Martin Luther's New Testament Canon?

[thistle]

Once again: there is NOTHING in the Duterocanonicals that contradicted his views, except perhaps prayers for the dead in 2 Maccabees.

Why are you so intent on supporting a man (a priest) who was the worst thing that happened for Christians unity. He led many away from salvation. He made up his own doctrine and disparaged any book that disagreed with his doctrine. He thought he was the only one who could properly translate the Bible. He was too cowardly to stay with the Church to fight some corrupt practices by certain priests. Instead of having faith in God and trusting him to help him within the Church he ran away.
In short Luther moved away from God and into the arms of Satan.

Have you actually read all of Luther’s writings??

 

[Zenkai]

Why are you so intent on supporting a man (a priest) who was the worst thing that happened for Christians unity. He led many away from salvation. He made up his own doctrine and disparaged any book that disagreed with his doctrine. He thought he was the only one who could properly translate the Bible. He was too cowardly to stay with the Church to fight some corrupt practices by certain priests. Instead of having faith in God and trusting him to help him within the Church he ran away.
In short Luther moved away from God and into the arms of Satan.

Have you actually read all of Luther’s writings??

He wanted to reform the Catholic Church, not start a new one. But, he was excommunicated and lost his job and home.

I’m not necessarily supporting him, I just don’t like people spreading false information about someone else.

 

[thistle]

He wanted to reform the Catholic Church, not start a new one. But, he was excommunicated and lost his job and home.

I’m not necessarily supporting him, I just don’t like people spreading false information about someone else.

What nonsense. The issue of reforming corrupt practices of some priests and bishops could have been achieved by remaining in the Church. He was not excommunicated for that. The Church itself knew that some reforming was necessary. People get blindsided by this topic. The real problem was that Luther abandoned Catholic teachings and made up his own doctrine.
For example, Luther taught that man has no free will, that man can do no good, and that it is neither necessary not possible to subdue man’s animal passion.
Luther went further by insisting that the moral law of the 10 Commandments is not binding on Christians and are abrogated. He was excommunicated for heresy, and not for wanting to reform the Church which many inside the Church wanted to do and did.

I think you need to do more research on Luther.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Luther went further by insisting that the moral law of the 10 Commandments is not binding on Christians and are abrogated. He was excommunicated for heresy, and not for wanting to reform the Church which many inside the Church wanted to do and did. I think you need to do more research on Luther.

Luther’s theology indeed has a place for the Law of God and its use in the life of a Christian. The Law for Luther was dual purposed: it first drives one to see their sin and a need for a savior; secondly it functions in the life of a Christian to lead one to a correct understanding of the good one ought to do.

Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Luther knows how important Moses and the law was in his theology. Luther taught that anyone who is to preach must be able to preach the law:

“First, he must preach the Law so that the people may learn what great things God demands of us; of these we cannot perform any because of the impotence of our nature which has been corrupted by Adam’s fall.” *Sermons of Martin Luther *Volume 1 (Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), 1:131.

Luther also points out that only by knowing God’s law does one even “know” what a good work is:

“…[O]nly those things are good works which God has commanded, just as only that is a sin which God has forbidden. Therefore, he who wants to know and do good works need only know God’s Commandments… These Commandments of God must teach us how to distinguish among good works.” Ewald Plass, What Luther Says Volumes 1-3 (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing house, 1959) 3:1499.

These examples show that Luther valued the law. Luther scholar Paul Althaus points out for Luther,

“The Ten Commandments have their place not only ‘before’ but also ‘after’ justification; thus they not only exercise the Christian in the theological function of the law but also lead him to a right knowledge of the good he ought to do according to God’s will.” [Paul Althaus, *The Theology of Martin Luthe

r (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1963), 272].

Luther composed a hymn on the Ten Commandments in which he states,

“To us come these commands, that so- Thou son of man, thy sins mayst know- And make thee also well perceive- How before God man should live.” [Source: LW 53:279] Elsewhere Luther said of the Ten Commandments, “They are the true fountain from which all good works must flow.” Martin Luther, as cited by Paul Althaus, *The Theology of Martin Luther *(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1963), 272, footnote 124].

In Luther’s Small Catechism the Ten Commandments were placed first because he wanted people to understand that God is wrathful against sin. The negative prohibitions in the Ten Commandments clearly showed our need for a savior. Also in the Small Catechism, Luther suggests a daily regiment of prayer and includes a verbal reading of the Ten Commandments. In the reciting of the Ten Commandments along with the Apostles Creed and Lord’s Prayer, one hears both law and gospel at the beginning and ending of each day. Luther says,

“…[N]o man can progress so far in sanctification as to keep even one of the Ten Commandments as it should be kept, but that the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer must come to our assistance, as we shall hear, through which we must continually seek, pray for, and obtain the power and strength to keep the Commandments" [What Luther Says 3:1501].

James Swan

 

[bogeydogg]

Who got rid of the six books that separate the Protastent from the Cannonical scripture, Luther , Zwigli,Calvin, who was it?

It was the English Bible Society in the 19th century.

Luther did consider certain books apocryphal but did not remove any that is simply a slander against him.

God Bless

 

[Zenkai]

What nonsense. The issue of reforming corrupt practices of some priests and bishops could have been achieved by remaining in the Church. He was not excommunicated for that. The Church itself knew that some reforming was necessary. People get blindsided by this topic. The real problem was that Luther abandoned Catholic teachings and made up his own doctrine.
For example, Luther taught that man has no free will, that man can do no good, and that it is neither necessary not possible to subdue man’s animal passion.
Luther went further by insisting that the moral law of the 10 Commandments is not binding on Christians and are abrogated. He was excommunicated for heresy, and not for wanting to reform the Church which many inside the Church wanted to do and did.

I think you need to do more research on Luther.

It’s not nonsense; it’s simply history. He didn’t start out wanting to begin his own church. He just thought that the Catholic Church had some corrupt practices and he wanted to change them. And yes, he was excommunicated because the Church thought he was a heretic.

 

[bogeydogg]

Luther used the Hebrew canon, not the Greek canon. However, he kept the additional books that were in the Greek canon and put them in a seperate section called “Apocrypha”. Then, 300+ years after that, the printing press was invented. So the printing companies took that section out to save paper and money because those books were not used very often.

Zenkai, the Reformation got started because of the Guttenberg Printing Press.

Luther was seeking a formal discussion between himself and his colleagues at the school in Wittenburg where he taught. He posted the Theses in Latin on the door to the Castle Church because this was the common practice for scholars.

BTW, Thesis #1 Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam agite, willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance.

Does that sound like a man who seriously believed that a person could confess faith and blow off the church as he has been satirized to have said so many times on this site?

Luther posted the Theses in Latin specifically so that the laity would not be able to read them because knew some of them would be controversial (as in most of them).

His students, who could read latin, copied them down, translated them into German, and then had them printed up as flyers.

Thus the Reformation was born out of a student prank and not the willful rebellion of Martin Luther.

God Bless

 

[bogeydogg]

What nonsense. The issue of reforming corrupt practices of some priests and bishops could have been achieved by remaining in the Church. He was not excommunicated for that. The Church itself knew that some reforming was necessary. People get blindsided by this topic. The real problem was that Luther abandoned Catholic teachings and made up his own doctrine.
For example, Luther taught that man has no free will, that man can do no good, and that it is neither necessary not possible to subdue man’s animal passion.
Luther went further by insisting that the moral law of the 10 Commandments is not binding on Christians and are abrogated. He was excommunicated for heresy, and not for wanting to reform the Church which many inside the Church wanted to do and did.

I think you need to do more research on Luther.

You are blinded by having been taught Luther was a demon out of Hell by Rome.

Luther never sought to leave the Church, but he believed a corrupt papacy which allowed, although did not sanction, the selling of indulgences for building of St Peter’s, and which allowed the selling of Bishoprics had so strayed from the purpose given it by Christ that its claim to be His Vicar was moot. So when Luther was excommunicated he ignored the order.

But he refused to allow the smashing of Catholic Churches. He stopped the persecution of Catholics in southern Germany. He sought always reconciliation with the Church, as the Smalcald Articles clearly show, but the Church was not interested in listening to him because his reforms who have torn down the houses of the money changers in the Vatican and such a thing could not be tolerated.

But if you really want to know who founded the protestant churches it was not Luther, it was Rome. Luther was in ill health and the meeting at Smalcald was supposed to be his last letters written to the Bishops at open hearing.

Instead Rome cancelled meeting and held a closed conclave at Trent where they summarily excommunicated and anathematized all of those who protesting against her instead of listening. They, like dictators, chose to silence the redress instead of hear the grievance.

So Rome, at Trent, created the protestant churches and unleashed the flood of individual interpretations which Luther never said should happen. In fact what Luther said was, “A peasant armed with Scripture is to be believed over popes, conclaves and councils,” but he said this in closed court to a Cardinal Cajetan and clearly it is bombast. Because there is nothing else in Luther’s writings which shows he approved of lay person interpreting Scripture on their own apart from the Church. That is a slander from Rome.

So when you complain about all of the protestant churches, blame Rome and Trent.

God Bless

 

[Augustine3]

The book of James contains one very pertinent verse that most protestants ignore, it is the only verse in the bible that has ‘faith’, ‘works’, and ‘alone’ in the same sentence. Sola fide would easily be dismissed with this verse, so I can see that being against the theme of things. (cf James 2:24)

I remember Walter Martin defending the Protestant faith pointing out the verse you mentioned in James means your works are the fruit of your genuine faith. That is the way of discerning who’s faith is real and who’s faith is false. There is not merit to add in Heaven.

What I don’t get is when Fr Pacwa pointed out to Walter Jesus talks about merit multiple times on the sermon in the mount. Walter replied saying the audience are primarily Jews therefore he was speaking in terms of the Old covenant not the new…

Brother in Christ,

 

[thistle]

It’s not nonsense; it’s simply history. He didn’t start out wanting to begin his own church. He just thought that the Catholic Church had some corrupt practices and he wanted to change them. And yes, he was excommunicated because the Church thought he was a heretic.

The Church did not think he was a heretic. It knew he was a heretic. He rejected teachings and made up his own and he badmouthed anyone who disagreed with him.

 

[Augustine3]

You are blinded by having been taught Luther was a demon out of Hell by Rome.

Thistle did not say anything about Luther being a demon out of hell, your prejudice to the Catholic Church is distorting your judgement.

God bless,

 

[Zenkai]

The Church did not think he was a heretic. It knew he was a heretic. He rejected teachings and made up his own and he badmouthed anyone who disagreed with him.

Not everyone thought he was a heretic; if everyone did, there would be no Protestants today. Also, he didn’t really make up his own teachings; he simply used the Bible as his only source. The only thing he rejected was Sacred Tradition.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Not everyone thought he was a heretic; if everyone did, there would be no Protestants today. Also, he didn’t really make up his own teachings; he simply used the Bible as his only source. The only thing he rejected was Sacred Tradition.

Actually, Luther didn’t reject Sacred Tradition at all. He ultimately rejected how Sacred Tradition was being defined by the Catholic church.

 

[bogeydogg]

Thistle did not say anything about Luther being a demon out of hell, your prejudice to the Catholic Church is distorting your judgement.

God bless,

Actually I have a great deal of love for the RCC I just think Luther gets treated very unfairly by Catholic teachers and Catholics. Whether by satire, sarcasm, outright distortion or caricature Luther has a lot of things put into his mouth and a lot of doctrines taught by heretics who followed after him put into his account and I think it is unfair.

But the statement was far too strong and I apologize.

God Bless

 

[thistle]

Not everyone thought he was a heretic; if everyone did, there would be no Protestants today. Also, he didn’t really make up his own teachings; he simply used the Bible as his only source. The only thing he rejected was Sacred Tradition.

As this thread is about Luther’s New Testament let’s look at that.

Luther REJECTED the books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Apocalypse (Revelation) as being part of the Bible and he put these four at the end of his translation. Being REJECTED as part of the Bible means REMOVED from the Bible. The fact that he kept them physically there stuck at the end of his New Testament translation does not alter that fact.

What did he say about these books?

Hebrews

“It need not surprise anyone to find here bits of wood, hay, and straw.”

Jude

“Although I praise the book, it is an epistle that need not be counted among the chief books.”

James

“I do not hold it to be his writing, and I cannot place it among the capital books.”

Revelation

“There are many things objectionable in this book, to my mind it bears upon it no marks of an apostolic or prophetic character…Everyone may form his own judgement of this book; as for myself, I feel an aversion to it, and to me this is sufficient reason for rejecting it.”

Even the New Testament books Luther did not reject still got bad words from him:

When talking about the Gospels he said “The first three speak of the works of our Lord, rather than his oral teachings; that of St John is the only true Gospel and should undoubtedly be preferred to the others. In like manner the Epistles of St Peter and St Paul are superior to the first three Gospels.”

Now as far as I am aware at all mainstream Protestants accept as part of the Bible exactly the same books as the Catholic Church. This tells you what utter nonsense Luther was spouting and what Luther tried to do to the New Testament has been thoroughly rejected by Protestants.

 

[Zenkai]

As this thread is about Luther’s New Testament let’s look at that.

Luther REJECTED the books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Apocalypse (Revelation) as being part of the Bible and he put these four at the end of his translation. Being REJECTED as part of the Bible means REMOVED from the Bible. The fact that he kept them physically there stuck at the end of his New Testament translation does not alter that fact.

What did he say about these books?

Hebrews

“It need not surprise anyone to find here bits of wood, hay, and straw.”

James

“I do not hold it to be his writing, and I cannot place it among the capital books.”

Revelation

“There are many things objectionable in this book, to my mind it bears upon it no marks of an apostolic or prophetic character…Everyone may form his own judgement of this book; as for myself, I feel an aversion to it, and to me this is sufficient reason for rejecting it.”

Even the New Testament books Luther did not reject still got bad words from him:

When talking about the Gospels he said “The first three speak of the works of our Lord, rather than his oral teachings; that of St John is the only true Gospel and should undoubtedly be preferred to the others. In like manner the Epistles of St Peter and St Paul are superior to the first three Gospels.”

Now as far as I am aware at all mainstream Protestants accept as part of the Bible exactly the same books as the Catholic Church. This tells you what utter nonsense Luther was spouting and what Luther tried to do to the New Testament has been thoroughly rejected by Protestants.

Yes, he didn’t like those books, but still, he didn’t remove them.

You seem to hate Luther. Do you think he’s in hell right now?

 

[thistle]

Yes, he didn’t like those books, but still, he didn’t remove them.

You seem to hate Luther. Do you think he’s in hell right now?

What part of rejecting them do you not understand.

He rejected them as being part of the Bible.

 

[thistle]

As for where Luther is only God knows that.

What I can objectively say is that if he as a Catholic repented for rejecting the Church and its teachings before he died he would have been saved.
If he did not repent then he is in Hell.

Which it is I don’t know.

 

[Zenkai]

What part of rejecting them do you not understand.

He rejected them as being part of the Bible.

If he rejected them from the Bible, he would not have included them in his translation.

He didn’t like them, but he still considered them to be canon.

 

[thistle]

If he rejected them from the Bible, he would not have included them in his translation.

He didn’t like them, but he still considered them to be canon.

He rejected them as being part of the Canon and he put them at the end of his translation, i.e. separating them from the Canon.

“I feel an aversion to it, and to me this is sufficient reason for** rejecting** it.”