(Almost) All Is Forgiven

[JonNC]

Let’s look at the events.

Luther stated his opinion. He said that the 7 deutero-canonical books were not inspired.

Whether he had a right to do it or not, is irrelevant. His opinion was that the deuterocanonical books were not the Word of God.

Of course it is relevant, because it goes to the heart of a double standard , holding Luther to a different standard than others with similar views.

His followers accepted his opinion. They did not say, “Oh, that was only Luther’s opinion.” No. They accepted Luther’s way of looking at the Deutero-canonicals and continued denying their inspiration. Thus, effectively leaving them in the status to which Luther had relegated them.

That’s not the way Lutherans, historically, have handled them. So, here’s a source to the Lutheran view of the canon, and one of the things you’ll notice is that Luther’s name is not mentioned.

http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/thinking-about-the-canon-a-lutheran-view

Two more thoughts: when I was Lutheran, I did not agree with Luther on the DCs. I was allowed to have that view.
This morning I am reading at mass. The first lesson is from Ecclesiasticus. Last week it was from Wisdom.

 

[De_Maria]

Of course it is relevant, because it goes to the heart of a double standard , holding Luther to a different standard than others with similar views.

Think outside the box for a second, Jon. You’re stuck in a rut of knee jerk responses.

Let’s try getting you out of the Lutheran church for a minute.

Say that Luther was working for a certain Grapefruit, Inc. or some other fictional company. One day, he decided that he didn’t like the rules and spoke out against them. Another fellow, Cage, wrote a pamphlet and left out some of the rules with which he disagreed. Luther, however, continued to publically challenge the Leaders of the Grapefruit Corp. Eventually, Luther was fired, but at the same time, he resigned.

Cage, however, has not spoken out against the Company. And in fact has secured a nice promotion.

Luther doesn’t worry about it. He starts a new company. Steals a few of the Corp’s employees and rewrites the Corp’s rule book, setting apart the rules with which he doesn’t agree.

At this point, Luther has started a new life, independent of his former employer. What does it matter to Luther, then, what the Corporation does from this point on? Even though the Corporation doesn’t punish Cage for his new rule book, she doesn’t change hers and in fact, soon after, goes on to pronounce it to be against the law for any employee to challenge it or change it.

Why does this matter to Luther or anyone else? Why is that a “double standard”?

I could see if Luther had remained a Catholic and he had been punished and treated poorly while Cajetan had not. That’s a double standard. But not the way that things actually worked out.

That’s not the way Lutherans, historically, have handled them. So, here’s a source to the Lutheran view of the canon, and one of the things you’ll notice is that Luther’s name is not mentioned.

http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/thinking-about-the-canon-a-lutheran-view

I didn’t even click on the link. You say they didn’t mention Luther’s name. But the link says:
“thinking-about-the-canon-a-lutheran-view”

Am I missing something? Or are you?

Two more thoughts: when I was Lutheran, I did not agree with Luther on the DCs. I was allowed to have that view.

You consider your freedom to decide what you want to believe, a very valuable thing. But when I said that Lutheran’s and other Protestants claim the right of private interpretation, you were highly offended.

At what point does your freedom to pick and choose which Scriptures you prefer and which you reject, become the private interpretation to which you object so vehemently?

This morning I am reading at mass. The first lesson is from Ecclesiasticus. Last week it was from Wisdom.

Good for you. At an Anglican Mass or a Lutheran? Or have you somehow melded the two together?

 

[JonNC]

I didn’t even click on the link. You say they didn’t mention Luther’s name. But the link says:

“thinking-about-the-canon-a-lutheran-view”

Am I missing something? Or are you?

You are. You didn’t read the article

 

[JonNC]

I could see if Luther had remained a Catholic and he had been punished and treated poorly while Cajetan had not. That’s a double standard. But not the way that things actually worked out.

The double standard has nothing to do with how luther was treated 500 years ago. The double standard has to do with modern Catholic apologetics.

 

[JonNC]

You consider your freedom to decide what you want to believe, a very valuable thing. But when I said that Lutheran’s and other Protestants claim the right of private interpretation, you were highly offended.

At what point does your freedom to pick and choose which Scriptures you prefer and which you reject, become the private interpretation to which you object so vehemently?

Had you read the article, you’d have a better idea of how it works.

 

[JonNC]

Think outside the box for a second, Jon. You’re stuck in a rut of knee jerk responses.

Let’s try getting you out of the Lutheran church for a minute.

What is interesting is you’ve mistaken my willingness to defend Luther’s liberty for defending his opinions.
You see, I’ve read his commentaries on the D.C. books, and I find his position not nearly in deference enough to the majority of the historic Church. Have you read them?

 

[JonNC]

Good for you. At an Anglican Mass or a Lutheran? Or have you somehow melded the two together?

Since I am Anglican…

Interestingly, Lutherans have also been known to use the DCs in the lectionary and in hymnody. After all, they are in Luther’s Die Bibel.

https://weedon.blogspot.com/2006/11/on-public-reading-of-apocrypha.html?m=1

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

I didn’t even click on the link. You say they didn’t mention Luther’s name. But the link says:

“thinking-about-the-canon-a-lutheran-view”

Am I missing something? Or are you?

You are. You didn’t read the article

So, the word “lutheran” isn’t a reference to Martin Luther?

Now I’ve read the article.

1. The article is about the 66 book canon.
2. And the gist of it is that they don’t believe the Catholic Church innerrantly defined said canon.

The overarching assumption, in my opinion, the basis from where the start, is Martin Luther’s viewpoint.

 

[De_Maria]

The double standard has nothing to do with how luther was treated 500 years ago. The double standard has to do with modern Catholic apologetics.

But I’m talking about neither. I’m making the point that Luther was a full grown man with a free will. And that Luther left the Catholic Church and was acting independently of it. In that capacity, he interpreted Scripture and changed a few things. He also commented about Scripture.

His followers accepted his re-interpretation of Scripture and the opinions which he had with regards to Scripture and continue to do so, to this day.

You’re hung up with the Catholic Church, because your objections notwithstanding, your still protesting the Catholic Church. You can’t let that protest go, even for a second. It defines you.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Think outside the box for a second, Jon. You’re stuck in a rut of knee jerk responses.

Let’s try getting you out of the Lutheran church for a minute.

What is interesting is you’ve mistaken my willingness to defend Luther’s liberty for defending his opinions.
You see, I’ve read his commentaries on the D.C. books, and I find his position not nearly in deference enough to the majority of the historic Church.

That’s an understatement.

Have you read them?

Yes, several times, but not recently.

 

[JonNC]

So, the word “lutheran” isn’t a reference to Martin Luther?

That’s a simplistic view. The name was an attempt at a slur, attempting to marginalize the Evangelical Catholics, not unlike the name Roman Catholic was.

Now I’ve read the article.

The article is about the 66 book canon.
And the gist of it is that they don’t believe the Catholic Church innerrantly defined said canon.

Actually, it isn’t, because Lutherans do not have a declared canon, as such. The article describes how they use the history of each book to determine its usage. That’s right; the process is a respectful honoring of the Church, and whether books were affirmed, disputed, or rejected. The DCs were disputed and as such, they can be used to affirm doctrine, but not set doctrine.
Now, Catholics can and will reject that approach, but it can’t be described as private interpretation. It can’t be described as ignoring 1500 years of Church history.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

So, the word “lutheran” isn’t a reference to Martin Luther?

That’s a simplistic view. The name was an attempt at a slur, attempting to marginalize the Evangelical Catholics, not unlike the name Roman Catholic was.

The origins of the name doesn’t really matter. It is obvious that the author of that piece has accepted the nomenclature and thus the origins of the Lutheran church. In other words, the fact that it was founded by Luther.

Now I’ve read the article.

The article is about the 66 book canon.
And the gist of it is that they don’t believe the Catholic Church innerrantly defined said canon.

Actually, it isn’t, …

Actually it is. The author says so.

Excerpt:

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.

Notice that they carefully avoided mentioning the 73 book canon or the deuterocanonicals.

 

[De_Maria]

Will you be answering this question?

At what point does your freedom to pick and choose which Scriptures you prefer and which you reject, become the private interpretation to which you object so vehemently?

Or do you see your freedom to pick and choose which Scriptures you will accept and your purported rejection of private interpretation as separate phenomenon unrelated one to the other and non contradicting?

 

[JonNC]

His followers accepted his re-interpretation of Scripture and the opinions which he had with regards to Scripture and continue to do so, to this day.

If you read the article, then you know that they didn’t blindly follow his views.

You’re hung up with the Catholic Church, because your objections notwithstanding, your still protesting the Catholic Church. You can’t let that protest go, even for a second. It defines you.

Now, this is laughable. I’ve never protested any tradition. I’m too busy for that. In fact, in our brief discussion here, I don’t think I’ve in any way criticized the Catholic Church’s doctrine on the canon of scripture. I have only criticized modern Catholic apologists for setting a different standard for Luther than for others. It is nothing more than polemical.

Additionally, I think I mentioned that I disagreed with his opinion on the DCs. So, please , don’t accuse me of something that I haven’t stated as my view.

 

[JonNC]

Excerpt:

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.

Excerpt is right, and incomplete both in its text and context. The next lines:

But as with many theological issues, the Lutheran position takes neither of the supposedly only two possible options without being a synthesis, either.

The article clearly states the Lutheran position rejects the 66 book Protestant canon.
How could you miss that?

 

[JonNC]

Or do you see your freedom to pick and choose which Scriptures you will accept and your purported rejection of private interpretation as separate phenomenon unrelated one to the other and non contradicting?

As a Lutheran, I had exactly the same Liberty that Catholics had prior to Trent. That had nothing to do with interpreting doctrine.

Today I am continuing Anglican, and I leave that to the Church

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Or do you see your freedom to pick and choose which Scriptures you will accept and your purported rejection of private interpretation as separate phenomenon unrelated one to the other and non contradicting?

As a Lutheran, I had exactly the same Liberty that Catholics had prior to Trent.

[/quote]

Prior to Trent? You mean the books which were defined as inspired by the ecumenical Council of Florence?

It professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament — that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel — since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows.

Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees; the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen letters of Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; Acts of the Apostles; Apocalypse of John.

Notice that the 7 deuterocanonical books are right there.

That had nothing to do with interpreting doctrine.

Yes, it did. You keep trying to excuse Cajetan. As though his error somehow excuses your action. But have you noticed that no other Catholics followed Cajetan’s lead? Or if they did, they were few and far between. Catholics don’t follow fallible human beings. We follow the infallible Church.

Whereas, you keep bringing me back to the Church which you no longer are supposed to be protesting. What’s with that?

It can only mean that deep down, you still consider the Catholic Church the standard by which you measure yourself.

Today I am continuing Anglican, and I leave that to the Church

[/QUOTE]
THAT is the Catholic attitude. Sorry. Had to throw that in there. Heehee.

 

[JonNC]

Prior to Trent? You mean the books which were defined as inspired by the ecumenical Council of Florence?

Without getting into a dispute as to whether or not Florence was truly ecumenical, I think it is an excellent example of how the majority of the western Church viewed the canon, but clearly Catholics were not prevented from disputing books. This is obvious.

Yes, it did. You keep trying to excuse Cajetan. As though his error somehow excuses your action. But have you noticed that no other Catholics followed Cajetan’s lead? Or if they did, they were few and far between. Catholics don’t follow fallible human beings. We follow the infallible Church.

I’m not trying to excuse anyone. He just happens to be one that did dispute the the position of the DCs. How was he in error? Was he recalled to Rome? I briefly went through the New Advent entry. No mention of disciplinary actions. He was acting on his Catholic liberty.

Whereas, you keep bringing me back to the Church which you no longer are supposed to be protesting. What’s with that?

I wasn’t at the protest in 1529, but we did share and continue to share a similar protest now, against the HHS Mandate. Yes, the protest was against civil authorities
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03145c.htm

 

[JonNC]

THAT is the Catholic attitude. Sorry. Had to throw that in there. Heehee.

Evidence of how close our communions are in some respects

 

[De_Maria]

That’s a simplistic view. The name was an attempt at a slur, attempting to marginalize the Evangelical Catholics, not unlike the name Roman Catholic was.

But it has obviously been recognized and accepted by the author of that article. So, really, its origins no longer matter. The fact is that they do consider themselves followers of Luther. And, that article simply justifies why they accept Luther’s 66 book canon.

Actually, it isn’t,

Yeah, it is. He says so.

because Lutherans do not have a declared canon, as such.

Lol! They have the same 66 books in every Bible they issue. What more do you need?

The article describes how they use the history of each book to determine its usage. That’s right; the process is a respectful honoring of the Church, and whether books were affirmed, disputed, or rejected. The DCs were disputed and as such, they can be used to affirm doctrine, but not set doctrine.

On the contrary, it’s a disavowing and therefore a dishonoring of the Church. The author explicitly says that they don’t need the Church to select the canon.

Now, Catholics can and will reject that approach, but it can’t be described as private interpretation. It can’t be described as ignoring 1500 years of Church history.

[/QUOTE]
But yours, can. Because you decided, despite Lutheran authority, that you would accept the DC’s.

So, let’s not mix apples and oranges. Now, it seems clear to me, that if you can decide that your leadership is wrong about the DC’s and you claim that they permit you to have this option, then it is manifestly clear that you have the right of private interpretation. Otherwise, on what did you base your decision to accept the books that your leaders rejected?