To be fair he calls in his writings Sirach scripture 12 times ,the book of wisdom 5 times, 1 Maccabees twice , and in his 1534 , he said of Judith quote " be understood as though they were uttered in the Holy Spirit by a spiritual, holy poet or prophet "
He also called the deuterocanonical books good to read , in conclusion he regarded the 7 deuterocanonical books as canon , but Antilegomena , meaning questioned books . As for the Lutherans who support Luther , we use the books in liturgy, devotions , and they are quoted in the book of concord as "scripture " so I say that means we support there inclusion in the canon
I’m not sure that the conclusion follows. Something cannot be Scripture and yet not equal to Scripture. Unless there is a good reason to re-interpret this statement different from it’s plain meaning, or to say that he contradicted himself, we should read the individual prefaces in light of his statement about the collection as a whole. I think the interpretation that makes the most sense is that he is using the word “scripture” in at least two different senses since he clearly speaks of Scripture as a collection of writings that does not include the Deuterocanon, but at the same time, he speaks of the “proto-canon” next to the Deuterocanon as “the other Scriptures.” After looking up some of the prefaces to the individual book, I grant that it is possible that Luther might have credited some level of inspiration to certain books of the “Apocrypha.”
To give an example, in his preface to 1 Maccabees, he says that it fits in stylistically with “the other Scriptures.”
This is another book not to be found in the Hebrew Bible. Yet its words and speech adhere to the same style as the other books of sacred Scripture. This book would not have been unworthy of a place among them, because it is very necessary and helpful for an understanding of chapter 11 of the prophet Daniel.
And he speaks highly of Judith, saying that the characters in the story should be understood as speaking by the Holy Spirit. I do note though that he seems to credit inspiration more to the characters depicted than the author or the book as a whole. Maybe he has a distinction in mind somewhere.
Therefore this is a fine, good, holy, useful book, well worth reading by us Christians. For the words spoken by the persons in it should be understood as though they were uttered in the Holy Spirit by a spiritual, holy poet or prophet who, in presenting such persons in his play, preaches to us through them.
Yet writing about 2 Maccabees, he says,
To sum up: just as it is proper for the first book to be included among the sacred Scriptures, so it is proper that this second book should be thrown out, even though it contains some good things. However the whole thing is left and referred to the pious reader to judge and to decide.
It seems pretty clear that he doesn’t consider this book “Scripture” (at least in the higher sense), inspired or canonical.
You might also find John Calvin an interesting parallel example. Catholic blogger Dave Armstrong has a compilation of quotations from John Calvin citing different authors from the Deuterocanon as prophets, yet as far as I know, it is generally accepted that Calvin’s position was the 66-book canon. Armstrong even shows an example where Calvin in the course of the same work affirms that Sirach is a prophet, and then later on denies that he is a prophet.
socrates58.blogspot.com/2008/12/john-calvins-citations-of.html
As for the Lutherans who support Luther , we use the books in liturgy, devotions , and they are quoted in the book of concord as "scripture " so I say that means we support there inclusion in the canon
Maybe, but not necessarily. I don’t think the Anglican Church has ever removed liturgical readings from the Deuterocanon, but they still say that they are not canonical.
