A lutheran apologetic on apocrypha, any response?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dafalax
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Calvinator;

do you personally include James, 2Peter, Hebrews amd Revelation in your own personal canon?
 
Also, while Luther’s commentary on Romans 8 is much lauded among protestants I wonder how it is that he did not produce (at least to my knowing as a formal protestant) a commentary on Roamns 11, say somewhere along verses 17-24 but specifically verse 22 where Paul says that the gentile having already been grafted into the tree by his faith may grow arrogant toward the Jews and other branches still in the tree as well as those who have been cut off resulting in “… God’s severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off.”

Paul plainly states that it is possible for the believer to be cut off after having been saved something which Luther, or at least those who followed after him especially among the followers of Calvin and Zwingli, denied to be possible. :eek:

The reason I ask is because Luther just so happened to exclude books which contained thouroghly Catholic doctrines from the OT even though he and his followers, especially in this case those of Calvin and his followers, continued to teach on these books for 200 years after Luther’s death. However, the paramount issue for Martin Luther in his personal life was that he agonized over his own sin and it was in Roamns 8 that he found his answer, but his devotion to Romans 8 also led him to want to exclude Revelation, Hebrews, 2 Peter and especially James which he dubbed “an epistle of straw” because he felt it stressed too much the need for works in the life of the believer. In his critique of James he cited the same objections against it which he had against Maccabbees, Wisdom etc., that being uncertain authorship etc., but his followers overruled him and left the canon of NT untouched over his protests. 🤷

The point of all of this is that you, as I once did, seem to have unquestioningly embraced the protestant line concerning apocryphal book of OT canon who’s initial detractor was none other than Martin Luther himself, and given the more discomforting aspects of NT literatue metioned above I wonder if you have also edited Romans and excluded the other NT books of which Luther held such a dubious opinion?
 
bogeydogg said:
Also, while Luther’s commentary on Romans 8 is much lauded among protestants I wonder how it is that he did not produce (at least to my knowing as a formal protestant) a commentary on Roamns 11, say somewhere along verses 17-24 but specifically verse 22 where Paul says that the gentile having already been grafted into the tree by his faith may grow arrogant toward the Jews and other branches still in the tree as well as those who have been cut off resulting in “… God’s severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off.”

Paul plainly states that it is possible for the believer to be cut off after having been saved something which Luther, or at least those who followed after him especially among the followers of Calvin and Zwingli, denied to be possible. :eek:

The reason I ask is because Luther just so happened to exclude books which contained thouroghly Catholic doctrines from the OT even though he and his followers, especially in this case those of Calvin and his followers, continued to teach on these books for 200 years after Luther’s death. However, the paramount issue for Martin Luther in his personal life was that he agonized over his own sin and it was in Roamns 8 that he found his answer, but his devotion to Romans 8 also led him to want to exclude Revelation, Hebrews, 2 Peter and especially James which he dubbed “an epistle of straw” because he felt it stressed too much the need for works in the life of the believer. In his critique of James he cited the same objections against it which he had against Maccabbees, Wisdom etc., that being uncertain authorship etc., but his followers overruled him and left the canon of NT untouched over his protests. 🤷

The point of all of this is that you, as I once did, seem to have unquestioningly embraced the protestant line concerning apocryphal book of OT canon who’s initial detractor was none other than Martin Luther himself, and given the more discomforting aspects of NT literatue metioned above I wonder if you have also edited Romans and excluded the other NT books of which Luther held such a dubious opinion?
Click to expand...
Here are the facts:
a.) Luther’s translation of the Bible contained all the books of the NT.

b.) Even if Luther was Catholic, he had every right to debate the canon because the canon for your church was not definitely decided until Trent. If memory serves me Cajetan and Erasmus also presented their arguments up until the Tridentine decrees on the canon.

c.) As to the charge of editing Romans I am assuming you are talking about the “alone” issue. Well my friend, many Catholics, saints even, have felt the verse said as much.

Go to www.http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/02/luther-added-word-alone-to-romans-328.html for more information.

If you are agonizing over Luther’s commentary on Romans I can’t help you as I have not read it and can’t gain easy access to it on the net. By the way, even if you are right and Luther didn’t comment on the section of Romans you are interested in, that has nothing to do with what he placed in his translation of the Bible.
 
Calvinator said:
Here are the facts:
a.) Luther’s translation of the Bible contained all the books of the NT.

b.) Even if Luther was Catholic, he had every right to debate the canon because the canon for your church was not definitely decided until Trent. If memory serves me Cajetan and Erasmus also presented their arguments up until the Tridentine decrees on the canon.

c.) As to the charge of editing Romans I am assuming you are talking about the “alone” issue. Well my friend, many Catholics, saints even, have felt the verse said as much.

Go to www.http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/02/luther-added-word-alone-to-romans-328.html for more information.

If you are agonizing over Luther’s commentary on Romans I can’t help you as I have not read it and can’t gain easy access to it on the net. By the way, even if you are right and Luther didn’t comment on the section of Romans you are interested in, that has nothing to do with what he placed in his translation of the Bible.
Click to expand...
Actually by edited I meant would you throw out the parts of Romans which indicate we can lose our salvation.

But I can’t let you skate. You see for Martin Luther THE PARAMOUNT ISSUE was what a man should do with his actual guilt before God over his sin. Luther agonized endlessly over this and this is what led him to Romans 8 and his commentary on it. BTW, I found this on the web and I’m a construction worker so it can’t be that hard. To say that Luther’s opinions on Romans have nothing to do with his canon is to completely misunderstand the man. His declaration of Sola Fide was built upon his belief that man was saved by faith alone and his doctrine on Sola Gratia was because he felt this was by grace alone, which btw the RCC agrees with him on these points through grace by faith is a man saved to say otherwise is to slander the church, having rebelled against the corruption in the fifteenth century church he decided that Papal authority was null and void and from this Sola Scriptura was born.

Now I learned all of this during my days as a protestant and none of it was hard to find. You must understand that ML’s entire theology was bound up in his beliefs about sin and the predicament of man before a Holy God and to say his view of Scripture was not colored by this is willful ignorance.
 
bogeydogg said:
Actually by edited I meant would you throw out the parts of Romans which indicate we can lose our salvation.

But I can’t let you skate. You see for Martin Luther THE PARAMOUNT ISSUE was what a man should do with his actual guilt before God over his sin. Luther agonized endlessly over this and this is what led him to Romans 8 and his commentary on it. BTW, I found this on the web and I’m a construction worker so it can’t be that hard. To say that Luther’s opinions on Romans have nothing to do with his canon is to completely misunderstand the man. His declaration of Sola Fide was built upon his belief that man was saved by faith alone and his doctrine on Sola Gratia was because he felt this was by grace alone, which btw the RCC agrees with him on these points through grace by faith is a man saved to say otherwise is to slander the church, having rebelled against the corruption in the fifteenth century church he decided that Papal authority was null and void and from this Sola Scriptura was born.

Now I learned all of this during my days as a protestant and none of it was hard to find. You must understand that ML’s entire theology was bound up in his beliefs about sin and the predicament of man before a Holy God and to say his view of Scripture was not colored by this is willful ignorance.
Click to expand...
What did Luther leave out of his translated Bible? What books, chapters and or verses did he leave out?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top