500 Years of Protestantism: 38 Things Martin Luther Wrote

[Per_Crucem]

I understand. Dr. Sippo has no patience with Protestantism. Get it? He’s doctor with no patience?

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

LOL.

I do ignore Rix, because I believe psychohistory to be junk science, at best.

 

[steido01]

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.

Again, what Luther -the man- personally thought to be Scripture has no bearing on Lutherans. Our Confessions -which actually matter to us- do not define a cannon. Thus, the Lutheran church holds the same view of pre-Tridentine Catholicism: hold the “disputed books” to be canonical, or not.

Perhaps this will help: internetmonk.com/archive/thinking-about-the-canon-a-lutheran-view

 

[steido01]

And not one voice in Protestantism has “Protested” about this?

Aren’t we Lutherans here doing just that? It’s really only in America that the 66-book Bible became commonplace, and that unfortunate wave that hit English-speaking Christians is slowly receding.

I think these words from the link I posted are important to keep in mind when discussing what makes ‘canon’ to Lutherans:

U]nlike Trent, Westminster, the 39 Articles, etc, there is no definition of the canon of Scripture in the Lutheran Confessions. This is relevant because between Catholics and Protestants, the canon debate is framed in such away that either you believe in an inerrant Protestant canon of 66 books based on their self-evident, internal witness to their own divine inspiration, or you believe that the infallible Church inerrantly defined the canon, and that it is accepted only on that authority. But as with many theological issues, the Lutheran position takes neither of the supposedly only two possible options without being a synthesis, either…

…[T]he point of a canon isn’t to just have some final Table of Contents on which to draw up a dogma and so that we can excommunicate everyone who refuses to stop asking the historical questions, it’s to have a rule of faith for settling doctrinal disputes and the like. Thus the Lutheran approach to the canon is to have a rule of interpretation essentially defined by the certainty to which we can establish a book’s origin:

1. 
   *]A dogma must be established by the universally attested books (homolegomena).
   *]Dogma may be corroborated by the contested books (antilegomena), and they may be read for historical background, advice, and other edifying purposes, but no dogma can be established from the antilegomena alone, nor can the antilegomena be pitted against the homolegomena.

 

[Peter_J]

No offense meant to you, Randy; but any sentence that contains the words “review by Dr. Art Sippo,” I do not take seriously.

I don’t know anything about Art Sippo, but I think it good idea in general not to put too much stock in statements made on an internet forum. (There are exceptions of course. I certainly do put stock in some posts, but that’s usually because I’ve found the particular person to be reliable.)

 

[steve_b]

Again, what Luther -the man- personally thought to be Scripture has no bearing on Lutherans. Our Confessions -which actually matter to us- do not define a cannon. Thus, the Lutheran church holds the same view of pre-Tridentine Catholicism: hold the “disputed books” to be canonical, or not.

Perhaps this will help: internetmonk.com/archive/thinking-about-the-canon-a-lutheran-view

How does that answer the quote I gave from the Missoiri Synod? It appears to be contradictory
cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=c&word=CANON.BIBLE

“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."

I realize because you’re protestant, you can say, no one speaks for you. So are you saying then you personally are using a Catholic bible and not a protestant bible?

 

[pablope]

Again, what Luther -the man- personally thought to be Scripture has no bearing on Lutherans. Our Confessions -which actually matter to us- do not define a cannon

.

Thus, the Lutheran church holds the same view of pre-Tridentine Catholicism: hold the “disputed books” to be canonical, or not.

This is quite confusing…to clarify…do the LCMS consider the 7 OT books canonical or not?

 

[Randy_Carson]

LOL.

I do ignore Rix, because I believe psychohistory to be junk science, at best.

Ah. Well, you may be right.

There is no reason whatsoever to believe that Luther had issues with his dad, despaired of his own salvation, was prone to scrupulosity or any of that stuff.

Just an average guy.

 

[pocohombre]

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.

In our weakness He is made strong. Again, the worse you make Luther look, the more it seems that it was inevitable for a true reformation. For if Luther was a genius,a magnanimous leader, spokesperson, intellectual, charmer, one could say he hoodwinked us, beguiled us with himself and led us all astray to a place where otherwise we would not have gone.

 

[JonNC]

How does that answer the quote I gave from the Missoiri Synod? It appears to be contradictory
cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=c&word=CANON.BIBLE

“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."

this sounds about like what Don said.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

This is quite confusing…to clarify…do the LCMS consider the 7 OT books canonical or not?

 

[steido01]

How does that answer the quote I gave from the Missoiri Synod? It appears to be contradictory
cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=c&word=CANON.BIBLE

How does what I said at all contradict the LCMS source? Oh, I see. You made a “creative edit” the second time around and neglected a few words. Allow me to bold an important distinction:

“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 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.”

Both I and the Cyclopedia note Luther’s (the man’s) view, and that English translations in wide use generally exclude the Apocrypha. Both I and the cyclopedia also note that “caution must be exercised not to exaggerate the distinction,” because the disputed books are considered by some to be canonical. If you have read any of what I’ve posted, you’d understand that Lutherans don’t define a canon.

I realize because you’re protestant, you can say, no one speaks for you. So are you saying then you personally are using a Catholic bible and not a protestant bible?

I’ll politely pass over your first sentence. I personally use the bible printed by the LCMS’s publishing wing, Concordia Publishing House, which includes this: cph.org/p-19305-the-apocrypha-the-lutheran-edition-with-notes.aspx.
[/quote]

 

[Isaiah45_9]

In our weakness He is made strong.

I stopped going to the gym because of this.

 

[pocohombre]

I stopped going to the gym because of this.

Thanks. I (we) needed that .

 

[mlz]

And we should be welcoming them home. Now, I am Catholic, but I bet that if I dug through Summa Theologica, I could easily come up with “38 Silly Things St. Thomas Aquinas Said”

The divide is already there. There is no need for either side to point fingers, call names, or do anything else. Catholics AND Lutherans (as well as all other Christians) should listen to one another in love and all need to look for Truth.

Yes, I agree. Let us together look at Jesus and Truth and learn to love each other and respect one another. So much is misunderstood from the past, let us look at each other now and embrace the depths of Truth. Although some of my protestant brothers and sisters in Christ do not accept, Jesus truely desires us to be ONE…I know you my brothers and sisters in Christ within the protestant realm of belief know this to be “spiritual” I dare to challenge you to look as Christ would have…do you honestly believe the “world” would know Him by some “mystical union…some spiritual union.”?? No, Christ called His Church to be ONE to be the truest of witness of His Love. I implore you to look at the depth, width and breath of the Catholic faith in an open (although at this point, silent study) and Truth seeking will of God. I honestly after years of study (nor am I at ALL finished as this is exhaustive in depth!) have found such a strong foundation of faith in the Catholic Church. We need this!!! I am in heart evangelical, wanting so very much to proclaim this “Good News!” to all. Please, please, please do not overlook the depth of the Catholic faith as it is beautiful…I disagreed on one issue after the other. Taking one issue at a time I slowly found the Catholic faith to be something (surprisingly) closer to my Lord than I first thought. (I had NO intention of becoming Catholic in my first quest of Truth!) It is way more beautiful and solid that originally thought the more I studied…most specifically, I was that the scriptures as amazingly beautiful and wonderful as a guide in faith, they were not always present in the early Church which relied on what Catholics refer to “Sacred Tradition” which encompases all that was preached and taught before the scriptures were written and accepted by the Church. ( oh, yes, the Church was the one that decided what was in the Canon of approved Scripture. (mind you, not protestant churches but the Holy Catholic Church) The evidence of “authority” makes total sense to me…after all, why would Jesus establish a Church with disunity? He wouldn’t and it makes perfect sense to me that the Catholic Church was the Church He meant for Him to rule the Earth this side of Heaven. Please did further if you don’t agree.

My love in Christ,
mlz

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Some are likely aware of Pope Benedict meeting with Lutherans in Germany and how Benedict spoke of Luther as a reflection of the Church’s appreciation. This article from the Catholic World Report has probably been posted before; the entire discussion points to ground-breaking rapprochement between Catholics and Lutherans:

For those who think themselves more Catholic than the Pope, Benedict’s approach to Luther and to ecumenical action in general may displease. But for the rest of us, it was inspiring to see a German pope, addressing a group of German Lutherans and, without compromise to Catholicism, quoting Martin Luther. If full Christian unity in the west is ever to be restored this side of the Eschaton, it surely will come along the path trod by Pope Benedict: not watering down our specifically Catholic commitments but likewise not backtracking our steps in order to rejoin the road of recrimination and Christian apartheid.
catholicworldreport.com/Blog/939/the_pope_martin_luther_and_our_time.aspx

 

[Darryl_B]

Some are likely aware of Pope Benedict meeting with Lutherans in Germany and how Benedict spoke of Luther as a reflection of the Church’s appreciation. This article from the Catholic World Report has probably been posted before; the entire discussion points to ground-breaking rapprochement between Catholics and Lutherans:

I’m seeing two things here, the Pope in humility reaching out a hand, the other is Lutheran excitement that the Pope should kneel before them (That is a figure of speech based on an actual event), here are our terms. I just don’t get the same interpretation of events as what Lutherans seem to draw from it. More importantly why are Lutherans excited about the Pope extending his hand to them in the first place? (So they can come home).

 

[steve_b]

I personally use the bible printed by the LCMS’s publishing wing, Concordia Publishing House, which includes this: cph.org/p-19305-the-apocrypha-the-lutheran-edition-with-notes.aspx.

Aren’t these the 7 OT books? “The Apocrypha: The Lutheran Edition with Notes”

iow, those books that are NOT scripture in a Lutheran bible. It’s as we’ve been saying, you DO follow Luther.

 

[steido01]

Aren’t these the 7 OT books? “The Apocrypha: The Lutheran Edition with Notes”

Yes, these are the books in question. We use them, and our own publishing company prints them.

iow, those books that are NOT scripture in a Lutheran bible. It’s as we’ve been saying, you DO follow Luther.

Steve, have you read anything that I’ve written? We Lutherans are free to consider/not consider the disputed books as part of Scripture. We do not define a canon. That’s why we print the disputed books as well as the commonly accepted ones. Does it make a difference whether the bible is physically printed in sections?

 

[benjohnson]

Does it make a difference whether the bible is physically printed in sections?

No! In fact we should go back to scrolls - this bound up ‘book’ thing is too modern!

Actually, one of my favorite bibles, the Anchor Bible, is a series of books.

 

[benjohnson]

iow, those books that are NOT scripture in a Lutheran bible. It’s as we’ve been saying, you DO follow Luther.

Yes we DO increasingly follow Luther and his larger-than-Trent-Catholic bible.

If they’re not scripture for us Lutherans, why do they show up in our Liturgy, Hymns (remember we Lutherans take our Hymns deadly seriously), and in our sermons and importantly in our lectionary:

cyberbrethren.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Daily-Lectionary.pdf

To be fair, we do have another lectionary that doesn’t include them for those churches that have some sort of wonky issue, but frankly of all the ‘protestants’ you’re griping about, we should be last on the list.