Luther and the Epistle of Straw

[Eden]

Can someone please explain to me why we are discussing Steve Ray and Melanchthon when the original post was:

**I paraphrased this from the book written byHenry G. Graham, “*WHERE WE GOT *THE BIBLE OUR DEBT TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH”: geocities.com/thecatholi…otthebible.html
Luther referred to the Epistle of St. James as unworthy to remain within the volume of Holy Scripture – ‘an Epistle of straw’ he called it, ‘with no character of the Gospel in it’. He also said the same thing about the Epistle of St. Jude and the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the beautiful Apocalypse of St. John, declaring they were not on the same footing as the rest of the books, and did not contain the same amount of Gospel (i.e., his Gospel).

How do Protestants get passed this with regard to their core belief in Sola Scriptura?

**

 

[TertiumQuid]

mark a:

I asked you this question on a different thread, but got no response.
So here goes againo you think Catholics focus on Luther in the same way Protestants focus on the Pope?

Hi Mark,

It’s a big question because you’re asking about “all” Protestants in general. I can only answer based on those i know personally.

Those I know personally stand clearly against the Pope as being an infallible authority and a descendant of Peter. In other words, we stand against him theologically. Most of us admit some of the Pope’s have probably been some nice, decent moral guys with good intentions.

So, the answer is: we don’t attack the pope like some Catholics attack Luther. some Catholics attack Luther personally rather than theogically. This was the standard Catholic approach to Luther for many years, begun by Luther’s first Catholic opponent, who said of him:

"Luther is a child of the devil, possessed by the devil, full of falsehood and vainglory. His revolt was caused by monkish envy of the Dominican, Tetzel; he lusts after wine and women, is without conscience, and approves any means to gain his end. He thinks only of himself. He perpetrated the act of nailing up the theses for forty two gulden- the sum he required to buy a new cowl. He is a liar and a hypocrite, cowardly and quarrelsome. There is no drop of German blood in him…”

I stand with Roman Catholics against stuff like Jack Chick. I don’t think that type of rhetoric against the Pope helps any discussion. I even stand against Luther thinking he lived in the last days, and considering the Pope to be the anti-christ.

I hope that answers your question.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[TheGarg]

How does one deal with the FACT that Luther had no right, Guidence from the Holy Spirit to act Seperate from Christ’s Church, or duty appionted by the Catholic Church to rip books from the Bible.

Any thing to do with luther’s teachings is illigetimate. They have no validity. So why even consider his one, fallible opinion on what books are “worthy” to be in the bible.

This apart from his general complaints about the Church. This is directed solely to his unholy deformation of the Word.

anybody?

 

[Eden]

Mark- Perhaps it would be more accurate to ask, "Do you think Catholics focus on Luther in the same way Protestants focus on the Papacy? As TertiumQuid pointed out, Protestants generally do not dislike each of the Popes as men. It is the idea that the Pope is the successor to Peter as head of Christ’s Church on earth that they reject. Changing the word to *papacy, *I would agree that the two can be compared in some ways: Protestants do not believe that the Pope speaks with the blessing of the Holy Spirit and Catholics do not believe that Luther spoke for the Holy Spirit. The reason the two comparisons are not similar is that Luther is a man and the Papacy is a position of authority.

 

[steve_b]

TertiumQuid:

-continued-

Now why do I point this out? because i’m extremely skeptical of Catholic research on Luther’s canon. Here’s Steve Ray’s charge:

“Martin Luther understood the place of the Church in establishing the canon… He realized that if he could jettison the Church, or at least redefine it as “invisible” and “intangible”, he was free to reevaluate and regulate the content of the canon for himself. He actually began to function as his own pope and council. If it weren’t for his theologian Philip Melanchthon, Protestants would no longer consider James, Revelation, Hebrews, Jude and a few other books as inspired Scripture.”

Source: Steve Ray: “Bible’s Canon: Do Protestants or Catholics Have The Correct Books?.”

Ray infers that Luther wanted to create his own canon, while most scholars recognize Luther holds to a “canon within a canon” [see Roland Bainton, Studies on the Reformation (Boston: Beacon Press, 1963) 5].

1.The OT and NT canon was already established by a long standing (T)radition.

1. Luther called the epistle of James, straw, and called into question Jude, Hebrews and Revelation. He put at the back of his translation certain OT canonical books he reclassified as apocrypha.
2. Bottomline, Luther on his own, had no authority to recategorize and reclassify any books in the bible, and especially according to his theology. The canon already existsed. Therefore, making a “canon within a canon” is not the proper way to describe what he did. He deliberately reclassified canonical books to aprocyphal status.

TertiumQuid:

Paul Althaus explains that Luther “allows the canon to stand as it was established by the ancient church. But he makes distinctions within the canon” [See Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), 83].

What canon are you speaking of?

TertiumQuid:

I am unaware of Luther ever seriously questioning the canonicity of any other New Testament book other than the four mentioned above.

With regards to the NT, isn’t it enough that he questioned James, Jude, Hebrews, & Revelation? Afterall, would you accept the bible as the word of God knowing it is only 85% inspired? What degree of error is acceptable?

TertiumQuid:

Ray also seems to indicate,
[snip]

“When Martin Luther rejected “popes and councils” he also realized that the canon was again up for grabs. He didn’t like James as we know, but he also placed Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation at the back of the book, not with the inspired books. **It was only later that Philipp Melanchthon convinced him to defer to long tradition **and place the books back in the New Testament, back in the recognized order. How did Luther fail to recognize the self-authenticating writings?"

Source:Steve Ray, “New Testament Books: Self-authenticating? No Need for the Church to Close the Canon?”

Ray would do well to provide further information to substantiate this claim that Melanchthon was the primary reason Luther put books “back in the New Testament.”

Can a book of scripture which is by definition (God breathed), also be an epistle of straw at the same time? I don’t think so!

If you know what influenced Luther to put the NT books back in order tell us. Did he do it on his own or did someone else influence him to do so? We know he didn’t change with regards to the OT canon.

 

[mark_a]

TertiumQuid:

Those I know personally stand clearly against the Pope as being an infallible authority and a descendant of Peter. In other words, we stand against him theologically. Most of us admit some of the Pope’s have probably been some nice, decent moral guys with good intentions.

I’m really asking about the venomous approach to Luther taken by some of us. Do you think it caused by a personal desire to be right no matter how un-Christian-like we present ourselves?

 

[mark_a]

Eden:

Mark- Perhaps it would be more accurate to ask, "Do you think Catholics focus on Luther in the same way Protestants focus on the Papacy

?

Yes, yes, yes. Thanks.

 

[Mickey]

mark a:

TertiumQuid:

I’m really asking about the venomous approach to Luther taken by some of us. Do you think it caused by a personal desire to be right no matter how un-Christian-like we present ourselves?

The pendulum swings both ways.

 

[TertiumQuid]

mark a:

I’m really asking about the venomous approach to Luther taken by some of us. Do you think it caused by a personal desire to be right no matter how un-Christian-like we present ourselves?

I don’t know what motivates people Mark. We are all capable of supporting our positions in such a way that we are offensive. I remember having this same discussion with a well known Catholic apologist once. I pointed out we tend to think of ourselves as undefeatable warriors behind our keyboards, and we forget that we’re actually talking to other human beings. It’s easy to throw out a bunch of rhetoric and cheerleading for our team at the expense of being cruel to another person from an opposing point of view.

Every year, I go to the big Catholic/Protestant debate in Long Island N.Y. Last year was special: I arranged to meet a Roman Catholic *in person * whom I had been dialoging with on the CARM boards. We had dinner together previous to the debate. Wouldn’t you know it, he was a human being, with feelings and kindness, as well as a strong stance for his beliefs. We had a great time.

This method of communication on bulletin boards is so one dimensional. It’s easy to be obnoxious and not care. However, when you’re talking with someone face to face, it’s a whole new ballgame. I’m not perfect. I lose my temper at times. I would rather discuss an issue, than discuss the psychology of the other person. Even here, some folks have mocked me because I study Luther. This is all silly stuff. Had they been talking to me face to face, they would see what I did when I met with that Roman Catholic for dinner last year.

Take Care,
James Swan

 

[mark_a]

TertiumQuid:

we forget that we’re actually talking to other human beings. It’s easy to throw out a bunch of rhetoric and cheerleading for our team at the expense of being cruel to another person from an opposing point of view.

Wouldn’t you know it, he was a human being, with feelings and kindness, as well as a strong stance for his beliefs. We had a great time.

This method of communication on bulletin boards is so one dimensional. It’s easy to be obnoxious and not care. However, when you’re talking with someone face to face, it’s a whole new ballgame.

I agree with you. I have typed things that I never would have the guts to say to a person’s face. I’m working to get this under control.

My worst fault (that I’m aware of, ask my wife for a daily updated exhaustive list) is sarcasm, though. When someone speaks or writes to me in an intellegence insulting manner, my self control goes right out the window.

You hold your own very well here.

Anyway, we’ve got it all wrong on the theology. How are we doing on morals?

 

[Eden]

mark a:

Anyway, we’ve got it all wrong on the theology. How are we doing on morals?

Is this the “royal we”?

 

[mark_a]

Eden:

Is this the “royal we”?

I don’t know what “royal we” means.

I am assuming TQ thinks Catholic theology is all wrong and am asking his opinion of Catholic moral teaching.

 

[TertiumQuid]

mark a:

I don’t know what “royal we” means.

I am assuming TQ thinks Catholic theology is all wrong and am asking his opinion of Catholic moral teaching.

Hi Mark,

I don’t doubt for a second that many Roman Catholic parishes teach and exhort their people to be moral, and to lead moral lives.

The charge is usally reversed: Catholics claim the Protestant Gospel of justification by faith alone means that people can sin all they want and not care about it, which of course, is a gross caricature.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[Mickey]

TertiumQuid:

Hi Mark,

I don’t doubt for a second that many Roman Catholic parishes teach and exhort their people to be moral, and to lead moral lives.

And how many Roman Catholic parishes have you polled lately?

 

[TertiumQuid]

Mickey:

And how many Roman Catholic parishes have you polled lately?

Are you suggesting that many (or most) Roman Catholic parishes do not exhort their “flocks” to lead moral lives?

…again Mickey, I’m thinking of that old Monty Python skit I reminded you of a week or so ago…

James Swan

 

[Mickey]

TertiumQuid:

Are you suggesting that many (or most) Roman Catholic parishes do not exhort their “flocks” to lead moral lives?

…again Mickey, I’m thinking of that old Monty Python skit I reminded you of a week or so ago…

James Swan

I suggest you purchase the Monty Python DVD set. Perhaps a good laugh may lighten you up a tad.

 

[Eden]

Will the last one out of this thread please turn out the light?

 

[TertiumQuid]

Mickey:

I suggest you purchase the Monty Python DVD set. Perhaps a good laugh may lighten you up a tad.

No need to buy that stuff, your responses are entertaining enough.

James Swan

 

[Mickey]

TertiumQuid:

No need to buy that stuff, your responses are entertaining enough.

James Swan

Why thank you. Glad I could be at service. I also derive much entertainment from you.

And now, as Edin suggested, I am turning off the lights to this particular thread. See ya around TQ!