Did Martin Luther have a definition for "sola scriptura"?

[JonNC]

That’s a really good point, thank you for sharing!

Yeah, Steve makes some pretty good points, instead of wasting time hurling insults.

Jon

 

[steve_b]

Our cooperation with grace is not what justifies, but faith, which itself is a gift of grace.

Actually grace , faith, and good works ALL justify. NONE are alone, and grace always comes first…lest palagianism rears its ugly head.
J:

Now, that doesn’t mean our cooperation isn’t a necessity, but since faith and justification are a result of grace, they are a gift.

cooperation, indicates the gifts of grace and faith were received thus producing results.
J:

What caused the comparison (epistle of straw is neither a title nor a name nor a description of the Epistle of James) was that James speaks little of Gospel, but primarily of law.

James is scripture. That’s all that needs to be said. Luther called a book of scripture an epistle of straw.

As 2 Tim teaches [2 Timothy 3:16](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2 Timothy+3:16&version=RSVCE)
J:

While this speaking of the law is important to all Christians, and by the way Luther often preached from it throughout his life, he was Gospel oriented, so for him and in his opinion, he thought it compared poorly to Paul’s epistles. He was not the first to dispute the Epistle of James, as that dispute reaches all the back to Eusebius.

Jon

The Church defined the book of James as inspired scripture, back in 382. All 27 books of the NT were there in the bible from that date. Therefore, James is inspired by the Holy Spirit. And since the HS only taught what He heard from Jesus John 16:12-15 that means Luther and his opinions screwed up BIG time…

 

[steve_b]

The commentaries are irrelevant to the translation. Some of the NT ones only appeared with the first 1522 publication, including the one on James. His opinion of the books were his, and he was permitted to have them, just like any other Catholic prior to Trent.

Do you have a qualified Catholic reference for this statement?
J:

His translation, however, included/includes all 73 books of a typical western Bible, plus the Prayer of Manasseh. In effect, Luther’s Bible in one book bigger than a Catholic one, but still smaller than an Orthodox one.

ALL those 73 books in Luther’s bible weren’t considered scripture by Luther. Let’s not obfuscate that detail
J:

Correct, and that makes the charges against Luther by some Catholics all the more odd. Here he is, excommunicated, no obligation to Rome, and yet he still sees to it that all the 73 books of the western Bible are translated and included, along with one extra. Not only that, he translates the NT Antilegomena, including St. James. He didn’t have to. No one could require him to. English speakers came along later and didn’t include the DC’s.

The Church has the right to defend her book (the bible).

And again, don’t obfuscate the issue of 73 books. Luther did NOT regard 7 OT books as scripture. They may have been included in his translation, but seperated, and were NOT listed as scripture. So in effect there are only 66 (scriptural) books in the protestant bible down to this day. As far as the NT Antilegomena, Trent validated 73 books, & changed nothing from the council of Rome in 382.
J:

Further, of all protestant groups, Lutherans (and probably Anglicans) use the DC books the most, include them in lectionaries and hymnody. The LCMS publishing house (CPH) has printed an ESV version of the Dc’s with commentary.

Do you call them DC’s or apocryphal? If you say DC’s, when did the change happen and who did it?
J:

I’ve said this before on this thread and other places, I’m not entirely convinced Luther was right in his opinions of the DC’s - I can say that because the confessions to exclude them or name a canon. But it seems to me the history ought to be offered fairly.

Jon

When he did what he did to the bible, Luther defined his canon. There’s no other way to say it. It can’t be denied.

 

[JonNC]

=steve b;11283378]Actually grace , faith, and good works ALL justify. NONE are alone, and grace always comes first…lest palagianism rears its ugly head.

Well, we still disagree about the works part.

cooperation, indicates the gifts of grace and faith were received thus producing results.

Agreed

James is scripture. That’s all that needs to be said. Luther called a book of scripture an epistle of straw.

Read the preface again. He’s making a comparison. And its his opinion - one I don’t share.

As 2 Tim teaches [2 Timothy 3:16](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2 Timothy+3:16&version=RSVCE)

Agreed.

The Church defined the book of James as inspired scripture, back in 382. All 27 books of the NT were there in the bible from that date. Therefore, James is inspired by the Holy Spirit. And since the HS only taught what He heard from Jesus John 16:12-15 that means Luther and his opinions screwed up BIG time…

And we consider it scripture.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=steve b;11283502]Do you have a qualified Catholic reference for this statement?

No. Do you have one that refutes it?

If Erasmus and Cardinal Cajetan were allowed to question the canonicity of books without
issue, why not Luther? There was even dispute, as I understand it, at the Council of Trent.

ALL those 73 books in Luther’s bible weren’t considered scripture by Luther. Let’s not obfuscate that detail

Whether or not Luther considered them canon is irrelevant, Steve. He had his opinions and wrote them. His opinions were drawn from whole cloth, but reflect the centuries long dispute about them.

The Church has the right to defend her book (the bible).

Sure. Defend it all you want! I have no problem with that. What I take umbrage with is the type of defense mounted by one particular poster in this thread. Discuss the theology of it. Insulting the personalities involved is unnecessary.

And again, don’t obfuscate the issue of 73 books. Luther did NOT regard 7 OT books as scripture. They may have been included in his translation, but seperated, and were NOT listed as scripture. So in effect there are only 66 (scriptural) books in the protestant bible down to this day. As far as the NT Antilegomena, Trent validated 73 books, & changed nothing from the council of Rome in 382.

Again, Luther’s opinion was his opinion. Cajetan had a similar opinion about the DC’s. What protestant Bibles have is irrelevant. I’m a Lutheran, and our confessions do not list a canon. The Antilegomena has always been scriptural for us. Let’s also remember that Rome was not an ecumenical council.

As I’ve said, I am not convinced that Luther was entirely correct on his opinion of the OT canon. He was welcome to it, however.

Do you call them DC’s or apocryphal? If you say DC’s, when did the change happen and who did it?

Well, DC’s is a much newer name than apocrypha. Which I use depends on whom I’m talking to. To me the name isn’t terribly relevant

When he did what he did to the bible, Luther defined his canon. There’s no other way to say it. It can’t be denied.

And he was allowed to have his opinion.

Jon

 

[steve_b]

Well, we still disagree about the works part.

I can only go by James 2:24 for my response

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Yeah, Steve makes some pretty good points, instead of wasting time hurling insults.

Jon

(sigh)…Yes, I can be wild horse in spirit, and I can get aggressive,
especially towards those who challenge(d) the Roman Catholic
Church (in this case Martin Luther). sorrryyy.

 

[steve_b]

No. Do you have one that refutes it?

All I’m saying, until you find proof of your statement being true, don’t assume it’s true.
J:

If Erasmus and Cardinal Cajetan were allowed to question the canonicity of books without
issue, why not Luther? There was even dispute, as I understand it, at the Council of Trent.

rosarychurch.net/bible/rome_damasus.html Denzinger gives the list of books canonized at Rome 382 a.d. by pope Damasus. Over time individual books might be listed in different order when hand written but the name and number of books that were canonized at Trent, are the same books listed in 382 at Rome. Jerome’s bible the Vulgate has the Septuigint OT (46 books) + 27 books of the NT = 73 canonical books. .
J:

Whether or not Luther considered them canon is irrelevant, Steve. He had his opinions and wrote them. His opinions were drawn from whole cloth, but reflect the centuries long dispute about them.

• is that being relative, or indifferent?
• What’s relevant is, Proportion. He starts a revolution against the Church, gets excommunicated, prints his own modified bible to suit his own theology, and starts his own religion. I think we can agree, that’s going way beyond having an opinion.

J:

Sure. Defend it all you want! I have no problem with that. What I take umbrage with is the type of defense mounted by one particular poster in this thread. Discuss the theology of it. Insulting the personalities involved is unnecessary.

You and I are conversing here as we’ve done over many threads. Haven’t we always been cordial to each other?
J:

Again, Luther’s opinion was his opinion. Cajetan had a similar opinion about the DC’s.

I’m thinking, let’s not lose sight of proportion. Cajetan didn’t start a revolution against the Church, he didn’t rewrite the bible. He didn’t start his own religion. The bible for him was the Volgate. All 73 canonical books were canon

The same book that was translated from Latin to German for the German population, decades before Luther was even conceived.
J:

What protestant Bibles have is irrelevant. I’m a Lutheran, and our confessions do not list a canon. The Antilegomena has always been scriptural for us. Let’s also remember that Rome was not an ecumenical council.

I used that early council to show the beginning, and continuity of the bible we use today
J:

.

As I’ve said, I am not convinced that Luther was entirely correct on his opinion of the OT canon. He was welcome to it, however.

I understand you’re defending your position.
J:

Well, DC’s is a much newer name than apocrypha. Which I use depends on whom I’m talking to. To me the name isn’t terribly relevant

Am I to gather from that , when you’re talking to fellow Missouri Synod folks you don’t use the term DC?

If names and terms we use are not relevant in terms of meaning, then how are we going to communicate effectively?

 

[JonNC]

(sigh)…Yes, I can be wild horse in spirit, and I can get aggressive,
especially towards those who challenge(d) the Roman Catholic
Church (in this case Martin Luther). sorrryyy.

Apology accepted. Please note my point, however. Steve B is a strident defender of Catholicism, and yet he never (that I’ve seen) resorted to personal caricatures, or insults, etc. He sticks to defending his faith.
I do, too, and I can be as strident as anyone at times, but I try to never attack personalities, and if I do it is often in response to the same. Notice here, I have not said anything that I can recall about what Catholics teach. I have only defended what I believe.

I hope we can dialogue in the future in that way.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=steve b;11284291]All I’m saying, until you find proof of your statement being true, don’t assume it’s true.

Indeed. I would also say that, in fairness, we should hold Luther to the same standards as others of his era and before.

rosarychurch.net/bible/rome_damasus.html Denzinger gives the list of books canonized at Rome 382 a.d. by pope Damasus. Over time individual books might be listed in different order when hand written but the name and number of books that were canonized at Trent, are the same books listed in 382 at Rome. Jerome’s bible the Vulgate has the Septuigint OT (46 books) + 27 books of the NT = 73 canonical books.

.

What’s curious about this, when talking about the local synods at Rome, Carthage, and Hippo, where the 73 book canon is promoted, is that Orthodoxy doesn’t seem to have abided by it. Certainly, there has never been a universal understand in the Church of what books are and are not canon. What the synods do point out, however, is what what I’ve said about my personal view: I’m not entirely convinced Luther was correct regarding the DC’s.

• is that being relative, or indifferent?
• What’s relevant is, Proportion. He starts a revolution against the Church, gets excommunicated, prints his own modified bible to suit his own theology, and starts his own religion. I think we can agree, that’s going way beyond having an opinion.

I would agree, if that his what I thought happened. I don’t think it was ever his intend to start a revolution. That’s not to say he wasn’t a difficult man to deal with. He probably was, but I’m convinced the 95 Theses, for example, was his attempt to work within the Church for reform.

You and I are conversing here as we’ve done over many threads. Haven’t we always been cordial to each other?

Absolutely. I was speaking about the approach Judas was taking. I think one can stridently defend one’s faith, and never speak ill about the other. 8th Commandment, and all that.

I’m thinking, let’s not lose sight of proportion. Cajetan didn’t start a revolution against the Church, he didn’t rewrite the bible. He didn’t start his own religion. The bible for him was the Volgate. All 73 canonical books were canon

Yeah, I don’t think Luther did any of this.

The same book that was translated from Latin to German for the German population, decades before Luther was even conceived.

I don’t know how readily available it was. Luther translated, primarily, from the Greek, so perhaps he didn’t have access to a German language Bible. I don’t know for sure.

I used that early council to show the beginning, and continuity of the bible we use today

Understood.

I understand you’re defending your position.

And you yours, and you do it very well.

Am I to gather from that , when you’re talking to fellow Missouri Synod folks you don’t use the term DC?

If names and terms we use are not relevant in terms of meaning, then how are we going to communicate effectively?

To the first part, yes. It is the term commonly used among Lutherans. Deuterocanon is typically used here, and I respect my guest status. Its a matter of respect. For example, I rarely use the term “Roman Catholic” because not all Catholics appreciate the term.

Jon

 

[steve_b]

What’s curious about this, when talking about the local synods at Rome, Carthage, and Hippo, where the 73 book canon is promoted, is that Orthodoxy doesn’t seem to have abided by it. Certainly, there has never been a universal understand in the Church of what books are and are not canon. What the synods do point out, however, is what what I’ve said about my personal view: I’m not entirely convinced Luther was correct regarding the DC’s.

I can’t speak for them obviously. But there were also at this time, cracks developing in their unity with the pope… I won’t go further, it will derail things.
J:

I would agree, if that his what I thought happened. I don’t think it was ever his intend to start a revolution. That’s not to say he wasn’t a difficult man to deal with. He probably was, but I’m convinced the 95 Theses, for example, was his attempt to work within the Church for reform.

Here’s a quote (context provided) from the pope at the time of Luther’s excommunication.

As far as Martin himself is concerned, O good God, what have we overlooked or not done? What fatherly charity have we omitted that we might call him back from such errors? For after we had cited him, wishing to deal more kindly with him, we urged him through various conferences with our legate and through our personal letters to abandon these errors. We have even offered him safe conduct and the money necessary for the journey urging him to come without fear or any misgivings, which perfect charity should cast out, and to talk not secretly but openly and face to face after the example of our Savior and the Apostle Paul. If he had done this, we are certain he would have changed in heart, and he would have recognized his errors. He would not have found all these errors in the Roman Curia which he attacks so viciously, ascribing to it more than he should because of the empty rumors of wicked men. We would have shown him clearer than the light of day that the Roman pontiffs, our predecessors, whom he injuriously attacks beyond all decency, never erred in their canons or constitutions which he tries to assail. For, according to the prophet, neither is healing oil nor the doctor lacking in Galaad.
But he always refused to listen and, despising the previous citation and each and every one of the above overtures, disdained to come. To the present day he has been contumacious. With a hardened spirit he has continued under censure over a year. What is worse, adding evil to evil, and on learning of the citation, he broke forth in a rash appeal to a future council. This to be sure was contrary to the constitution of Pius II and Julius II our predecessors that all appealing in this way are to be punished with the penalties of heretics. In vain does he implore the help of a council, since he openly admits that he does not believe in a council.
Therefore we can, without any further citation or delay, proceed against him to his condemnation and damnation as one whose faith is notoriously suspect and in fact a true heretic with the full severity of each and all of the above penalties and censures. Yet, with the advice of our brothers, imitating the mercy of almighty God who does not wish the death of a sinner but rather that he be converted and live, and forgetting all the injuries inflicted on us and the Apostolic See, we have decided to use all the compassion we are capable of. It is our hope, so far as in us lies, that he will experience a change of heart by taking the road of mildness we have proposed, return, and turn away from his errors. We will receive him kindly as the prodigal son returning to the embrace of the Church.

papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm

As anyone can see this wasn’t a quick or rash decision. It was done with great care. We can also see Luther had the door open to him but he refused to go through it. It appears he did exactly what he planned to do
J:

Yeah, I don’t think Luther did any of this.

The documents say he did