Edwin,
As for the omission of the deuterocanonical books, Luther didn’t omit them. He put them in an appendix, as he did with certain NT books that (like the OT deuterocanonicals/apocrypha) had been subjects of debate in the early Church (and right through to his own time, especially in the OT case).
I agree that Luther didn’t take out the dueterocanonicals in that he didn’t omit them, he put them in the appendix as did the reformers (although I’ve read they in some cases put them in the index also) up until I think it was 1830 when the British Bible society first omitted them completely, but I could be wrong on the name and date. The 1611 KJV does have the deutero’s in it (also in the appendix) as I just recently heard a priest say he received one as a gift.
As far as the canon in general being a subject of debate up until Luthers time, I’d have to disagree with that assertion. It most certainly was a subject of debate in the early Church. Some books were considered
acknowledged some
spurious and some
disputed. The council of Rome (or synod) 382 AD under pope Damasus was the first council to cite the canon in its entirety, with the 27 New Testament books including the duetero’s. The canon the council of Rome cited is what the Church used up, through and beyond the reformation and uses to this day.
In both these cases, Catholic polemicists (not here “apologists” since they aren’t defending Catholicism but attacking Luther) use loaded language to make you think that Luther was cynically and unjustifiably tampering with the text.
Well Luther was unjustifiably tampering with the text. He knew very well that he didn’t have the
authority to dictate what the Scriptures meant. Being an Augustinian monk, well educated and a skillfull exegete didn’t allow him to dictate Catholic Church theology. He had to have known the structure and authoritative hiearchy of the Catholic Church and that he beyond all else he was to submit to the authority of the bishops and the pope. He eventually defied that and went on his own polemic rampage against the “papists.”
In fact, Luther was taking a position on the basis of his analysis of the text and the history of the canon. Yes, of course his theological views had a huge influence on his decision. But can you seriously claim that the same is not true of Catholics?
I will admit that Martin Luther’s original demands and anger seemed to have justification to it because there were abuses of indulgences and at time utter mayhem and he was correct for his anger. However, Luther eventually went to far and by his
own analysis of the text created his “own version” of sola fide and coined sola Scriptura, two theological doctrines NEVER taught in Christian salvific history. Sola fide wasn’t taught by the fathers the way Luther taught it and sola Scriptura was NEVER a teaching of Catholic theology. That’ what Catholics get angry at Luther for doing.
I have no problem with people saying that Luther was wrong. But the persistent attacks on him on this forum are a sad reminder that people tend to become like the enemies they are fighting. Catholic apologists set out originally to answer unfair, out-of-context caricatures of Catholicism by fundamentalists. And that was a worthy goal. But now we have forums like this where Catholics use the same tactics over and over against Protestantism. It seems that nothing will stem the tide of vitriol and ignorance. Instead of a respectful discussion of the issues, we have loaded language, out-of-context (even dishonest) quotations, and a persistent determination to believe the worst. Look in the mirror, folks. You are becoming what you most hate.
Edwin you have engaged in the very “vitriol” you have condemned. You are also guilty of not engaging in “respectful discussion” for you in earlier posts on “Imputed Righteousness” thread #25 accused me of being “nervous” as though you can know through my typed words what are my phyical emotions! Typed and written words don’t fully convey emotion, inflection nor intination, so you really made a huge assumption without proof.
I apologized in “Imputed righteousness” thread #38 post to you for NOT having or ever finding the Luther snow covered dunghill quote and I’ll never use it again. It doesn’t exist and I stand corrected by you, nevertheless you also engage in the same tactics you condemn without apologizing for them. You accused me of claiming Luther was a “Baptist” when I never ever said that. You have used polemic words against me i.e. “Catholic propogandist box” and “baptist box” in “Imputed righteousness” #25. Isn’t that engaging in polemics?
Perhaps you could abide by the golden rule first and foremost, and the lead all of us sinful and overzealous Catholics into more fruitful discussions
).
