Did Martin Luther start the Protestinism?

[schaick]

bible-researcher.com/antilegomena.html
**Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude (1522)**Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, 1 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. It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac; though in Romans 4 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. Now although this epistle might be helped and an interpretation 2 devised for this justification by works, it cannot be defended in its application to works of Moses’ statement in Genesis 15. For Moses is speaking here only of Abraham’s faith, and not of his works, as St. Paul demonstrates in Romans 4. This fault, therefore, proves that this epistle is not the work of any apostle.

In the second place its purpose is to teach Christians, but in all this long teaching it does not once mention the Passion, the resurrection, or the Spirit of Christ. He names Christ several times; however he teaches nothing about him, but only speaks of general faith in God. Now it is the office of a true apostle to preach of the Passion and resurrection and office of Christ, and to lay the foundation for faith in him, as Christ himself says in John 15, “You shall bear witness to me.” All the genuine sacred books agree in this, that all of them preach and inculcate [treiben] Christ. And that is the true test by which to judge all books, when we see whether or not they inculcate Christ. For all the Scriptures show us Christ, Romans 3; and St. Paul will know nothing but Christ, I Corinthians 2. Whatever does not teach Christ is not apostolic, even though St. Peter or St. Paul does the teaching. Again, whatever preaches Christ would be apostolic, even if Judas, Annas, Pilate, and Herod were doing it.

But this James does nothing more than drive to the law and to its works. Besides, he throws things together so chaotically that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took a few sayings from the disciples of the apostles and thus tossed them off on paper. Or it may perhaps have been written by someone on the basis of his preaching. He calls the law a “law of liberty,” though Paul calls it a law of slavery, of wrath, of death, and of sin. 3

Moreover he cites the sayings of St. Peter: “Love covers a multitude of sins,” and again, “Humble yourselves under the hand of God;” also the saying of St. Paul in Galatians 5, “The Spirit lusteth against envy.” And yet, in point of time, St. James was put to death by Herod in Jerusalem, before St. Peter. 4 So it seems that this author came long after St. Peter and St. Paul.

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. 5 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 the rest of Scripture? 6

Concerning the epistle of St. Jude, no one can deny that it is an extract or copy of St. Peter’s second epistle, so very like it are all the words. He also speaks of the apostles like a disciple who comes long after them and cites sayings and incidents that are found nowhere else in the Scriptures. This moved the ancient fathers to exclude this epistle from the main body of the Scriptures. Moreover the Apostle Jude did not go to Greek-speaking lands, but to Persia, as it is said, so that he did not write Greek. Therefore, although I value this book, it is an epistle that need not be counted among the chief books which are supposed to lay the foundations of falth

 

[JustaServant]

Interesting that all that time as a monk he was ignorant of the Scriptures.

Documentation please.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works. **It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac… **

Thank you for this, schaick.

This is very interesting; I wonder how many Protestants realize that even Luther notes that St. James WAS, in fact, teaching justification by faith AND works.

Now I know Luther also says that St. James made a mistake, but still…when Protestants disagree with Catholics and claim that’s not what St. James is teaching, it’s interesting to know that even Luther himself took the words of the epistle at face value…

 

[pablope]

It may be true that he decided it was, as was said, over the top. It may also be that it was (as it is) misunderstood.
The full quote is: “In a word St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it. But more of this in the other prefaces.”So, he was making a comparison. He was comparing it to these others.

ISTM that, to Luther, its value is in its promulgation of the law of God. And this is not somethig to be devalued.

Perhaps, in the final analysis, as he moved further away from the heat of his excommunication, he dialed down the tone.

Jon

Thanks for the enlightenment Jon. Still, is there a statement by Luther that he had changed his mind, or somewhat to that effect? I heard in a show that he was prevailed upon. I surmise then that there was a debate within his group and he changed his mind.

 

[IowaJay]

Hmmm, okay. Could you point out this place in between where Luther stood?

I’ll try this way of answering your question - perhaps part of the issue is we’re dealing with a definition of “canon” that has been somewhat fluid over the years. One way to define what is canonical is that it is appropriate for reading during worship. Luther wrote that the 7 books of the deuterocanon/apocrypha were appropriate for reading during worship from time to time, so if that definition of “canon” is used, he effectively considered them to be canonical even though he did not call them canonical. Why did he not call them canonical? Luther seemed to define the word “canon” a bit more narrowly, going something like this - to be canonical, there must be confidence that 100% of the work is inspired by God.

So, he left the books in because he believed they were more than mere history - they were books which conveyed sacred stories of God. Following the lead of Jerome and Cajetan, for example, however, he believed there were sufficient questions about their authenticity to not place them alongside the books of the Bible…

 

[JonNC]

Thanks for the enlightenment Jon. Still, is there a statement by Luther that he had changed his mind, or somewhat to that effect? I heard in a show that he was prevailed upon. I surmise then that there was a debate within his group and he changed his mind.

I don’t think he, as you put it, changed his mind. I think he probably continued to follow those like Eusebius, and considered James as disputed, particularly in regards its authorship.
I, too, have heard that others prevailed upon him regarding the disputed NT books. I’ve not seen that, but my sense is that even from the early 1520’s he considered them canon, but with that cloud of dispute still there.

Jon

 

[swords99]

Most people did not own bibles, they were generally too expensive.

The point I was making is that without God’s Word, the Holy Bible, Luther remained in darkness. It was only upon having the Scriptures in his possession and reading it for himself that he understood Truth. It wasn’t just the expensive price of bibles, but also the fact that it was written in Latin and could not be read by many lay people. Even though the Bible remained the source book of theology during the Middle Ages, it was seldom studied directly by the theologians. Luther complained that both in the monasteries and the universities the Bible was seldom read

I doubt that, seriously. You evidently have little knowledge of what is involved in living a monastic life, and are relying on your imagination to fill in the blanks to your satisfaction.

.

There were many monks at that time who did not even know latin, nor did they reveal a large knowledge of the Scriptures. Luther knew nothing about God’s grace, justification, sanctification, etc. He was deeply troubled that all his fasts, whippings, vigils, penances etc., etc. were unavailing in giving him peace within. Later, it was Luther who reinstituted Bible study in the monasteries of the reformed Augustinian Hermits.

The question of whether a sacrifice, as a form of heartfelt prayer, can be good for any other sinner besides oneself is worth discussing, but I believe we can pray for others, the living and the departed alike.

The Scriptures tell us that its appointed once for man to die, then the judgment. It nowhere teaches a 2nd chance. One’s eternal fate is sealed. The Bible tells us to choose this day while we are alive to choose whom we will serve.

Luke tells us that the dead cannot communication with the living. In the story of the rich man and the beggar, where the beggar was safe in Abraham’s bosom (also called paradise) the rich man is in torments. There’s a great and fixed gulf between them, meaning one cannot cross to the other side. The rich man begs Abraham to warn his brothers on earth about hades. But Abraham’s refusal shows that there is no communication between the living and the dead.

The mormons also believe they can help their dead throug baptism by proxy. This is also a false doctrine.

 

[TertiumQuid]

This is very interesting; I wonder how many Protestants realize that even Luther notes that St. James WAS, in fact, teaching justification by faith AND works.Now I know Luther also says that St. James made a mistake, but still…when Protestants disagree with Catholics and claim that’s not what St. James is teaching, it’s interesting to know that even Luther himself took the words of the epistle at face value…

Protestants have had a cogent harmonizing solution between Paul and James for quite some time. The book of James describes a real true faith in Christ: a real saving faith is a living faith. If no works are found in a person, that faith is a dead faith (c.f. James 2:17). James then describes a non-saving dead faith: the faith of a demon. A demon has faith that God exists, that Christ rose from the dead- I would dare say a demon knows theology better than you or I. But is the faith of this demon a saving faith? Absolutely not. James describes a living and saving faith, as opposed to a dead faith.

Luther clearly taught the concept of living vs. dead faith throughout his writings. It may be surprising though to some that Luther was actually aware of a harmonization between James and Paul, and even at times uses it.

In Luther’s Disputation Concerning Justification, Luther answered this spurious proposition: “Faith without works justifies, Faith without works is dead [Jas. 2:17, 26]. Therefore, dead faith justifies.” Luther responded:

“The argument is sophistical and the refutation is resolved grammatically. In the major premise, “faith” ought to be placed with the word “justifies” and the portion of the sentence “without works justifies” is placed in a predicate periphrase and must refer to the word “justifies,” not to “faith.” In the minor premise, “without works” is truly in the subject periphrase and refers to faith. We say that justification is effective without works, not that faith is without works. For that faith which lacks fruit is not an efficacious but a feigned faith. “Without works” is ambiguous, then. For that reason this argument settles nothing. It is one thing that faith justifies without works; it is another thing that faith exists without works.”

In The Sermons of Martin Luther 2:2:308, Luther offers the harmonizing solution quite clearly: “This is what St. James means when his says in his Epistle, 2:26: ‘Faith without works is dead.’ That is, as the works do not follow, it is a sure sign that there is no faith there; but only an empty thought and dream, which they falsely call faith.”

Even though Luther knew how to harmonize James and Paul, it may be the case that the question of James’ apostleship out-weighed it. Further, I do recall reading of Luther’s disdain for his Catholic opponents repeatedly quoting the book of James to him. This indeed provoked him, but I wonder why he didn’t simply fight back with something similar to the above.

 

[swords99]

Thank you for this, schaick.

This is very interesting; I wonder how many Protestants realize that even Luther notes that St. James WAS, in fact, teaching justification by faith AND works.

Now I know Luther also says that St. James made a mistake, but still…when Protestants disagree with Catholics and claim that’s not what St. James is teaching, it’s interesting to know that even Luther himself took the words of the epistle at face value…

Luther believed and taught justification by faith. This is what the apostle Paul taught. The reason why James is considered “strawy” is because it can easily be misunderstood as we have sen over the years how the cults use James to support their “work based theology.” What Christians need to understand is that James is in harmony with Paul. James is speaking to born again Christians, not to lost heathens. The christian is already saved and good works is the fruit produced by being a believer in Christ.

Luther did not reject the canonicity of James. Indeed, he attempted to reconcile Paul and James.

Its interesting how the cultist hates Pauline doctrine and uses James to support working their way to salvation.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Luther did not reject the canonicity of James. Indeed, he attempted to reconcile Paul and James.

While Luther included James in his translation of the Bible, he did indeed question the apostolic authorship of James, and its place in the canon of Scripture. He says,

“In a word, [James] 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 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.”

That being said, Luther still used the book of James positively throughout his writings.

 

[swords99]

While Luther included James in his translation of the Bible, he did indeed question the apostolic authorship of James, and its place in the canon of Scripture. He says,

“In a word, [James] 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 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.”

That being said, Luther still used the book of James positively throughout his writings.

The authorship of some of the books of the bible has always been questioned, but when one believes in God and believes that God is able and has preserved His Word, then one needn’t worry about authenticity. The Bible is “God-Breathed.”

 

[TertiumQuid]

How about some facts; Luther broke his vows to God, and took a wife and married a nun. Here is a Luther quoting what took place after his revolt began in his last years " We experience it daily, that the people are seven times worse today than ever before under the Papacy; they are more avaricious, more unchaste, more envious, more intemporate, more dishonest"… He writes to his wife in 1545 of his own Wittenberg “let us get out of this Sodom”

In context, those “people” who were seven times worse were the unsereEvangelischen. In Collette’s *Luther Vindicated *he explains, “Luther did not mean the true believers in and followers of the Evangelists, which some readers might suppose to be a name applicable to all members of the Reformed Churches, from their known attachment to the Gospel, but he applied the expression to outward professors of the Gospel.” Luther’s lament is over people who were Christians in name only.

As to “let us get out of this Sodom” Luther wasn’t like many of the current post-millennial hopefulls. He did not expect the world to get better and better, culminating in a decrease of sin, and an increase in godliness on a mass scale, in order to usher in the kingdom of God. No, for Luther, it was the end of the world. He expected only a remnant to be saved as the world came to its end.

 

[TertiumQuid]

The authorship of some of the books of the bible has always been questioned, but when one believes in God and believes that God is able and has preserved His Word, then one needn’t worry about authenticity. The Bible is “God-Breathed.”

Its best to properly document Luther’s position, there’s no need to defend him as if he were an infallible Protestant pope. Where he was wrong (as in the case of James), it’s quite ok for Protestants to admit it. Roman Catholics tend to bring up Luther / James, yet ignore others sharing his opinion (Cajetan, Erasmus).

 

[swords99]

How about some facts; Luther broke his vows to God, and took a wife and married a nun.

…

God never ordained that men called by Him to preach could not marry. This was an added yoke instituted by the RCC.

 

[swords99]

Its best to properly document Luther’s position, there’s no need to defend him as if he were an infallible Protestant pope. Where he was wrong (as in the case of James), it’s quite ok for Protestants to admit it. Roman Catholics tend to bring up Luther / James, yet ignore others sharing his opinion (Cajetan, Erasmus).

I never understood why Luther must be a scapegoat for non Protestants. Neither he or anyone is perfect.

 

[TertiumQuid]

I never understood why Luther must be a scapegoat for non Protestants. Neither he or anyone is perfect.

The argument is thus: Luther started Protestantism. If he is proven wrong or immoral, therefore Protestantism falls. It’s an example of post hoc ergo proctor hoc.

 

[swords99]

The argument is thus: Luther started Protestantism. If he is proven wrong or immoral, therefore Protestantism falls. It’s an example of post hoc ergo proctor hoc.

Never mind the corrupt popes and priests over the centuries.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Never mind the corrupt popes and priests over the centuries.

Well, there are corrupt people in all faiths.

As a form or argumentation, if I’m going to discuss a worldview that I disagree with, the emphasis will always be on doctrine rather than personalities. So, this argument is likewise false: some popes and priests are corrupt, therefore Roman Catholicism is false.

 

[swords99]

Well, there are corrupt people in all faiths.

As a form or argumentation, if I’m going to discuss a worldview that I disagree with, the emphasis will always be on doctrine rather than personalities. So, this argument is likewise false: some popes and priests are corrupt, therefore Roman Catholicism is false.

My point is that for the RCC to say Luther was immoral therefore Protestantism is a false denomination does not hold water.

 

[rben20]

He is known as the Father of Protestantism for a reason…