P
- Status
He placed them in a section between the OT and NT, which reflects the historic disputes about them. The liturgical use varies depending on synod and sometimes parish. They are also reflected in some of our hymnody. Our synod’s director of worship, Pr Weedon, regularly posts “Apocrypha Gems” on his blog. The DC’s are not rejected among us.
Jon
P
pablope
Guest
Luther placed them between the OT and the NT. I believe when he listed the books…with numbers…the DC’s had no numbers.
P
PeaceInChrist
Guest
Thank you for your response
I’d have to look in my German Bible (not that I can read it. lol)
I neglected to mention that placing them in between also reflects the intertestamental nature of them.
Jon
P
pablope
Guest
Out of curiosity…Jon…what is director of worship’s responsibilities and is he a layman/ordained? And what does the initial “Pr” stand for?
Not sure of all of his responsibilities for the synod. Pr for Pastor - sorry for the short hand
Jon
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Finding dissenting individuals within an organization hardly sustains a significant argument for what the overwhelming majority recognizes and ordains as to what is and isn’t Sacred Scriptures. The Church as a whole and with its full authority clearly declares what is and isn’t Sacred Scriptures, not one person here and another person there.
There have been dissenting voices amongst us since Cain…
T
tdgesq
Guest
You are both badly mistaken. Catholic Apologist, Dave Armstrong, has done an extensive analysis of Luther’s commentaries and writings, including his comments about the biblical canon.
In Luther’s Preface to James and Jude:
"Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle, and my reasons follow.
In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works (2:24). It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac (2:20); Though in Romans 4:22-22 St. Paul teaches to the contrary that Abraham was justified apart from works, by his faith alone, before he had offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15:6. Although it would be possible to “save” the epistle by a gloss giving a correct explanation of justification here ascribed to works, it is impossible to deny that it does refer to Moses’ words in Genesis 15 (which speaks not of Abraham’s works but of his faith, just as Paul makes plain in Romans 4) to Abraham’s works. This fault proves that this epistle is not the work of any apostle.
. . .
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.
. . .
(LW, 35:395-398; cf. PE, 6:477-479)"
"Only the papists accept James on account of the righteousness of works, but my opinion is that it is not the writings of an apostle. Some day I will use James to fire my stove.
(Bartling, 2; Weimar, Tischreden [5], p. 5854)."
In 1542 Luther stated (as recorded in one of the versions of Table-Talk):
“We should throw the Epistle of James out of this school [Wittenberg], for it doesn’t amount to much. It contains not a syllable about Christ. Not once does it mention Christ, except at the beginning [Jas. 1:1; 2:1]. I maintain that some Jew wrote it who probably heard about Christian people but never encountered any. Since he heard that Christians place great weight on faith in Christ, he thought, ‘Wait a moment! I’ll oppose them and urge works alone.’ This he did.
. . .
(LW 54:424).”
Dave Armstrong
P
PeaceInChrist
Guest
Interesting selections. I also read some of his response to King Henry’s book against him (it was actually St. Thomas More who wrote it). St. More wrote against Luther’s ‘Babylonian Captivity of the Church’, which smeared the practice of Sacraments. In his response to this defense by More, he seemed quite angry, and I stumbled upon this selection, in which he rejects the historic Fathers and their practicing of Sacraments:
“The word of God is above all. The divine Majesty makes me care not at all though a thousand Augustines, a thousand Cyprians, or a thousand of Henry’s Churches should stand against me. God cannot err, or be deceived. Augustine and Cyprian and all the elect could err, and have erred. Answer me now, Lord Henry. Be a man now, Defender. Write books now. Thy curses are nothing. Thine accusations have no effect. Thy lies I despise. Thy threats do not frighten me. For thou art as stupid in this passage as is a block; and at other times art nothing but words.”
He is right to say Scripture is above all other writings, but I found it amazing how quickly he abandoned the writings of the Fathers put against him by More, using instead his own judgement of Scripture.
anglicanhistory.org/lutherania/against_henry.html
I tried to warm up to Luther, as I heard he didn’t intend to begin his own sect, but the more I read of him, the more I see he was fiercely opposed to Catholics faithful to Rome, and the Sacraments themselves, and his opinions did indeed help along the rebellion and fragmenting of Christianity.
But this is rather off-topic, and I mean it as no slight against Lutherans. Lutherans now are far more sensible than many of the sects spawned by the Reformation.
T
tdgesq
Guest
Strangely enough, I agree with you. On the other hand, they don’t get a pass on Luther’s megalomania when it comes to what he stated is canonical and what is not.
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:
tquid.sharpens.org/Luther_%20canon.htm
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.
. . .
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.
Swan goes into this in the link, also. Places it in context.
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.
Jon
Megalomania. Interesting choice of words.
I guess the CC shouldn’t get a pass for what Cardinal Cajetan said, either.
Luther’s opinion is his opinion. Lutheran, OTOH, are not defined by what Lutheran said, but by what our Confessions say, as a reflection of scripture, including James.
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.
Jon
No slight taken.
If you read him more closely, you will see that he was fiercely opposed to what those who claimed to be faith Catholics were doing to the Church. But alas, certainly I won’t convince you. May I instead recommend reading some of Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict’s writings about Luther.
Jon
P
PeaceInChrist
Guest
I don’t disagree that much abuse took place. I simply dislike the manner, at some points and in some of his writing, in which he went about attempting to correct it.
For instance, the writing of ‘The Babylonian Captivity of the Church,’ and the rejection of the tradition of the ancients handed down based on his reading of Scripture.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
What version of the Bible do you use?
How is it the Deuterocanonicals, that Protestants call the Apocrypha=hidden, get removed?
I don’t think anyone who honestly looks at the period will consider their leaders on either side as pure as December snow in the mountains, and this would include Luther.
Actually, I think his intent was to return to the traditions of the ancients, as he mentions in his preface about James. OTOH, I understand your concerns.
Jon
The DC’s were removed in later additions of English bibles - the original KJV had them. I have heard that it was done to reduce printing costs, though I have no independent verification.
German Lutheran Bibles still have them, and - finally - we are gradually seeing a return of them in American Lutheran circles.
Jon
P
pablope
Guest
British and Foreign Bible Society House,
London, February 10, 1826.
We beg leave to inform you that important reasons have induced the Committee of the British and Foreign Bible society to adopt the subjoined Resolution:—
“That the funds of the Society be applied to the printing and circulation of the Canonical Books of Scripture, to the exclusion of those books, and parts of books, which are usually termed Apocryphal; and that all copies printed, either entirely or in part, at the expense of the Society; and whether such copies consist of the whole or of any one or more of such books, be invariably issued bound; no other books whatever being bound with them: and further, that all money grants to societies or individuals be made only in conformity with the principle of this regulation.”
While the Committee of the British and Foreign Bible Society have adopted this Regulation for their own guidance, nothing is further from their intention than to interfere, in the smallest degree, with the religious views and opinions, or with the rites and usages, of foreign churches; —they respect that liberty of conscience in others which they themselves so happily enjoy.
The Committee of the British and Foreign Bible Society embrace this opportunity of assuring all their continental brethren of their most unfeigned Christian regard, and of their anxious desire to contribute as liberally as possible to the Foreign Societies consistently with their present Resolution; and they shall deem it their privilege and happiness invariably to maintain that pleasing bond of harmony and union which has so long and so beneficially subsisted between the British and Foreign Bible Society and the kindred Institutions of the Continent.
We remain, respectfully,
Your obedient humble Servants,
(Signed) A. BRANDRAM,
Jos. HUGHES,
C.F.A. STEINKOPFF [Secretaries]
P
PeaceInChrist
Guest
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.
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.
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 cannot agree that, although his intentions were good, he was correct in abolishing ancient practices based upon his reading of Scripture.
- Status