More precision on Martin Luther, 7 books "tossed out"

[Topper17]

Hi Goy,

Thanks for your post.

Respectfully disagree with your characterization of Topper’s post.

First, he isn’t asking Jon to defend Luther–his questions were “…what percentage of Lutherans [today] know X”? and “would they abide, if they did?”

Here’s one Topper missed–how many Lutherans even know that their current, still effective articles of faith, to which they adhere as a matter of official declaration…expressly declares the Papacy to be the antichrist?

Michele Bachman wasn’t even aware of this, and left her church, when she became aware of it (i.e.–was called out for it).

I have a book at home which documents the conversion stories of about a dozen Lutherans. The common thread that runs through it is they tended to learn something about their Lutheran faith that disturbed them. If I remember correctly, Luther’s ‘treatment’ of the Scriptures was one of the issues. The antichrist thing was another for some and at least one of them was more than a little upset with Luther’s ‘recommendations’ as to what he wanted to happen to the Jews.

As we know, Luther’s downgrading of the books of Hebrews, Jude, James and Revelation has been accepted by modern Lutheranism, which now puts these books into a lower category, (the antilegomena) rather than with the rest of the 23 books of the NT (the homologoumena). While it could be said that Lutherans still have a 27 book NT, for the purposes of establishing doctrine, they shrunk their canon to only 23 books, and even that is not set in stone. These things are, at least as I understand it, still open to question.

Personally I think this is shocking and I would bet that a lot of Lutherans would think so too, if they knew that is. My point was that I would bet that not a lot of lay Lutherans actually know that.

So no, it doesn’t appear that Topper is asking Jon to defend some obscure holding of Luther from centuries ago–he is inquiring about currently held beliefs–and more specifically…how many (few) Lutherans even know what they believe in, by virtue of declaring themselves Lutheran?

We as Catholics, are constantly being called upon to answer for the Church, and our beliefs–incidental to being Catholic.

Seems pretty damn fair to me, to turn the tables every now and then, and have others–such as Lutherans–answer for theirs.

…and in the process, let the readers be informed as to what they actually believe–rather than only what they wish their denomination holds.

Exactly Goy. I think that it is important to have an understanding of WHY, specifically and exactly, the modern Lutheran communities do not use the same books that we do for establishing doctrine. If they want to appeal to older (and far worse) informed times, that seems to defeat their logic. It doesn’t make any sense to appeal to some Catholic Theologian of hundreds of years ago who was questioning whether this or that book was actually written by an Apostle, when we know now with almost 100% certainity, that it was. That being said, then shouldn’t Lutheranism of today finally settle the canon and finalize a 27 book NT? Wouldn’t that be an excellent step towards reunification?

God Bless You Goy, Topper

 

[twf]

Florence was an ecumenical council. I would just pose the following question,

what part of this statement and list of books, sounds like a mere suggestion, totally open for debate, and not an absolute defined list of books to be believed in?

"Most firmly it believes, professes and preaches … It professes … It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows.*
*Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees;

the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen letters of Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; Acts of the Apostles; Apocalypse of John."
Session 11 (1442) or ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM#5"

Count the books. It’s 73. This took place 100 years before Trent, 1100 + years after
pope Damasus I, decreed the same canon at the council of Rome in 382.

OK. I was wrong about Trent. Doesn’t really change my point though. Luther certainly didn’t have authority to deviate from the Church’s canon… but the witness of the various Eastern and Oriental Churches still confirms that it is inaccurate to say the canon was universally binding / confirmed as early as the 4th century. Florence was still well after the Great Schism. I never took issue with the arguments in this thread against Luther… I just don’t think it is helpful to make inaccurate claims (as some on this thread have) suggesting the canon was definitely settled much earlier than it actually was. Yes, Florence and Trent confirmed what the West had already accepted since the 4th century - but it wasn’t universally accepted in the earlier centuries.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I never took issue with the arguments in this thread against Luther… I just don’t think it is helpful to make inaccurate claims (as some on this thread have) suggesting the canon was definitely settled much earlier than it actually was. Yes, Florence and Trent confirmed what the West had already accepted since the 4th century - but it wasn’t universally accepted in the earlier centuries.

The difference is that in the East an even larger canon was accepted. So in fact, the canon of the Western (Latin) Church was Universal. It was the East that did not have a universal canon (because it included more books than the West.) NO ONE disputed the books that were in the Latin Canon for a thousand years.

 

[MaryT777]

Respectfully disagree with your characterization of Topper’s post.

First, he isn’t asking Jon to defend Luther–his questions were “…what percentage of Lutherans [today] know X”? and “would they abide, if they did?”

Here’s one Topper missed–how many Lutherans even know that their current, still effective articles of faith, to which they adhere as a matter of official declaration…expressly declares the Papacy to be the antichrist?

Michele Bachman wasn’t even aware of this, and left her church, when she became aware of it (i.e.–was called out for it).

So no, it doesn’t appear that Topper is asking Jon to defend some obscure holding of Luther from centuries ago–he is inquiring about currently held beliefs–and more specifically…how many (few) Lutherans even know what they believe in, by virtue of declaring themselves Lutheran?

We as Catholics, are constantly being called upon to answer for the Church, and our beliefs–incidental to being Catholic.

Seems pretty damn fair to me, to turn the tables every now and then, and have others–such as Lutherans–answer for theirs.

…and in the process, let the readers be informed as to what they actually believe–rather than only what they wish their denomination holds.

I completely agree with this post. Mary.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Mary,

Thanks for your post.

I completely agree with this post. Mary.

We have been discussing Luther’s disrespect for Scripture and especially the way that he viewed the Canon. Given the importance of the subject and the impact that it has had on modern Protestantism, of course there is no shortage of comments from Scholars of all stripes.

**
“Luther treated Scripture with amazing freedom, with so much freedom indeed that one wonders why he did not disrupt the canon. **Tradition at this point was presumably too strong for him”, Roland Bainton, Studies on the Reformation, pg. 5

Bainton, who normally gives Luther every break possible, makes a startling admission, admitting that he believes that Luther might have changed the canon if he thought he could get away with it. Thankfully, it wasn’t just the Catholics who were up in arms. If it had been, he probably would have changed it.

**
“But Luther was not the man to be bound by his own rule; few of his followers have ever interpreted, commented on, and criticized the Bible with the freedom habitual to him. **The books he judged according as they appealed to his own subjective nature, or according to his spiritual needs. “ Preserved Smith, “The Life and Letters of Martin Luther”, pg. 268

Again, his spiritual needs were the radical doctrine of Salvation by Faith Alone (SBFA). Scripture was judged according to how well it fit with SBFA. Smith also makes the point that basically nobody every criticized the Bible as freely as Luther did.

“**Luther, when thus faced with what he believed to be an error or a contradiction between James and Paul, rejected James as canonical since the canonical Scriptures can never err or contradict. We might well question this approach. Instead, we might offer ways of harmonizing Paul and James **[footnote 18: “Apology Augsburg Confession”, Mark Bartling, “Did Luther and James: Did Luther Use the Historical-Critical Method?”, pg. 3

Luther was extremely aware that James and Paul were in disagreement. Of course they were not, but Luther understood Paul to support SBFA, while James can only be understood to oppose it. The response was to criticize the book of James.

We normally hear that Luther’s questioning of those four NT books was acceptable because of some vague issue of ‘liberty’, calling back on the VERY FEW Catholics who had EVER questioned those books after the 5th century. However, as we will see, Luther’s appeal to those prior to him who questioned them, was not as strong as his disagreement with what those books taught doctrinally. His disrespect for those books has FAR more to do with their disagreement with his personal theology.

**“Luther could not have regarded Holy Scripture word for word the product of the Holy Ghost, since he felt at liberty to express the most liberal views on whole books of the Bible.”, Heinrich Voigt, “undamentaldomatik” p. 536

The Church determined that James’ book was canonical, over and over again and did so LONG before Luther’s Revolt. If Luther wants to start re-questioning the ancient Church’s judgment on such matters as biblical books, why not also in matters of the Holy Trinity, and Christology, which had been resolved centuries earlier also?

On what grounds did Luther criticize the book of James? Ultimately, it was on the basis of his own subjective opinion, as he so often decided things. All of those councils and popes who had set the 73 book canon and Luther, an insignificant monk at an even less significant university, decides, totally on his own, that the bible should be different (because parts of it didn’t line up with his never before taught doctrine of Salvation by Faith Alone.)

What puzzles me about all of this Mary is why modern day Lutheranism has not seen its way clear to correcting Luther’s errors of judgment with regard to the NT canon. It is well known by ALL today that the books that he so disrespected and downgraded actually WERE Apostolic .

Don’t you think that those books should now be considered by Lutheranism, officially, to be on par with the other 23 in terms of using them for doctrine?

God Bless You Mary, Topper

 

[JonNC]

However, after the canon of the Sacred Scripture was established by the early 5th century, the term was merely historical and no longer relevant to the canon of Sacred Scripture. Therefore when Luther reopened the entire canon to his own personal scrutiny, he revived a term long in disuse, since the Sacred Scripture canon had been closed and decided for more than a thousand years.

And he had every liberty to do so, prior to Trent. Questioning historically disputed books was permitted.
Again, this comes down to the double standard. Luther held to one, other Catholics held to another
Jon

 

[JonNC]

Hi guano,

With regard to the canon, I think that it is just as important, if not more so, that Luther ‘downgraded’ four of the books of the NT, questioning their Inspired status, and put them in a category that was very different from the other 23 books of the NT. Those four books, following Luther’s lead are now considered to be the Lutheran Antilegomena and are not to be used for doctrinal purposes. Jude, Hebrews, Revelations, and of course James, while still technically part of the canon today within Lutheranism, are not considered to be of the same status as the other 23.

One has to question as to whether Luther had the authority to judge Scripture and determine, on the basis of his own personal opinions, whether these books were fully part of the NT.

God Bless You guano, Topper

Every Catholic had that liberty. You have here expressed exactly the double standard.
Erasmus expressed his opinion. Cajetan did. Others did regarding the DCs at the Council of Trent.

Jon

 

[steve_b]

OK. I was wrong about Trent. Doesn’t really change my point though. Luther certainly didn’t have authority to deviate from the Church’s canon…

And THAT’S the point
t:

but the witness of the various Eastern and Oriental Churches still confirms that it is inaccurate to say the canon was universally binding / confirmed as early as the 4th century.

Yes, Florence and Trent confirmed what the West had already accepted since the 4th century - but it wasn’t universally accepted in the earlier centuries.

Here is the language of pope Damasus decree on the canon of scripture? It’s to the entire Church

The Decree of Pope St. Damasus I, Council of Rome. 382 A.D

(all emphasis mine)

"Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books, Paralipomenon * two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus * one book.

Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book, with Ginoth, that is, with his Lamentations, Ezechiel one book, Daniel one book, Osee one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book. Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books *, Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books.

Likewise the order of the writings of the New and Eternal Testament,** which only the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book. The Epistles of Paul the Apostle in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one. Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book. Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealut, the Apostle one epistle."

From Jurgens “Faith of the Fathers”, scroll to pg 406 for this quote books.google.com/books?id=l62q-d4Wi20C&pg=PA405&lpg=PA405&dq=The+Decree+of+Pope+St.+Damasus+I,+Council+of+Rome. +382+A.D&source=bl&ots=ZeUc7S4cIZ&sig=cU TkVsWkzas9JkjusNcC0I1H6Sc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=V2wUVMH3Fo2MyASvuILABQ&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBw#v =onepage&q=The%20Decree%20of%20Pope%20St .%20Damasus%20I%2C%20Council%20of%20Rome.%20382%20A.D&f=false

As an aside

• ** When you see an OT book name above that reads differently from what is expected, see the translation of that name here drbo.org/ For example “Osee” = Hosea
• Decrees are formal documents. As it says it’s for the entire Church

 

[guanophore]

Every Catholic had that liberty. You have here expressed exactly the double standard.
Erasmus expressed his opinion. Cajetan did. Others did regarding the DCs at the Council of Trent.

Jon

The difference is that everyone else who had their opinions ulitmately submitted to the Church, the authority of the canon described in 382. No one else took it upon themselves to separate from the practice of the Church.

 

[MaryT777]

Hi Mary,

Thanks for your post.

We have been discussing Luther’s disrespect for Scripture and especially the way that he viewed the Canon. Given the importance of the subject and the impact that it has had on modern Protestantism, of course there is no shortage of comments from Scholars of all stripes.

**
“Luther treated Scripture with amazing freedom, with so much freedom indeed that one wonders why he did not disrupt the canon. **Tradition at this point was presumably too strong for him”, Roland Bainton, Studies on the Reformation, pg. 5

Bainton, who normally gives Luther every break possible, makes a startling admission, admitting that he believes that Luther might have changed the canon if he thought he could get away with it. Thankfully, it wasn’t just the Catholics who were up in arms. If it had been, he probably would have changed it.

**
“But Luther was not the man to be bound by his own rule; few of his followers have ever interpreted, commented on, and criticized the Bible with the freedom habitual to him. **The books he judged according as they appealed to his own subjective nature, or according to his spiritual needs. “ Preserved Smith, “The Life and Letters of Martin Luther”, pg. 268

Again, his spiritual needs were the radical doctrine of Salvation by Faith Alone (SBFA). Scripture was judged according to how well it fit with SBFA. Smith also makes the point that basically nobody every criticized the Bible as freely as Luther did.

“**Luther, when thus faced with what he believed to be an error or a contradiction between James and Paul, rejected James as canonical since the canonical Scriptures can never err or contradict. We might well question this approach. Instead, we might offer ways of harmonizing Paul and James **[footnote 18: “Apology Augsburg Confession”, Mark Bartling, “Did Luther and James: Did Luther Use the Historical-Critical Method?”, pg. 3

Luther was extremely aware that James and Paul were in disagreement. Of course they were not, but Luther understood Paul to support SBFA, while James can only be understood to oppose it. The response was to criticize the book of James.

We normally hear that Luther’s questioning of those four NT books was acceptable because of some vague issue of ‘liberty’, calling back on the VERY FEW Catholics who had EVER questioned those books after the 5th century. However, as we will see, Luther’s appeal to those prior to him who questioned them, was not as strong as his disagreement with what those books taught doctrinally. His disrespect for those books has FAR more to do with their disagreement with his personal theology.

**“Luther could not have regarded Holy Scripture word for word the product of the Holy Ghost, since he felt at liberty to express the most liberal views on whole books of the Bible.”,

Heinrich Voigt, “undamentaldomatik” p. 536

The Church determined that James’ book was canonical, over and over again and did so LONG before Luther’s Revolt. If Luther wants to start re-questioning the ancient Church’s judgment on such matters as biblical books, why not also in matters of the Holy Trinity, and Christology, which had been resolved centuries earlier also?

On what grounds did Luther criticize the book of James? Ultimately, it was on the basis of his own subjective opinion, as he so often decided things. All of those councils and popes who had set the 73 book canon and Luther, an insignificant monk at an even less significant university, decides, totally on his own, that the bible should be different (because parts of it didn’t line up with his never before taught doctrine of Salvation by Faith Alone.)

What puzzles me about all of this Mary is why modern day Lutheranism has not seen its way clear to correcting Luther’s errors of judgment with regard to the NT canon. It is well known by ALL today that the books that he so disrespected and downgraded actually WERE Apostolic .

Don’t you think that those books should now be considered by Lutheranism, officially, to be on par with the other 23 in terms of using them for doctrine?

God Bless You Mary, Topper

Topper,

I actually don’t Understand how Sola Scriptura would ever possibly work out without a closed Canon. Can a Lutheran use the “lesser books” for doctrine or not? Why are there wide variances among Lutheran synods ELCA, Wels, LCMS? I wonder if this is part of the reason.

just a few random thoughts…LOL…

Blessings to all the posters as we work towards a better understanding of our teachings and beliefs.

Mary

 

[Abu]

twf ##7
This can’t be true. It wasn’t until Trent that the canon was definitively settled for the entire Church universal by an ecumenical council. Yes, the Septuagint, the Bible of the Apostles (quoted in the New Testament itself) included various deuterocanonical books, but there was never universal consensus on the canon in the early Church. It wasn’t necessarily a dividing issue. Pope St. Damasus and the various synods noted above bound the Latin Church…not the universal Church. How else would you explain the fact that the various Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches, all of which were in full communion with Rome in the 4th century, use various canons - most of which have MORE books than the Catholic Old Testament. The fact that the Byzantine Church had a larger canon than the Latin Church wasn’t an issue before the Great Schism… so clearly they weren’t bound by the more limited Latin canon. Only the West was bound. The canon was decided at the local level only prior to Trent.
Of course Luther had no authority to define his own canon. Trent has now bound the Church once and for all… but let’s not use historical fallacies in our apologetics.

Against such an opinion we have the reality of the faithful:

1. As the revered Fr John A Hardon, S.J, confirms – ‘And as early as A.D.382, Pope Damasus I published a complete list of the canonical (inspired) writings of the Bible, in which he decreed “what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what it must avoid.” ’

‘In the mid fifteenth century, the Council of Florence (under Pope Eugenius IV), which sought reunion with the Eastern Orthodox, repeated the Roman Catholic canon of the Bible, verbatim as it had been declared by Damasus I a millennium before……The Council of Trent solemnly restated the teaching of Pope Damasus and the Council of Florence. ’
The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday, 1975, p 46].

1. “Catholics can repair to the decisions of the Church, most clearly formalised at Trent and at the fourth-century councils at Hippo and Carthage; these produced lists of books that are to be accepted as inspired on the authority of the infallible Church…. That is the Catholic way to answer the question.”
   Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Karl Keating, Ignatius Press, 1988, p130].

 

[JonNC]

The difference is that everyone else who had their opinions ulitmately submitted to the Church, the authority of the canon described in 382. No one else took it upon themselves to separate from the practice of the Church.

Regarding the canon? Two points:

1. Trent set that rule, not in 382. Had it been set in 382, a cardinal could not have challenged it without consequences.
   2). Luther was no longer under the authority of the pope. The pope’s authority applies only to those in communion with him. That’s why the Orthodox can have a different canon without the pope’s approval.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

The difference is that in the East an even larger canon was accepted. So in fact, the canon of the Western (Latin) Church was Universal. It was the East that did not have a universal canon (because it included more books than the West.) NO ONE disputed the books that were in the Latin Canon for a thousand years.

How is that different? If the canon was set infallibly by the pope in the 4th century, then that is the canon. No? Isn’t adding to scripture prohibited? Where do the Orthodox, before the Schism, get the authority to add books to the canon? Or from the other view, where does a lone bishop, without ecumenical council of all the bishops , get authority without a council?

Jon

 

[AmbroseSJ]

How is that different? If the canon was set infallibly by the pope in the 4th century, then that is the canon. No? Isn’t adding to scripture prohibited? Where do the Orthodox, before the Schism, get the authority to add books to the canon? Or from the other view, where does a lone bishop, without ecumenical council of all the bishops , get authority without a council?

Jon

Your understanding of “the canon” being set “infallibly” by the pope is anachronistic. During the Church of the Fathers, we hear more about Church infallibility than Papal infallibility. In fact Papal infallibility wasn’t even defined until the 1st Vatican Council in 1870. But Church infallibility has existed since apostolic times. (so likewise has papal infallibility, but it was latent within Church infallibility.) I think you can see how in that light, the Church of the East might add certain books, that the Western Church had not considered canonical, however, it was not as if the canon of the West was being challenged. Even today, some Bibles may have included those extra books recognized as canonical in the East, but it would not be a source of trouble between the East and West. To be more specific there is nothing in those added books recognized by the East as somehow justifying their schism, or detracting from any doctrines of the West.

This is not at all true with the Protestant canon, which was OF the Church of the West, which flatly rejected canonical books of the Bible, which had already been set by THE HOLY SPIRIT via Church infallibility.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

And he had every liberty to do so, prior to Trent. Questioning historically disputed books was permitted.

Again, this comes down to the double standard. Luther held to one, other Catholics held to another

Jon

First of all, speaking of double standards, Luther is supposedly allowed the liberty to criticize Holy Spirit Inspired Holy Scripture and yet, people get upset when HE is criticized. What about the ‘liberty’ to criticize Luther?

Jon, if Luther had the ‘liberty’ to denigrate, criticize, disparage, downgrade, and disrespect God’s Holy Scripture, then it should certainly be permissible for us to criticize him for it. Furthermore, I would expect you to support me in my ‘right’ and ‘liberty’ to criticize him in the matter.

Luther’s disrespect for the Scriptures was only one of the ‘liberties’ he took. Granted there were a VERY FEW Catholics on the previous 1000 years who had questioned the canon, and NONE of them to the extent that Luther did. But that is not the worst of it. With Luther, his disrespect for Holy Scripture and his placing his personal opinions over the judgment of the whole Church on the canon was only a small part of his Revolt. As we have discussed recently, there were over 50 other things on which Luther exhibited his supposed ‘liberty’ and a lot of them were just as critical as the canon. When you consider ALL that he felt at ‘liberty’ to criticize/condemn/denounce/etc, it is EXTREMELY clear what he was really up to.

It seems to me that Protestants always want us to look at each of Luther’s ‘lesser known’ teachings in isolation from all of the rest of his ‘lesser known’ teachings. We are not allowed to suggest that there is a PATTERN, meaning that a LOT of what he taught was extremely racial, or – just flat didn’t work in the real world. This Catholic or that Catholic from history is dug up to supposedly support Luther’s ‘liberty’ to do this or that, often times taking that historic Catholic’s views out of context. However, the fact is that nobody in Christian history took the liberty to change or reject more than four dozen Christian doctrines the way that Luther did. Protestants and especially Lutherans seem to expect us to believe that Luther was right about all of those things and that the whole of Christianity that preceded him was wrong. It is the pattern of ALL of these things that provide the context for judging the validity of Luther’s teachings and in fact, the doctrinal beliefs that separate us.

In addition, I think that it is important to comment on your belief that everybody had the ‘liberty’ to express their canonical opinions prior to Trent. First of all I very much disagree. The cannon had been effectively settled more than 1000 years earlier. Those who made very minor comments about this or that book, DID NOT START THEIR OWN CHURCHES. Neither did they challenge and defy the Church in dozens of other areas the way that Luther did . That being said though, even if you were right, which you are not, Luther was not at all bound by Trent in the slightest and would not have been if he had survived its final session. He after all, forced the Church to declare him to be a heretic and was thus completely outside of the Church. In fact, outside of the church was the only place for him and his beliefs because he refused to be corrected on anything. Even if Catholics DID actually have the right to criticize Catholic Scripture, Luther lost that right when he was excommunicated and set outside the Church. Whatever ‘rights’ or ‘liberty’ he may have had as a Catholic Theologian, Professor and father, ENDED with his excommunication from the Catholic Church. From then on, whatever he did he did on his own authority.

In fact, Luther thought that it was within his purview to change just about everything he didn’t agree with. According to the great Lutheran Theologian Paul Althaus Luther ‘abandoned every formal approach to the authority of the Bible.’:

“He thereby established the principal that the early church’s formation and limitation of the canon is not exempt from re-examination. At the same time, he thereby goes beyond the method of dealing with the Bible as if it were a legal document equally binding in all its parts. Within the canon itself, he distinguishes books in terms of their closeness or distance from the center of the Scripture. Since these are distinction in the clarity of the gospel, they also involve distinctions in the relative authority and significance of the book for the Church. To this extent, the canon is only relatively closed. Therewith Luther has abandoned every formal approach to the authority of the Bible. It is certainly understandable that Luther’s prefaces were eventually no longer printed in the German Bibles.” Althaus, “The Theology of Martin Luther”, pg. 85

Jon, if within Lutheranism the canon is not formally closed, then are there any ‘restrictions’ as to how Lutheran Theologians can view the ‘importance’ of the various books? As an example, would it be acceptable if a Lutheran University Professor were to proclaim to his students that the Lutheran antilegomena should include 7 books instead of 4? Or would it be acceptable for that Professor to suggest that the Gospel of John was not actually written by the Apostle John, and that it was not really one of the ‘main books’ of the NT?

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;13720345]Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

First of all, speaking of double standards, Luther is supposedly allowed the liberty to criticize Holy Spirit Inspired Holy Scripture and yet, people get upset when HE is criticized. What about the ‘liberty’ to criticize Luther?

Jon, if Luther had the ‘liberty’ to denigrate, criticize, disparage, downgrade, and disrespect God’s Holy Scripture, then it should certainly be permissible for us to criticize him for it.

Here ends my discussion with you. If you wish to return to your radical extreme anti-Luther rhetoric, you have the liberty to do so. I am at liberty to ignore it.

Jon

 

[Goya]

Hi Jon,
…

First of all, speaking of double standards, Luther is supposedly allowed the liberty to criticize Holy Spirit Inspired Holy Scripture and yet, people get upset when HE is criticized. What about the ‘liberty’ to criticize Luther?

Jon, if Luther had the ‘liberty’ to denigrate, criticize, disparage, downgrade, and disrespect God’s Holy Scripture, then it should certainly be permissible for us to criticize him for it. Furthermore, I would expect you to support me in my ‘right’ and ‘liberty’ to criticize him in the matter.

…

It seems to me that Protestants always want us to look at each of Luther’s ‘lesser known’ teachings in isolation from all of the rest of his ‘lesser known’ teachings. We are not allowed to suggest that there is a PATTERN, meaning that a LOT of what he taught was extremely racial, or – just flat didn’t work in the real world. This Catholic or that Catholic from history is dug up to supposedly support Luther’s ‘liberty’ to do this or that, often times taking that historic Catholic’s views out of context. However, the fact is that nobody in Christian history took the liberty to change or reject more than four dozen Christian doctrines the way that Luther did. Protestants and especially Lutherans seem to expect us to believe that Luther was right about all of those things and that the whole of Christianity that preceded him was wrong. It is the pattern of ALL of these things that provide the context for judging the validity of Luther’s teachings and in fact, the doctrinal beliefs that separate us.

…

God Bless You Jon, Topper

Indeed it is remarkable, the zeal with which the Protestant defends Luther, and spins his obvious errors on the one hand…while vehemently denying that they hold Luther in any particular regard or esteem, on the other. It’s completely contradictory.

The esteemed status to which Protestants have elevated and hold Martin Luther to, makes Catholic Marian veneration, almost pale in comparison.

He is their Prophet.

…just as he claimed to be (though it seems lost on so many of them, that he did so, tongue in cheek–and to dismiss his genuine lack of divine revelation to support his neo-doctrinal inventions).

C’est la vie.

Alas, all we can do, is pray for our separated brethren to see the light…and to come to the Truth.

JMHO/FWIW.

 

[JonNC]

Your understanding of “the canon” being set “infallibly” by the pope is anachronistic. During the Church of the Fathers, we hear more about Church infallibility than Papal infallibility. In fact Papal infallibility wasn’t even defined until the 1st Vatican Council in 1870. But Church infallibility has existed since apostolic times. (so likewise has papal infallibility, but it was latent within Church infallibility.) I think you can see how in that light, the Church of the East might add certain books, that the Western Church had not considered canonical, however, it was not as if the canon of the West was being challenged. Even today, some Bibles may have included those extra books recognized as canonical in the East, but it would not be a source of trouble between the East and West. To be more specific there is nothing in those added books recognized by the East as somehow justifying their schism, or detracting from any doctrines of the West.

This is not at all true with the Protestant canon, which was OF the Church of the West, which flatly rejected canonical books of the Bible, which had already been set by THE HOLY SPIRIT via Church infallibility.

Are you saying that the Orthodox understanding of infallibility being in the council, and in the pope, as they still believe is correct? I thought that Catholics believed that the 1850 declaration was just a response to what was known since the time of St Peter.
You know this is tongue in cheek, but I frankly don’t see a difference between Orthodoxy “adding books” and Luther and others in the west disputing books.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Here ends my discussion with you. If you wish to return to your radical extreme anti-Luther rhetoric, you have the liberty to do so. I am at liberty to ignore it.

Jon

As a matter of fact Jon, relating the actual historical facts about Luther’s disrespectful dealings with Holy Scripture is NOT ‘extreme anti-Luther rhetoric’. They are simply the facts. I fully recognize that these facts do not show Luther in a positive light, but that I guess would be the consequences of HIS actions.

BTW Jon, that is exactly what I meant. It is somehow perfectly acceptable for Luther to denigrate, and disrespect Holy Spirit Inspired Holy Scripture, but if anybody criticizes HIM for it, they will be condemned for their ‘anti-Luther rhetoric’. That is very interesting.

Thanks for proving my point though. I appreciate it.

 

[JonNC]

^^^indeed it is remarkable, the zeal with which the Protestant defends Luther, and spins his obvious errors on the one hand…while vehemently denying that they hold Luther in any particular regard or esteem, on the other. It’s completely contradictory.

The esteemed status and respect to which Protestants elevate hold Martin Luther, makes Catholic Marian veneration, almost pale in comparison.

He is their Prophet.

…just as he claimed (though it seems lost on so many of them, that he did so, tongue in cheek–and to dismiss his genuine lack of divine revelation to support his neo-doctrinal inventions).

C’est la vie.

All we can do, is pray for our separated brethren to see the light…and to come to the Truth.

JMHO/FWIW.

Since I think I am the only non-Catholic on the thread, I expect this is applied to me.
Again, in case you missed it, I don’t agree with Luther’s conclusion. I don’t agree with Cajetan’s similar conclusion on the DC’s. But I will defend the fact that they had similar opinions and the same liberty to express it.

Jon