on it.
+Ryan Reeves because I heard no praying for the dead.
its against God to pray to the dead. read it in bible
learn to read. for the dead, not to the dead. of course, what does the bible have to do with god?
What does prayers do for the dead? They aren't living
You all need to read the great controversy...
Thanks
Maybe we need reformation of some of the Islamic principles.
Nice.
Why did they portrait catholics as blacks?.....jejejejje