73 books vs 66 books

[dmar198]

“on the subject of history, do you think St. Irenaeus had the right idea of the authority of the Roman Church in his book Against Heresies Book III? What is your interpretation of his remarks?”

I agree, at least in part, with your assessment regarding the DC’s.

That’s very humbling, thank you. One thing that I think is important to note is that, before Trent, there were the earlier Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage that also made important statements about the Canon in the late fourth century. I know they didn’t bind the faithful to adhere to their decisions with an anathema, but their decisions still settled the mind of all Christianity for the next one thousand one hundred and fifty years. To the Catholic mind, that’s definitive evidence for the Deuterocanonicals because we don’t believe the Holy Spirit would leave all Christians in error for over a thousand years until Luther decided to change things. Catholics and EOs get to fall back on the Holy Spirit’s protection of the Church; now I know you’re not saying the Deuterocanonicals are definitely uninspired, but there are plenty of Protestants who do, and for them, they seem to be saying that all Christians were unanimously in error for over a thousand years, up until Luther’s time. Do you have an opinion on that?

 

[JonNC]

“on the subject of history, do you think St. Irenaeus had the right idea of the authority of the Roman Church in his book Against Heresies Book III? What is your interpretation of his remarks?” That’s very humbling, thank you. One thing that I think is important to note is that, before Trent, there were the earlier Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage that also made important statements about the Canon in the late fourth century. I know they didn’t bind the faithful to adhere to their decisions with an anathema, but their decisions still settled the mind of all Christianity for the next one thousand one hundred and fifty years. To the Catholic mind, that’s definitive evidence for the Deuterocanonicals because we don’t believe the Holy Spirit would leave all Christians in error for over a thousand years until Luther decided to change things. Catholics and EOs get to fall back on the Holy Spirit’s protection of the Church; now I know you’re not saying the Deuterocanonicals are definitely uninspired, but there are plenty of Protestants who do, and for them, they seem to be saying that all Christians were unanimously in error for over a thousand years, up until Luther’s time. Do you have an opinion on that?

Couple of thoughts:
On Carthage, Hippo and Rome. Those were more local synods than ecumenical councils, the evidence being two-fold: 1) EO patriarchates continue to have varying canons, and are not limited to 73 books, and 2) as I mentioned earlier, people such as Cajetan, and even Erasmus disputed certain books of the 73 of the western Church. Now, that’s not an attempt to marginalize the synods, but just recognizing that they did not speak for the whole Church, as the ecumenical councils did.
Luther, OTOH, did not develop his ideas of “canon” in a vacuum, but instead by looking at the views and positions of the Fathers of the Church, from Eusebius on, and considering the Hebrew opinions about the OT. Significant in all this is, while I think he could have gone further, Luther demonstrates deference to the historic Church, by the fact that he sees to it that all 73 books of the western tradition are included in his German translation of 1534, and that they remained there through his life (and actually into the present time). This he didn’t have to do, recognizing his excommunication left him unconstrained in matters such as these.
One of the problems we face here in America as Lutherans, frankly, has been historically to accept 66 book English Bibles, and just ignore even the encouragement by Luther himself to read and know what is written and taught in the DC’s. So, we get a bit of a skewed view of how Lutheranism outside the English speaking world has handled the DC’s. And from my view, to the detriment of American Lutherans.

Jon

 

[dmar198]

Couple of thoughts:
On Carthage, Hippo and Rome. Those were more local synods than ecumenical councils, the evidence being two-fold: 1) EO patriarchates continue to have varying canons, and are not limited to 73 books, and 2) as I mentioned earlier, people such as Cajetan, and even Erasmus disputed certain books of the 73 of the western Church.

Regarding Cajetan, I think that his statements about the Deuterocanonicals are a great example of being open to the Reformers on matters where that was permissible. The Church had not yet defined the Canon; therefore, he reasoned that it was okay to respectfully argue against their canonicity, and was in fact convinced by various arguments against them. But he would have submitted his judgment to the definitions of the Council of Trent if he had been alive when it occurred.

Regarding the broader canons of some EO churches, I don’t think they count as evidence against my appeal to the Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage. Rather, I think they would point to them as quickly as Catholics do to prove the authority of the Deuterocanonicals. They would just say, there is more.

But I’d really like you to address this point: the Deuterocanonicals were accepted by the regional councils of the late fourth century and were unanimously accepted from roughly that time until the time of Luther. Do you think all Christians could be wrong for so long?

Now, that’s not an attempt to marginalize the synods, but just recognizing that they did not speak for the whole Church, as the ecumenical councils did.

Yeah, I understand that.

Luther, OTOH, did not develop his ideas of “canon” in a vacuum, but instead by looking at the views and positions of the Fathers of the Church, from Eusebius on, and considering the Hebrew opinions about the OT.

I agree that he did this, but I would add that the fourth-century regional churches had already done that, and they decided to go with a broader canon. If they had been overturned by a more authoritative council, that would be one thing; but the only one who went against them was Luther, and a few other people in his time who were careful to note that the Church hadn’t made a decision yet.

Significant in all this is, while I think he could have gone further, Luther demonstrates deference to the historic Church, by the fact that he sees to it that all 73 books of the western tradition are included in his German translation of 1534, and that they remained there through his life (and actually into the present time). This he didn’t have to do, recognizing his excommunication left him unconstrained in matters such as these.

But the historic Church viewed them as inspired Scripture, and Luther said they were uninspired apocrypha. To me, that’s very problematic. (Same goes for Cajetan, actually.)

One of the problems we face here in America as Lutherans, frankly, has been historically to accept 66 book English Bibles, and just ignore even the encouragement by Luther himself to read and know what is written and taught in the DC’s. So, we get a bit of a skewed view of how Lutheranism outside the English speaking world has handled the DC’s. And from my view, to the detriment of American Lutherans.

I agree.

“on the subject of history, do you think St. Irenaeus had the right idea of the authority of the Roman Church in his book Against Heresies Book III? What is your interpretation of his remarks?”

 

[JonNC]

=dmar198;11869180]Regarding Cajetan, I think that his statements about the Deuterocanonicals are a great example of being open to the Reformers on matters where that was permissible. The Church had not yet defined the Canon; therefore, he reasoned that it was okay to respectfully argue against their canonicity, and was in fact convinced by various arguments against them. But he would have submitted his judgment to the definitions of the Council of Trent if he had been alive when it occurred.

So far as I know, he did. Luther, OTOH, died before then, be he probably would have felt no need of doing so.

Regarding the broader canons of some EO churches, I don’t think they count as evidence against my appeal to the Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage. Rather, I think they would point to them as quickly as Catholics do to prove the authority of the Deuterocanonicals. They would just say, there is more.

Agreed. I would say my point is, if we are to close the canon, it means we are closing it at both ends, and more is at least as troublesome fewer.

But I’d really like you to address this point: the Deuterocanonicals were accepted by the regional councils of the late fourth century and were unanimously accepted from roughly that time until the time of Luther. Do you think all Christians could be wrong for so long? Yeah, I understand that. I agree that he did this, but I would add that the fourth-century regional churches had already done that, and they decided to go with a broader canon. If they had been overturned by a more authoritative council, that would be one thing; but the only one who went against them was Luther, and a few other people in his time who were careful to note that the Church hadn’t made a decision yet. But the historic Church viewed them as inspired Scripture, and Luther said they were uninspired apocrypha. To me, that’s very problematic. (Same goes for Cajetan, actually.) I agree.

I don’t think it a matter of people being wrong about it. Again, if we look to the EO, are we saying they have been wrong about it these many centuries? Are we saying that the Fathers who held differing canons were wrong? I think in this matter is was ok to have differing opinions. As you can see, mine is somewhat different than Luther’s.

“on the subject of history, do you think St. Irenaeus had the right idea of the authority of the Roman Church in his book Against Heresies Book III? What is your interpretation of his remarks?”

Do you have a particular quote in mind? One, generally, has to remember that the Fathers wrote without knowledge of the Schism that was to come, and how that affected authority. Some Lutherans like to quote the fathers to defend sola fide and even sola scriptura, as Catholics will to refute them. I am reluctant to do so because its trying to use their words in a dispute they would have no knowledge about.
Jon

 

[tdgesq]

I don’t think it a matter of people being wrong about it. Again, if we look to the EO, are we saying they have been wrong about it these many centuries? Are we saying that the Fathers who held differing canons were wrong? I think in this matter is was ok to have differing opinions. As you can see, mine is somewhat different than Luther’s.

I have seen evidence that at times the east have accepted greater than 73 books that make up the RC canon, but not fewer. Can you point me to some resources on this? Thanks.

 

[JonNC]

I have seen evidence that at times the east have accepted greater than 73 books that make up the RC canon, but not fewer. Can you point me to some resources on this? Thanks.

You’re right that they have more. Orthodox canons are readily available online

Jon

 

[MrPizzaDude]

what are some of the errors in the 66 book cannon?

 

[tdgesq]

There aren’t any errors in them (or in the deuterocanon for that matter), at least none that would lead someone away from those truths necessary for salvation.

 

[Darryl_B]

For the last 25 years I have used a Catholic 73 book Bible (RSV Catholic edition) even though I was protestant. I also read the other 7 books. The reason I did so is I didn’t see the problem. What is the problem? Is it just principle? The 7 books were even printed in the KJV until there was pressure in the 1800s to remove them by the Presbyterian Church.

I would much rather read those 7 books than a book by a protestant pastor.

 

[JohnR77]

For the last 25 years I have used a Catholic 73 book Bible (RSV Catholic edition) even though I was protestant. I also read the other 7 books. The reason I did so is I didn’t see the problem. What is the problem? Is it just principle? The 7 books were even printed in the KJV until there was pressure in the 1800s to remove them by the Presbyterian Church.

I would much rather read those 7 books than a book by a protestant pastor.

Luther rejected the Mass, the Papacy, and Purgatory among other things.
He stated that unless proven wrong by the Scriptures he would not budge.

Catholic apologists quoted the following which clearly shows the existence of Purgatory.

2 Maccabees 12:38-46
"Judas rallied his army and …went to gather up the bodies of the slain and bury them with their kinsmen in their ancestral tombs.
40 But under the tunic of each of the dead they found amulets sacred to the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. So it was clear to all that this was why these men had been slain. …
42 † Turning to supplication, they prayed that the sinful deed might be fully blotted out. The noble Judas warned the soldiers to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen.
43 He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view;
44** for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it**** would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death.**
45 But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought.
46 Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin."

Rather than change his beliefs, Luther decided to omit the Deuterocanonical Books from his Bible even though Bibles that pre-date Luther had them. Luther did include them, but in the back under the heading of Apocrypha

The problem for Protestants is that if one rejects the authority of the Catholic Church, then there is no authority that can decide the Old Testament Canon or the New Testament Canon.

How do you know that there are 27 Books in the New Testament or what those books are ?

The Dominican John Eck, displayed the image of St. George at Leipzig in the Year of our Lord Jesus Christ, 1519 when he disputed Martin Luther.
.

 

[Darryl_B]

Luther rejected the Mass, the Papacy, and Purgatory among other things.
He stated that unless proven wrong by the Scriptures he would not budge.

Catholic apologists quoted the following which clearly shows the existence of Purgatory.

2 Maccabees 12:38-46
"Judas rallied his army and …went to gather up the bodies of the slain and bury them with their kinsmen in their ancestral tombs.
40 But under the tunic of each of the dead they found amulets sacred to the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. So it was clear to all that this was why these men had been slain. …
42 † Turning to supplication, they prayed that the sinful deed might be fully blotted out. The noble Judas warned the soldiers to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen.
43 He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view;
44** for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it**** would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death.**
45 But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought.
46 Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin."

Rather than change his beliefs, Luther decided to omit the Deuterocanonical Books from his Bible even though Bibles that pre-date Luther had them. Luther did include them, but in the back under the heading of Apocrypha

The problem for Protestants is that if one rejects the authority of the Catholic Church, then there is no authority that can decide the Old Testament Canon or the New Testament Canon.

How do you know that there are 27 Books in the New Testament or what those books are ?

The Dominican John Eck, displayed the image of St. George at Leipzig in the Year of our Lord Jesus Christ, 1519 when he disputed Martin Luther.
.

My understanding is that Martin Luther rejected something else even prior to his other rejections, and that is confession/reconciliation, and since reject that therefore the slope manifested.

The passage you cite from II Maccabees did not impact me at all as a protestant, even though I read it, until I noticed the Catholic Church creed of the communion of saints, and we did not have that.

 

[JonNC]

=Darryl B;11877195]My understanding is that Martin Luther rejected something else even prior to his other rejections, and that is confession/reconciliation, and since reject that therefore the slope manifested.

Luther, in the Smalcald Articles:

Since Absolution or the Power of the Keys is also an aid and consolation against sin and a bad conscience, ordained by Christ [Himself] in the Gospel, Confession or Absolution ought by no means to be abolished in the Church, especially on account of [tender and] timid consciences and on account of the untrained [and capricious] young people, in order that they may be examined, and instructed in the Christian doctrine.

The Small Catechism

V. Confession

How Christians should be taught to confess.

What is Confession?*

Confession embraces two parts: the one is, that we confess our sins; the other, that we receive absolution, or forgiveness, from the confessor, as from God Himself, and in no wise doubt, but firmly believe, that our sins are thereby forgiven before God in heaven.

What sins should we confess?

Before God we should plead guilty of all sins, even of those which we do not know, as we do in the Lord’s Prayer. But before the confessor we should confess those sins alone which we know and feel in our hearts.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Rather than change his beliefs, Luther decided to omit the Deuterocanonical Books from his Bible even though Bibles that pre-date Luther had them. Luther did include them, but in the back under the heading of Apocrypha

A couple of clarifications, if I may.

1. Luther’s attitude toward Purgatory is far more nuanced than you portray (see the link, starting with par. 158). And regarding the “omission” of the Deuterocanon, Purgatory is only said to be referred to in 2 Macc. Assuming for a moment (an incorrect assumption I believe, but be that as it may) that the reason he “omitted” 2 Macc was because of Purgatory, that doesn’t explain the situation with the rest of the DC’s, since Purgatory is not an issue in Judith, Sirach, Tobit, 1 Macc, or the others.
   I believe you have the cause and effect backwards: Luther refused to accept 2 Macc as support for the doctrine of Purgatory precisely because he, like others, did not consider it canon in the first place.
2. Luther did not place them at the end of the Bible, but in between the OT and NT, a rather interesting placement considering that they provide a view of the time between the testaments. Additionally, he included with them the Prayer of Manasseh. What’s interesting is that he made certain they were translated and included. Seems a strange thing to do for someone who felt they contradicted his theology.

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/lutheran/hope-eternal-life.cfm

Jon

 

[po18guy]

what are some of the errors in the 66 book cannon?

The error is that no one on earth - no individual - had the authority to declare that only those 66 books were canonical or not. As you see from Acts 15, it had to be an assembly of the Church council to make such a declaration and set it in stone. Saint Jerome is famously cited as one who had questions about the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. Yet, Jerome translated them for Pope Damasus out of obedience and cited/used them in his later writings. He never declared them to be “non-inspired” as certain rebellious souls did 1500-1900 years later by their own personal authority/opinion…

 

[McCartney]

The error is that no one on earth - no individual - had the authority to declare that only those 66 books were canonical or not. As you see from Acts 15, it had to be an assembly of the Church council to make such a declaration and set it in stone. Saint Jerome is famously cited as one who had questions about the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. Yet, Jerome translated them for Pope Damasus out of obedience and cited/used them in his later writings. He never declared them to be “non-inspired” as certain rebellious souls did 1500-1900 years later by their own personal authority/opinion…

Well said.

 

[JohnR77]

A couple of clarifications, if I may.

1. Luther’s attitude toward Purgatory is far more nuanced than you portray (see the link, starting with par. 158). And regarding the “omission” of the Deuterocanon, Purgatory is only said to be referred to in 2 Macc. Assuming for a moment (an incorrect assumption I believe, but be that as it may) that the reason he “omitted” 2 Macc was because of Purgatory, that doesn’t explain the situation with the rest of the DC’s, since Purgatory is not an issue in Judith, Sirach, Tobit, 1 Macc, or the others.
   I believe you have the cause and effect backwards: Luther refused to accept 2 Macc as support for the doctrine of Purgatory precisely because he, like others, did not consider it canon in the first place.

Jon

We disagree on this point. I do not believe there is any reference that Luther rejected the Deuterocanonical Books until he was challenged with 2 Maccabees. At this point he had to find a reason to reject it. The justification he came up with is why he went on to reject the others as well because they too fit this “justification.”

I have heard, but so far unable to document, the following:
Luther challenged his debater to show him from the Bible where he was wrong. When the citation from 2 Maccabees was presented Luther’s jaw dropped. We know this because Luther’s friend Philip Melanchthon states as much. To be challenged with a source one does not accept is not an issue, but to be proven wrong with a source a person – at least initially – accepts, is a shocker.

.

1. Luther did not place them at the end of the Bible, but in between the OT and NT, a rather interesting placement considering that they provide a view of the time between the testaments. Additionally, he included with them the Prayer of Manasseh. What’s interesting is that he made certain they were translated and included. Seems a strange thing to do for someone who felt they contradicted his theology.

Jon

Yes. Luther seemed to have a Canon with a Canon. He would not omit them entirely as the Church had revered them so, but he did deny that they were the infallible Word of God, just has he also rejected that status to several New Testament Books that taught contrary to his “faith alone” formula.

See
defendingthebride.com/bb/deuterocanonical5.html

.

 

[JohnR77]

.

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/lutheran/hope-eternal-life.cfm

Jon

I will underline in Green font passages from the above I wish to comment on

159. No biblical text uses the word "purgatory,"

No, I would not expect to find the English word “purgatory” or its Latin root “purgatorio” sp? in the Greek or Hebrew text, but I do believe that it is there in Hebrew or Greek words.

Purgatory was referred to by the following words in these languages:
**Hebrew **… Sheol - place of the dead
Greek … Hades -Where Christ descended to. Not Tartaroo or Gehenna.
**Latin **… Purgatorio

1 Peter 3:18-19
“For Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the sake of the unrighteous, that he might lead you to God. Put to death in the flesh, he was brought to life in the spirit. In it **he also went to preach to the spirits in prison … ” ** NAB
.
Matthew 5:25-26
“Settle with your opponent quickly while on the way to court with him. Otherwise your opponent will hand you over to the judge, and the judge will hand you over to the guard, and **you will be thrown into prison. Amen, I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny.” **NAB
.
See my updated web page for more information.

defendingthebride.com/sc/purgatory.html

2. Development of Doctrine and Practice Related to Purgatory.
167. … Christians began praying for their dead at a very early date. By the beginning of the third century, Tertullian was

The links from my web page above give earlier dates than Tertullian which is about AD 216.

The Acts of Paul and Thecla
“And after the exhibition, Tryphaena again received her [Thecla]. For her daughter Falconilla had died, and said to her in a dream: ‘Mother, you shall have this stranger Thecla in my place, in order that she may pray concerning me, and that I may be transferred to the place of the righteous’”
(Acts of Paul and Thecla [A.D. 160]).

Abercius
“The citizen of a prominent city, I erected this while I lived, that I might have a resting place for my body. Abercius is my name, a disciple of the chaste shepherd who feeds his sheep on the mountains and in the fields, who has great eyes surveying everywhere, who taught me the faithful writings of life. Standing by, I, Abercius, ordered this to be inscribed; truly I was in my seventy-second year. May everyone who is in accord with this and who understands it pray for Abercius”
(Epitaph of Abercius [A.D. 190]).

Perpetua
“[T]hat very night, this was shown to me in a vision: I saw Dinocrates going out from a gloomy place, where also there were several others, and he was parched and very thirsty, with a filthy countenance and pallid color, and the wound on his face which he had when he died. This Dinocrates had been my brother after the flesh, seven years of age, who died miserably with disease . . . For him I had made my prayer, and between him and me there was a large interval, so that neither of us could approach to the other. . . . and * knew that my brother was in suffering. But I trusted that my prayer would bring help to his suffering; and I prayed for him every day until we passed over into the prison of the camp, for we were to fight in the camp-show. Then . . . I made my prayer for my brother day and night, groaning and weeping that he might be granted to me. Then, on the day on which we remained in fetters, this was shown to me. I saw that that place which I had formerly observed to be in gloom was now bright; and Dinocrates, with a clean body well clad, was finding refreshment. . . . [And] he went away from the water to play joyously, after the manner of children, and I awoke. Then I understood that he was translated from the place of punishment”
(The Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicity 2:3-4 [A.D. 202]).

Protestants with their objection that
“Christ’s suffering is all sufficient therefore there is no Purgatory”
actually are making too little of Christ’s suffering by failing to recognize all that His suffering accomplishes, such as making Purgatory possible. A world without a Purgatory actually would make God and His sufferings less than what they are.

See more at
defendingthebride.com/sc/purgatory.html#fire

.*

 

[JohnR77]

The passage you cite from II Maccabees did not impact me at all as a protestant, even though I read it, until I noticed the Catholic Church creed of the communion of saints, and we did not have that.

On the other hand, as a cradle Catholic I had taken the doctrine of the Communion of Saints pretty much for granted until I heard Kimberly Hahn’s conversions story and learned what it is like to be without that beautiful truth.

My understanding is that Martin Luther rejected something else even prior to his other rejections, and that is confession/reconciliation, and since reject that therefore the slope manifested.

As addressed earlier, your word “rejected” seems to over state the case.

According to historian Warren Carroll, A History of Christendom, Volume 4, page 4,
"He (Martin Luther) hated confession and, after he was ordained, never liked to say Mass " footnote #13

And again on page 39,
“Not once, during the three weeks he was at Leipzig, had he said Mass.” footnote 126

 

[po18guy]

1. Luther did not place them at the end of the Bible, but in between the OT and NT, a rather interesting placement considering that they provide a view of the time between the testaments. Additionally, he included with them the Prayer of Manasseh. What’s interesting is that he made certain they were translated and included. Seems a strange thing to do for someone who felt they contradicted his theology.Jon

I hope that you do not fall into the support group of the man-made “intertestamental period”! This term was made up 400 or so years after the European rebellion. Why is there no mention at all in the early Church fathers, the Gospels or anywhere wlse, of such a silent period of God? Rather clearly, it is because there was no such thing.

Those devout Jews who wrote the DC books were living under the Law of Moses. It was certainly not “between testaments.” How on earth can we allege that God left the Jews with no covenant during this time?

Did not our Lord say “The Law and the Prophets prophesied up to John (Baptist)”? Matthew 11:13. No “silent period” spoken of or even alluded to in the OT or the NT.

Consider: In the immediate pre-Incarnation period, Tobit, 2 Maccabees and Daniel (a DC period writing) are the first to mention the resurrection and eternal life - a totally and completely new concept that suddenly appeared just before the incarnation. Were Martin here, I would ask him (I hope to ask him some fine day): If the Holy Spirit did not inspire the writing of these words immediately before Christ, just WHO DID?

 

[Darryl_B]

As addressed earlier, your word “rejected” seems to over state the case.

According to historian Warren Carroll, A History of Christendom, Volume 4, page 4,
"He (Martin Luther) hated confession and, after he was ordained, never liked to say Mass " footnote #13

And again on page 39,
“Not once, during the three weeks he was at Leipzig, had he said Mass.” footnote 126

I think “rejected” is a very appropriate description. When I read the “proof” that Martin Luther affirmed confession he made it a mere generic confession such as can be found in the Lord’s prayer “Forgive us our trespasses”, but he then gives a provision that if you are weak and you really can’t handle not confessing because you are weak then do it, but otherwise it is no real benefit to those more secure. Confession is for the timid.

On the other hand, as a cradle Catholic I had taken the doctrine of the Communion of Saints pretty much for granted until I heard Kimberly Hahn’s conversions story and learned what it is like to be without that beautiful truth.

Do you have a link to Kimberly’s conversion story to which you speak (I only know Scotts’)?

I think the real test for a Lutheran in terms of the Bible is not what Luther did or defended or promoted (or is defended) etc, but whether Lutheran’s have the Apocrypha in the Bible they choose to use as their Bible of choice today.