Bible Canon and Orthodox

[JonNC]

=PeaceInChrist;10796517]Undoubtedly, the blame rests on no one man’s shoulders. I read an excerpt from one of the fools who sold indulgences as though they would remit sins for the entirety of the purchaser’s life. It was disgusting, and that those practices were allowed to continue is despicable.

Agreed.

That he intended to is surely not in doubt, but in his attempt to cleanse unrighteousness, he strained the gnat of malpractice among the clergy, and swallowed the camel of disregarding much tradition. If one reads the Fathers, it is clear that the seven Sacraments were instituted since ancient times, and ecumenical councils were successfully carried out for 1500 years prior to Luther.

From a Lutheran perspective, simply calling something a sacrament (or not, in the Lutheran example), doesn’t add to or subtract from a means of grace. I have certainly received grace from my marriage, the ordination of the pastors whose care I have been under, and my Confirmation. As for Baptism, Absolution, and the Eucharist, the forgiveness of sins I receive there is clearly a sacrament, and a special gift that would keep me out of most any other non-Catholic western communion.

I posted a quote from him, in response to St. More’s objection to his rejection of the Sacraments, in which he says that, because Scripture is above all other writings, he does not care what Augustine or Cyprian says, and this illustrates his willingness to reject tradition so swiftly. True, no Father in himself was infallible, but to disregard them as a whole, and the conclusions they reached through council, is too egregious an error.

I’m not convinced St. More’s reading is precisely correct.

I cannot agree that, although his intentions were good, he was correct in abolishing ancient practices based upon his reading of Scripture.

If you are speaking of the sacraments, again, one can see they have not been abolished, as I have benefitted from all but Unction.

Jon

 

[PeaceInChrist]

From a Lutheran perspective, simply calling something a sacrament (or not, in the Lutheran example), doesn’t add to or subtract from a means of grace. I have certainly received grace from my marriage, the ordination of the pastors whose care I have been under, and my Confirmation. As for Baptism, Absolution, and the Eucharist, the forgiveness of sins I receive there is clearly a sacrament, and a special gift that would keep me out of most any other non-Catholic western communion.

Taking away a proper name for something does it injustice. There is a specific and special grace that the Sacraments give, and they must be classified as apart from, and above, other means of grace while here on earth.

I’m not convinced St. More’s reading is precisely correct.

And this is why I am Catholic and you are not The Church, in the protection of the magisterial authority of the bishops, is the only proper way to interpret the understanding of the Fathers, as well as the meaning of Scripture in terms of faith and morals.

If you are speaking of the sacraments, again, one can see they have not been abolished, as I have benefitted from all but Unction.

Jon

I am glad you recognize the special grace of Sacraments. Still, I believe in the Catholic doctrine of them (including their dispensing), and of all theology, which is why I am Catholic.

 

[tdgesq]

Even though I don’t always agree with him, I like Dave Armstrong. I also like James Swan, who has taken a great deal of time and research into much of this issue. And, like Armstrong, he is not Lutheran. He is Reformed. Here is his take on the issue:

I have only read Swan in connection with debates with Catholic apologists, I did take a look at the linked materials. My initial impression is that Swan provides relatively few quotes from Luther, but instead relies primarily on Protestant commentaries that interpret Luther’s comments as generally favorable towards the canonicity of James. Armstrong does the exact opposite, choosing those Protestant commentaries that interpret Luther unfavorably in regards to James. I’m not impressed with this tactic by either side. I want to know what Luther actually stated.

The bolded is the primary quote from the preface, which incidentally, only appeared in the first printing of his NT translation. Even though rejected by the ancients, he praises the book. Why? Because it promulgates the law. Is that a good thing? Yes, for the regenerate. We as Christians need to know of Christ’s expectations that we follow His commands, do His good works, love our neighbor.

It is part of the quote from the preface from Luther’s first translation. Then we have this though:

1522 version: In a word, he wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without works, but was unequal to the task in spirit, thought, and words. He mangles the Scriptures and thereby opposes Paul and all Scripture. [PE version: "rends the Scriptures and thereby resists Paul and all Scripture] He tries to accomplish by harping on the law what the apostles accomplish by stimulating people to love. Therefore I will not have him in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him. One man is no man in worldly things; how then, should this single man alone avail against Paul and all Scripture.

1545 version: In a word, he wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without works, but was unequal to the task. He tries to accomplish by harping on the law [PE version: “insisting on the Law”] what the apostles accomplish by stimulating people to love. Therefore I cannot include him among the chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him."

No one disputes that Luther included James in his NT translations or that he from time to time extolled the virtue of James on many subjects; just not on works. That’s where we have a problem. Luther makes it clear that this is why he will not give the book of James status as inspired scripture; and not just here, but in many other statements that he makes.

Luther believes, like many others in history, that James is not the work of an apostle, and here he gives his opinion why. Now, I honestly think he misunderstands James. I think he’s reading James in light of what he thought was an overemphasis by the Catholic Church. I don’t personally see a conflict between James and Paul. He alludes to this in the last sentence.

He plainly states that he does see an irresolvable conflict between James and Paul:

"Many sweat to reconcile St. Paul and St. James, as does Melanchthon in his Apology, but in vain. “faith justifies” and “faith does not justify” contradict each other flatly. If any one can harmonize them I will give him my doctor’s hood and let him call me a fool.

(Smith, 269)"

And through all this hyperbole, he maintains it as part of the canon, translates it, includes it, and through his life preaches from it. And more importantly, the Lutheran tradition has always maintained that James is part of the canon, as has all of the Christian Church, evidence that Luther knew the difference between opinion, and canon.

What I have provided in the last several posts dispositively demonstrates, from Luther’s own statements, he did not consider James part of the NT canon. He also included the Deuterocanon in his translations, but he obviously didn’t find many of them to be canonical either.

 

[tdgesq]

Megalomania. Interesting choice of words.

I stand by it. Tradition established the inspired status of James (and the other 26 books of the NT, with the possible exception of Revelation) centuries before Luther. What he did is far less odious than why he did it:

“Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?” James 2:24.

I guess the CC shouldn’t get a pass for what Cardinal Cajetan said, either.

The Old Testament canon did not have nearly the same support from Tradition as the NT. We both know that. That being stated, Cajetan doesn’t get a pass either. He was wrong.

We are closer on doctrine, ISTM, and many on either side often want to admit, but in this day when our faith - Christianity - and the freedom to practice it is under attack by secularists at home, and Islamic radicals and governments abroad, we all better come to a realization that we are far closer together than was once thought, and we need to pray to the Holy Spirit that He bring us even closer.

Amen. This will happen. In my opinion there isn’t much reason to be concerned today about what Luther wrote. We live in our own time with its peculiar problems, and the wounds of history for which we are not personally responsible should not be the focus for ecumenical progress.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Departed from topic and closed.