500 Years of Protestantism: 38 Things Martin Luther Wrote

  • Thread starter Thread starter yosephdaviyd
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
established until the Council of Trent
By Gary Michuta

Today, some Protestants are arguing that Luther did not subtract books from the Canon of Scripture
Poor Mr Michuta: You’d think someone who’d studied the problem would at least be aware that Luther’s bible is larger than the Trent Bible.

If anything, we Lutherans with our German bibles should be griping about the truncated Catholic Bible.
 
He sure did - unlike others, Luther put the deuterocanonicals in the hands of thousands of Germans and made them available to all in clear German.

Sounds like a good thing to me 👍

Frankly, I don’t understand the seemingly Catholic obsession about complaining about Luther’s complete 74 book bible and printing thousands of copies of it.

If anything, you’d think Catholics would encourage protestants to look to Luther to regain those now-missing books.
Confounds me, too, Ben. Of all the reformation era communions, Lutherans have a longer, stronger tradition with the use of the DCs than any, save some Anglicans. And while American Lutherans kind of lost touch because of English bibles, I wonder if any other non-Catholic communion in Anerica has a published commentary on the DCs as we do.

Jon
 
Poor Mr Michuta: You’d think someone who’d studied the problem would at least be aware that Luther’s bible is larger than the Trent Bible.

If anything, we Lutherans with our German bibles should be griping about the truncated Catholic Bible.
hahaha you subvert you.
 
Poor Mr Michuta: You’d think someone who’d studied the problem would at least be aware that Luther’s bible is larger than the Trent Bible.

If anything, we Lutherans with our German bibles should be griping about the truncated Catholic Bible.
Ah…so you are doing what Machuta wrote about:

This type of argument is quickly beginning to become a favorite among our separated brethren. They want to divert attention away from how these books were accepted within Christianity and focus instead on technical language in regards to their definition by the Church.
If anything, we Lutherans with our German bibles should be griping about the truncated Catholic Bible
So within the protestant umbrella…what are you doing to correct the malpractice of removing the DC books from Bibles (and I am not speaking about publishing a DC commentary-I am speaking about actions-like speaking to protestant groups to inform them of the true story behind the removal of the DC books)?
 
pablope;11257217]Ah…so you are doing what Machuta wrote about:
This type of argument is quickly beginning to become a favorite among our separated brethren. They want to divert attention away from how these books were accepted within Christianity and focus instead on technical language in regards to their definition by the Church.
**
So within the protestant umbrella…what are you doing to correct the malpractice of removing the DC books from Bibles (and I am not speaking about publishing a DC commentary-I am speaking about actions-like speaking to protestant groups to inform them of the true story behind the removal of the DC books)?**
Why would Lutherans be responsible for “speaking to protestant groups”?
 
Poor Mr Michuta: You’d think someone who’d studied the problem would at least be aware that Luther’s bible is larger than the Trent Bible.

If anything, we Lutherans with our German bibles should be griping about the truncated Catholic Bible.
Then, who took them out?

Why are the DC’s not considered part of the canon anymore?

Is there a Council where the Church as a Whole agreed?
 
Then, who took them out?
Skinflint English booksellers using the Westminster Confession as a way of being cheap.
Why are the DC’s not considered part of the canon anymore?
In Lutheran circles, the is no defined canon, but most English speaking Lutherans either don’t know about the problem, and if they’re aware then the tend to follow Luther’s bible.
 
Ah…so you are doing what Machuta wrote about:

This type of argument is quickly beginning to become a favorite among our separated brethren. They want to divert attention away from how these books were accepted within Christianity and focus instead on technical language in regards to their definition by the Church.
Frankly I have no idea what Machuta is writing about here. Perhaps he doesn’t either - his argument starts off with incorrect facts and goes downhill from there.
So within the protestant umbrella…
There is no Protestant umbrella. If history is any indication, we tend to get stabby and burn things when places next to Anabaptists and their decedents.
what are you doing to correct the malpractice of removing the DC books from Bibles?
Putting them in the hands of our people isn’t enough? The whole thing doesn’t make me too upset, so I’m not sure how much effort we’re going to make above what we do for the rest of the Bible.
 
Why would Lutherans be responsible for “speaking to protestant groups”?
There are protestant groups would be more receptive to Lutherans than Catholics…there are protestants who do not consider Catholics as Christians…go figure.

And it is putting their words into actions…they said Luther did not take out books in the Bible…there are those who believe otherwise…don’t you think it is logical that those who bear Luther’s name would be more believable to protestants than catholics, in general?
 
Frankly I have no idea what Machuta is writing about here. Perhaps he doesn’t either - his argument starts off with incorrect facts and goes downhill from there.

Did you read the whole letter? And which are the incorrect facts in Machuta’s letter? Can you point them out?
There is no Protestant umbrella. If history is any indication, we tend to get stabby and burn things when places next to Anabaptists and their decedents.
 
Okay…but just to be sure, can you elaborate on what you just said? 😊
Sorry, I only had a minute to answer in my last post but I will elaborate. I was reading one of your earlier posts which I have refound.
And what does the Lutheran pastor who converts to Catholicism gain (other than a peaceful conscience)?
But Peter was exhorting Catholic pastors to remain steadfast. Protestant pastors who convert to Catholicism are leading by example…whether any choose to follow or not.
Which made me realize something, something went ‘click’. Protestant pastors who convert to Catholicism are leading by example, but that is also true of any protestant layman (such as yourself), and what they are leaving behind is protestantism. It is a surrender of association, status and relationship for pastor or layman (I don’t mean severing relationships I mean the relationship becomes different), which gave me this conviction that I cannot take any baggage with me, otherwise I will have ongoing internal struggles between the two.

Hence, thanks for your example, even though you may not have been a protestant pastor.
 
Then, who took them out?

Why are the DC’s not considered part of the canon anymore?

Is there a Council where the Church as a Whole agreed?
On your first question, I like Ben’s answer. 😃

Depends on who you talk to. You still consider them canonical. Yes?
Lutherans consider them part of scripture, insofar as we use them liturgically, in our hymnody, etc, and here in America they are (finally) starting to show up in Bible study. Now, if memory serves, the Catholic Church does not quibble with Orthodoxy for having those “extra books”, because that’s how they use them.

There has never been a Council where the whole Church agreed on the canon, or at least defined it. Trent wasn’t a council of the whole Church (even excluding protestants), and the very fact that Orthodoxy does have varying canons means the early ecumenical councils did not define one for the whole Church.

Jon
 
Skinflint English booksellers using the Westminster Confession as a way of being cheap.
And not one voice in Protestantism has “Protested” about this?
In Lutheran circles, the is no defined canon, but most English speaking Lutherans either don’t know about the problem, and if they’re aware then the tend to follow Luther’s bible.
Wouldn’t it be the responsible thing to do, if you hold to Sola Scriptura - to know what Scriptures are? Not just take someone’s opinion about it. But what the Christian Church throughout the ages uses?

This is what is so incongruent about Sola Scriptura, it ignores itself…
 
Sorry, I only had a minute to answer in my last post but I will elaborate. I was reading one of your earlier posts which I have refound.

Which made me realize something, something went ‘click’. Protestant pastors who convert to Catholicism are leading by example, but that is also true of any protestant layman (such as yourself), and what they are leaving behind is protestantism. It is a surrender of association, status and relationship for pastor or layman (I don’t mean severing relationships I mean the relationship becomes different), which gave me this conviction that I cannot take any baggage with me, otherwise I will have ongoing internal struggles between the two.

Hence, thanks for your example, even though you may not have been a protestant pastor.
Many thanks.

:tiphat:
 
This will make some folks unhappy, but I just came across a book review by Dr. Art Sippo that I think relevant to this thread.

Martin Luther: The Man and the Image
By Herbert David Rix

By far and away, the best book written on Martin Luther in the 20th Century was “Martin Luther: The Man and the Image” by Medieval scholar and Erasmus expert Herbert David Rix. It was published by a small independent New York press Irvington Publishers in 1983. It did not receive much press. I obtained a used copy in a small bookshop in Oxford, UK in 1989. I had never heard of it before, but as I glanced through it in the shop, I knew it was a must read. My expectations were more than realized. it was essentially a life-changing book and I used it as the basis for an extended lecture on Martin Luther entitled “The Death of Charity” which I delivered to the Pro Fide Forum at Westminster Cathedral in London in October 1989.

Dr. Rix did an extended survey of Luther’s works from the Weimar Edition of Luther’s collected works. He also did a survey of the various analyses of Luther’s personality and work by his 16th Century contemporaries and by scholars since the Quadricentenniel of his birth in 1883. Rix makes several connections in the timeline of Luther that I have not seen documented in other biographical materials. He also gives a plausible (if somewhat dated) psychological profile of the heretic using pre-DSM3 categories.

In short, Dr. Rix thinks that Luther suffered from a severe manic-depressive disorder punctuated with periods of extreme mania that bordered on the psychotic and characterized by a poor self image, severe depression, and delusions of grandeur. In this view he was not alone. He quotes from previous authors who wrote about Luther including Erasmus, Richard Simon, Preserved Smith, Fr. Heinrich Denifle, Fr. Hartman Grisar, Preserved Smith, Paul Reiter, and Eric Eriksson.

Based on his masterful summary in this book, it is abundantly clear that Luther was suffering from severe mental illness and that this illness lay as the foundation of his alleged religious “breakthrough.” To put it bluntly, the theological foundation of Protestantism is mental illness. Luther’s amoral and anti-nomian heresy of “justification by faith alone unformed by charity and without good works” was a personal catharsis which the heretic used to control his periods of depression.

Full review here: art-of-attack.blogspot.com/2012/06/best-book-on-martin-luther-now.html

This analysis by Dr. Rix might explain a lot of what we see in the OP.
 
This will make some folks unhappy, but I just came across a book review by Dr. Art Sippo that I think relevant to this thread.
No offense meant to you, Randy; but any sentence that contains the words “review by Dr. Art Sippo,” I do not take seriously.
 
No offense meant to you, Randy; but any sentence that contains the words “review by Dr. Art Sippo,” I do not take seriously.
I understand. Dr. Sippo has no patience with Protestantism. Get it? He’s doctor with no patience? :rotfl:

Ahem. Okay, nevermind that.

But will you ignore Dr. Rix, also? I just discovered that the book is available in full here:

books.google.com/books?id=FQB_TKWpHnwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Martin+Luther:+The+Man+and+the+Image+By+Herbert+David+Rix&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0T1MUursLuWFyQGsxoGwDQ&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Martin%20Luther%3A%20The%20Man%20and%20the%20Image%20By%20Herbert%20David%20Rix&f=false
 
Poor Mr Michuta: You’d think someone who’d studied the problem would at least be aware that Luther’s bible is larger than the Trent Bible.

If anything, we Lutherans with our German bibles should be griping about the truncated Catholic Bible.
This quote and links, are from a Lutheran perspective. (links are operational)

“Luther’s dictum on the Apocrypha expressed in his tr. of the Bible 1534, “These are books which are not held equal to the sacred Scriptures and yet are useful and good for reading,” influenced subsequent generations; we find the Apocrypha excluded from the sacred canon in the translations .gen used in Luth.**, **Angl., and Ref. churches (though the KJV originally included them)…[snip… Lutherans in Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod - Christian Cyclopedia”]Am. followed Luther and held that the distinction bet.homologoumena and antilegomena must not be suppressed. But caution must be exercised not to exaggerate the distinction.”

cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=c&word=CANON.BIBLE

keep in mind, when canonical books are reclassified as apocryphal, that removes those books from the canon. Even if they are left in one’s bible, but in an index, or maybe they don’t show up at all, Luther did that to 7 OT books in his translation, and Lutherans appear not to diagree with that. So the issue is not to count books but to count canonical books.

So please explain your terms that you’re using. How many canonical books do you have in your bible?

My bible contains only canonical books. There are 73 canonical books. There is no mixture of canonical and non-canononical (apocryphal) books. btw, Deutero canon is still canonical. as in it is fully scriptural.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top