Protestant Canon

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

First of all, I would like to apologize if I have said anything that has offended you. Please accept my apologies. I think I have a solution to offer, a compromise that you should appreciate – but first: you infer that I have made statements against your communion, meaning the Lutheran church. If anything, I have a special respect for the Lutheran Church and for most Lutherans, and for a very specific reason. I appreciate Lutherans because they are dogmatic. We share the belief that the doctrinal teachings of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ are extremely important. In fact, they are worth arguing about. They are worth defending even if it makes people uncomfortable. What I do not appreciate is the attitude that reflects “I’m ok, you’re ok, the only thing that matters is faith, all the rest is unimportant.” That kind of liberal theology, that by the way also infects portions of both our communions, is in my estimation, one of the unfortunate ‘logical’ extrapolations of Luther’s teachings. We are watching Confessional Lutheranism shrink dramatically as a percentage of Christianity as a whole. The “I’m OK” bunch are gaining ground rapidly.

If you believe that I have disparaged individual Lutherans or the Lutheran church, then you have misread my comments. I have not. My criticism has been almost entirely directed against Martin Luther and more specifically, against his more ‘odd’ teachings. Is the word ‘odd’ uncharitable? - because the use of the word ‘odd’ in relation to the teachings of Luther that I have outlined – would be extremely charitable. In fact, I have been at least 10 times more charitable to Luther than he was to his opponents. After all, I have not claimed that he was knowingly doing the bidding of Satan, which is exactly the way that he characterized almost all of the people who disagreed with him.

You object to my comments about Luther – and yet – right here on these threads, and within the last month, I have been told by a Lutheran that the pope is the anti-Christ. I found that to be highly offensive – but I didn’t complain. It would have been pointless because that Lutheran would only have doubled down. After all, it is the official teaching of the Lutheran church that the pope is the anti-Christ. If offensive rhetoric offends you, you might want to consider working from within the Lutheran church to correct that obviously offensive official teaching.

As for my criticism of Martin Luther – I do so because I see him as the source for the differences between our two communions. I also see in the facts about him hope that our Confessions can be reunited, but only if we address the source of those differences - Martin Luther. You may prefer to skip past him and discuss only your confessions, but that ignores the reason that those confessions came to be. Pretending that he can be avoided is a sure way to make sure that we never address the things that separate us. Real progress can be made only when we go to the source and determine whether Luther was right to rebel against the Catholic Church of his day.

My position is that Luther took upon his shoulders an astonishing amount of authority and responsibility to change and deny accepted Christian doctrine. As such, it is extremely important that we look at his ‘lesser known’ teachings to see if there is a clue as to his ‘fitness’ as a Christian theologian to claim that massive degree of responsibility. These “lesser known teachings” do in fact reveal much about Luther’s ‘fitness’ as a Christian theologian and exegete.

All that being said, in an effort to actually forge an ecumenical relationship and dialogue, I have a proposal for a compromise of sorts. You are offended by my rhetoric. I will dial that back if you will engage and actually discuss the teachings of Luther that I post. After all, you said a few topics ago that you will criticize Luther ‘when needs be’. Since then I have provided ample opportunity for you to demonstrate this – but you have not criticized him in the slightest.

So, here is what I would like to do. I am going to post information about Luther’s disrespectful comments about Holy Scripture. This thread is about the Apocrypha, the DT. The differences between the views of our two confessions on the matter can be traced back directly to Martin Luther. As such, his qualifications to judge what are and what are not inspired are extremely important. I would suggest that the way that Luther treated well accepted New Testament Scripture is in complete opposition to his reputation as being one who honored and revered Scripture. In fact, in my opinion, it is his outrageous opinions and judgments about New Testament books which completely disqualify him as an self-professed authority on what is and what is not inspired in the Old Testament.

We can proceed from here on this basis if you like. If you want to call me on my rhetoric, that’s fine. My objective is not to offend but to inform. Likewise I will call you on it if I sense that you are attempting to give Luther a ‘pass’ on something where he definitely should be criticized. If in fact, you are simply not comfortable discussing the facts about Luther’s ‘lesser known’ teachings, that’s fine.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[benjohnson]

If in fact, you are simply not comfortable discussing the facts about Luther’s ‘lesser known’ teachings, that’s fine.

From a Lutheran standpoint, such talk about Luther is of historical importance and amusement, but has nothing to do with salvation.

Luther and the church constantly invite us to look to the Gospel and not to to man.

Given that, a wise Lutheran would tend to move away from most conversations that exclusively focus on historical failings of individual men and move toward conversations that discuss ideas and the Gospel.

My hunch it that reasoning like this is probably why you’re find Lutherans withdrawing from conversing with you, as I have done for myself.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

As promised,

As in many of our differences, Martin Luther is at the source of the disagreement on the number of books in the OT canon. As such, it makes sense to determine if Luther was really all that well qualified to determine what was inspired and what was not. In order to do this we need to look at the way that Luther treated other books of Scripture, books that all Protestants and Catholics agree truly belong in the canon. If we find that Luther did not have a good grasp of what should be deemed ‘inspired’/’canonical’/’Apostolic’, then it would suggest that his views on the Apocrypha should be viewed with skepticism, rather than simply accepting it on his self-professed authority. As I mentioned earlier, if we are forced to conclude that Luther was a poor judge of what is inspired and what is not, then, it seems to me that we have to question whether he was really as competent as a theologian as we have all been told.

As we all know, Luther made some very disparaging remarks and expressed some extremely negative opinions about books of the New Testament that we all consider to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is in the specifics of those comments and opinions that we are able to make an assessment of Luther’s ability to determine, what should and should not be part of the Christian canon. The first example is Luther’s treatment of and comments about the Book of James.

First of all it must be pointed out that Luther’s teaching on the authority of the Apostles was very orthodox:

“For Luther……the apostles are the legitimate and, in their proclamation of Christ, the infallible teachers of Christendom.” Paul Althaus, “The Theology of Martin Luther”, pg. 72

It would follow that Luther would accept the writing of any Apostle as being infallible, but then there is still the issue of whether Luther deemed a given writing in Scripture as being written by an apostle. So – how did Luther determine, for himself personally, which books were written by an Apostle, (other than under the guidance of the Holy Spirit)?

“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.” Luther’s Works, 35:362, “Preface to the New Testament” (1522 version)

Luther denigrated the Book of James because it taught against Salvation by Faith Alone (SBFA).

“Luther read the New Testament in the light of the Pauline message that the just shall live by faith and not by works of the law. That this doctrine is not enunciated with equal emphasis throughout the New Testament and appears to be denied in the book of James did not escape Luther, and in his preface to the New Testament of 1522 James was stigmatized as ‘an epistle of straw.’” Bainton, pg. 341

So – if writings of the Apostles are infallible, AND books which teach against Luther’s Salvation by Faith Alone are not inspired – then what is the solution for James? Obviously, that James was not written by an Apostle. However, we know that James WAS written by the Apostle, which means that Luther was horribly wrong on a matter of supreme importance. This leads (again) to the question – how are we supposed to trust this guy?

“I will say nothing of the fact that many assert with much probability that this epistle is not by James the apostle, and that it is not worthy of an apostolic spirit; although, whoever was its author, it has come to be regarded as authoritative. Luther’s Works 36:118, from 1520

“We should throw the Epistle of James out of this school [Wittenberg], for it doesn’t amount to much. It contains not a syllable about Christ. Not once does it mention Christ, except at the beginning [Jas. 1:1; 2:1]. I maintain that some Jew wrote it who probably heard about Christian people but never encountered any. Since he heard that Christians place great weight on faith in Christ, he thought, ‘Wait a moment! I’ll oppose them and urge works alone.’ This he did. He wrote not a word about the suffering and resurrection of Christ, although this is what all the apostles preached about. Besides, there’s no order or method in the epistle. Now he discusses clothing and then he writes about wrath and is constantly shifting from one to the other. He presents a comparison: ‘As the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead’ [Jas. 2:26]. O Mary, mother of God! What a terrible comparison that is! James compares faith with the body when he should rather have compared faith with the soul! The ancients recognized this, too, and therefore they didn’t acknowledge this letter as one of the catholic epistles.” Luther’s Works, 54:424, 1542

Really, some Jew who had never encountered any Christians wrote James? How would we in the 21’st century judge a young theologian who said such a thing? The answer is pretty much the way that Catholic Theologians judged him 500 years ago.

Personally I cannot have much respect for a theologian who would treat the Holy Scriptures with such disrespect. This might be one of those opportunities for you to criticize Luther ‘as needs be’. Do you think that criticism of Luther is justified here? If so, do you think that this disrespect for the writings of an Apostle, or the inability to recognize the writing as such, detracts from Luther’s reputation as a Theologian?

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[JonNC]

From a Lutheran standpoint, such talk about Luther is of historical importance and amusement, but has nothing to do with salvation.

Luther and the church constantly invite us to look to the Gospel and not to to man.

Given that, a wise Lutheran would tend to move away from most conversations that exclusively focus on historical failings of individual men and move toward conversations that discuss ideas and the Gospel.

My hunch it that reasoning like this is probably why you’re find Lutherans withdrawing from conversing with you, as I have done for myself.

This is pretty much it, Ben.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

From a Lutheran standpoint, such talk about Luther is of historical importance and amusement, but has nothing to do with salvation.

Hi Ben.

Thanks for your response. If such talk is of historical importance, then it is important by your own admission. You can’t say that it is important and then refuse to discuss it because all that does is reveal that you have no confidence in your position.

You say that it has nothing to do with salvation, but what if Salvation By Faith Alone (SBFA) is not a doctrine that God intended for us to be taught? What if Salvation by Faith Alone was developed by a not so stable theologian who was terrified beyond words for his everlasting salvation, and who could not deal with not having salvational assurance, and wanted that assurance regardless of anything that he might do in the future. Whether Luther was a competent theologian has HUGE implications in regards to the validity of the Lutheran belief on salvation. If Luther got it wrong, and his radical teachings on Salvation are not true, then that is of extreme importance. This being the case it would seem foolish to refuse to listen to an alternative point of view regarding Luther’s capabilities.

Luther and the church constantly invite us to look to the Gospel and not to to man.

Given that, a wise Lutheran would tend to move away from most conversations that exclusively focus on historical failings of individual men and move toward conversations that discuss ideas and the Gospel.

Given that Luther, the man himself, was responsible for so much of what separates us, it would be foolish to ignore him out of embarrassment. The key to which of our sets of doctrines are correct (if either of course) lies in the actual substance of the arguments that Luther made against the Church and vice versa. In other words, what did Luther say, specifically and exactly, in defense of his doctrinal revisions? Alternately, what specific and exact arguments did the Church make in response?

The reason that the Leipzig Debate is so little known within Protestantism is that Luther was soundly defeated there by John Eck. It wasn’t so much that Eck was a better debater (although he was), it was that Luther didn’t have his facts straight before he entered that debate. His revolt against the teachings of the church was based on an incorrect understanding of both Church history and Church doctrine. That was not a good position from which to stand Christianity on its ear.

Did he have the right to rebuke the Church in the matter of its wayward practices and abuses? You bet. But that is a far cry from wholesale revision and rejection of dozens and dozens of well accepted and very critical doctrines. Why was that necessary? The answer has FAR more to do with Luther himself than it does the Church.

If you are confident that Luther’s arguments against the church were superior to those made against him, then you should be glad to have those arguments come out. Instead, it seems that you are attempting to suppress those arguments and the facts about Luther’s teachings.

My hunch it that reasoning like this is probably why you’re find Lutherans withdrawing from conversing with you, as I have done for myself.

Ben, you may not like my apologetic style, but I would suggest that mostly what you don’t like is the facts about Luther coming to the surface. I use primarily Protestant quotes and Luther’s own words.

By the way Ben, no comment from you about Luther’s disrespect for Scripture and nothing about the official position of the Lutheran church on the pope being the antichrist, BUT, you find time to chastise me – the messenger.

Over the years I have learned that people get upset when their beliefs are challenged, but they get very upset when they have no credible response to those challenges. Furthermore I have learned that when people think that they have a compelling argument, they are extremely willing to provide it for all to see, because they just don’t want those who are less informed to see that ‘kind of thing’ go unchallenged or un-refuted. When they know for a fact that they don’t have anything to counter a challenge or a logical conclusion from a set of facts, some honestly admit it, some remain silent, some claim that the point is not a point or is not important, and some criticize the person who made the challenge for which they have no response.

God Bless You Ben, Topper

 

[Amo_a_Jesus]

I was thinking something, and may be I’m wrong, If Luther was right to protest against the Catholic church, why not the rest of protestants are Lutherans? so the Calvinist are double protestants? so the Non- denominational Churches are protestants of the catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist etc… ?

 

[benjohnson]

I was thinking something, and may be I’m wrong, If Luther was right to protest against the Catholic church, why not the rest of protestants are Lutherans? so the Calvinist are double protestants? so the Non- denominational Churches are protestants of the catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist etc… ?

I (sort-of) blame the ‘enlightenment’ - where we, as a civilization, got the silly notion that we’re wiser than God and/or nature.

Are Lutherans effected by the ‘enlightenment’? Sadly yes.

I see strains of the ‘enlightenment’ permeating though all of Christendom

 

[benjohnson]

Ben, you may not like my apologetic style, but I would suggest that mostly what you don’t like is the facts about Luther coming to the surface. I use primarily Protestant quotes and Luther’s own words.

I wish you were more convincing. I love a challenge. Your style makes it very easy to dismiss what you’re saying because it’s instantly recognizable as an Ad Hominem attack on one member of the church that is dead and buried.

Frankly, as Luther himself said, we don’t care about any of Luther’s work-product other than the Confessions, the catechism and perhaps his ‘Bondage of the Will’ if we’re feeling generous.

If anything, I would be happy to have the world filled with convincing Catholics - and speaking as a Lutheran, your arguments are not even being read and only perhaps skimmed.

God Bless You Ben, Topper

God’s blessings to you as well!

 

[adf417]

I (sort-of) blame the ‘enlightenment’ - where we, as a civilization, got the silly notion that we’re wiser than God and/or nature.

Are Lutherans effected by the ‘enlightenment’? Sadly yes.

I see strains of the ‘enlightenment’ permeating though all of Christendom

Can we truly put blame on something which cannot sin? I don’t see how this kind of language helps to solve anything IMO. What does it mean?

Peace ben!!!

 

[benjohnson]

Can we truly put blame on something which cannot sin? I don’t see how this kind of language helps to solve anything IMO. What does it mean?

Peace ben!!!

I would say there’s nothing inherently sinful in the Enlightenment itself, but the sin comes from using it to look into ourselves rather than looking to God. While many schools of thought also encourage us to look away from God, in my opinion the Enlightenment is especially dangerous because it also give us pride in doing so.

Peace of the Lord to you as well!

 

[Topper17]

I was thinking something, and may be I’m wrong, If Luther was right to protest against the Catholic church, why not the rest of protestants are Lutherans? so the Calvinist are double protestants? so the Non- denominational Churches are protestants of the catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist etc… ?

Hi Amo,

I agree. Luther took more than a few genies out of the bottle and then couldn’t get them back in once he finally realized that ‘his’ Reformation was going to spin out of control. Seriously, what did he think was going to happen when the combination of Sola Scriptura and the Right of the Individual to Interpret were unleashed upon Christianity?

Zwingli is the only one who could be said to have developed "his’ Reformation largely independent of Luther. All of the rest, including Calvin and all of the rest, built upon the foundations. They took advantage of what Luther had forged, and he was NOT pleased. As you put it, they were Protesters to Luther’s protest and of course, the beat goes on at an every accelerated pace. Except for the Zwinglians, the rest were ‘Unintended Consequences’, that Luther was warned about. But then, he wasn’t one to heed warnings.

If you are looking for an amazing book on the subject, read Alister McGrath’s “Christianity’s Dangerous Idea”. McGrath is an extremely bright and insightful Anglican Professor of History at Oxford.

God Bless You Amo. Topper

 

[Topper17]

I wish you were more convincing. I love a challenge. Your style makes it very easy to dismiss what you’re saying because it’s instantly recognizable as an Ad Hominem attack on one member of the church that is dead and buried.

Frankly, as Luther himself said, we don’t care about any of Luther’s work-product other than the Confessions, the catechism and perhaps his ‘Bondage of the Will’ if we’re feeling generous.

If anything, I would be happy to have the world filled with convincing Catholics - and speaking as a Lutheran, your arguments are not even being read and only perhaps skimmed.

Hi Ben,

Thanks for your response.

You say you like a challenge, yet you fail to rise to that challenge. The challenge is very simple and extremely important. I am challenging the fitness of Martin Luther as a Theologian and a Scriptural Exegete. I am doing so in very specific terms, with very specific texts, both from Luther himself and also from almost entirely Protestant Scholars. As I am sure you have noticed, I do not trade in generalizations or emotionally based arguments. You should know that I am not impressed by sweeping statements or blanket proclamations unless they are backed up by actual facts or a logical argument. Protestantism and especially Lutheranism rests on the fitness of Luther as a Theologian and Scriptural Exegete. This series of posts shows that Luther should not be trusted with doctrinal or Scriptural decisions.

The information from my last few posts depicts Luther as making very disparaging remarks about Holy Scripture, and it does so from his own words. You cannot refute that and so you simply try to sweep the subject under the carpet rather than attempting to deal with it. You claim that this is an Ad Hominem attack on Luther? Luther called the Book of James an ‘epistle of straw”, said ‘We should throw it out of this school (Wittenberg), for it doesn’t amount to much.” He also said that it has “nothing of the nature of the gospel about it.”

I would agree. James doesn’t agree with Luther’s ‘gospel’, which is ‘Salvation by Faith Alone’. But it does contain the Christian Gospel, inspired by the Holy Spirit and through the hand of the Apostle James, who by the way, is a far more reliable Authority on Christian doctrine than Luther (although Luther would disagree of course – and did).

The following is more evidence, straight from Luther’s pen, of his disrespect for Scripture. And this from the man who was supposedly so reverent towards Scripture, from the man who ‘gave’ the Bible to the German people.

Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude, 1546 (1522)

“Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, 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 [2:24]…….Now although this epistle might be helped and an interpretation devised for this justification by works, it cannot be defended in its application to works Jas. 2:23] of Moses’ statement in Genesis 15:6]. 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…Whatever does not teach Christ is not yet apostolic, even though St. Peter or St. Paul does the teaching.

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…….

In a word, he wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without works, but was unequal to the task. (54) He tries to accomplish by harping on the law what the apostles accomplish by stimulating people to love. Therefore (55) 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.” Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 35: Word and Sacrament I. (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, & H. T. Lehmann, Eds.) (Vol. 35, pp. 395–398). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Footnote 54: “Editions prior to 1530 here added, “in spirit, thought, and words. He mangles the Scriptures and thereby opposes Paul and all Scripture.” WA, DB 7, 386, nn. 14, 15.”

Footnote 55: “Editions prior to 1530 read from this point, “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 (cf. the proverbial expression: Einer ist keiner. Wander [ed.], Sprichwörter-Lexikon, I, 784, ‘Einer, ’ No. 44) in worldly things; how, then, should this single man alone avail against Paul and all the rest of Scripture?” WA, DB 7, 386, nn. 17–21.”

These comments were written by Luther and were included between the covers of his New Testament. What is your reaction to these comments Ben?

Who, specifically and exactly, did this Luther guy think he was that he could place himself as the judge of Scripture and place his own personal opinions above them in such an arrogant manner? Of course the Catholics of his day skewered him for his blasphemous comments and teachings about.

God Bless You Ben, Topper

 

[Novocastrian]

Hi Ben,

Thanks for your response.

You say you like a challenge, yet you fail to rise to that challenge. The challenge is very simple and extremely important. I am challenging the fitness of Martin Luther as a Theologian and a Scriptural Exegete.

Perhaps some Lutherans will defend Luther. Perhaps they will not.

The point is that the doctrinal and moral integrity of Lutheranism is not predicated upon the doctrinal or moral integrity of Luther. Now, nobody is going to deny that they are in some way related, in a contingent, historical sense. I’m sure that Ben and Jon would agree to that. But what you need to remember is that the actual standard to which Lutherans hold themselves, and to which you must hold them if you wish to attack the integrity of their theology, is not Martin Luther.

It is the Gospel, as expounded in (a) the ancient catholic creeds, and (b) the Book of Concord, and in particular the Augsburg Confession. As a general rule, if you want to analyse Lutheranism, whether to criticise it or to praise it, the yardstick with which to do so is the Augsburg Confession. That’s the one that they all signed up to. That’s the one which was specifically designed to present the positive dogmatic content, if you like, of what we commonly call ‘Lutheran’ theology and faith.

Attacking Luther the man may offer some tangential criticism of Lutheranism, along the lines of “Well, those who signed up to the Augustana were seduced into doing so by Luther, who was a bad theologian/exegete/pastor,” but that will only offer a genuine criticism of Lutheranism insofar as it is contingently held by individual Lutherans, and it will only really do that for the first generation of them. As I said, if you want to attack Lutheranism, you need to attack the Confession. Anything else is a distraction and a waste of your time, like non-RCs rejecting the magisterium of Rome on the basis of bad popes.

All the best,

N.

 

[Novocastrian]

Hi Amo,

I agree. Luther took more than a few genies out of the bottle and then couldn’t get them back in once he finally realized that ‘his’ Reformation was going to spin out of control. Seriously, what did he think was going to happen when the combination of Sola Scriptura and the Right of the Individual to Interpret were unleashed upon Christianity?

Zwingli is the only one who could be said to have developed "his’ Reformation largely independent of Luther. All of the rest, including Calvin and all of the rest, built upon the foundations. They took advantage of what Luther had forged, and he was NOT pleased. As you put it, they were Protesters to Luther’s protest and of course, the beat goes on at an every accelerated pace. Except for the Zwinglians, the rest were ‘Unintended Consequences’, that Luther was warned about. But then, he wasn’t one to heed warnings.

If you are looking for an amazing book on the subject, read Alister McGrath’s “Christianity’s Dangerous Idea”. McGrath is an extremely bright and insightful Anglican Professor of History at Oxford.

God Bless You Amo. Topper

I don’t think Luther ever gives individual Christians the right to interpret scripture apart from the Church. Obviously he doesn’t identify the Church with Rome, but that’s still a far cry from allowing private individual interpretation as a matter of principle!

 

[JonNC]

I don’t think Luther ever gives individual Christians the right to interpret scripture apart from the Church. Obviously he doesn’t identify the Church with Rome, but that’s still a far cry from allowing private individual interpretation as a matter of principle!

Correct, in terms of doctrine.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

I don’t think Luther ever gives individual Christians the right to interpret scripture apart from the Church. Obviously he doesn’t identify the Church with Rome, but that’s still a far cry from allowing private individual interpretation as a matter of principle!

Hi Novo,

Thanks for your response.

I think it is important to remember the sequence of events, from the beginning of Luther’s Revolt until the establishment of his more ‘mature’ beliefs.

As I said Luther established the “Right of the Individual to Interpret (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit of course). But we need to understand that this was only the belief that allowed him to justify (to himself only) his break with the Church.

You say that he didn’t believe in interpretation apart from the church, and that is technically true of his final position, as long as he was defined as the church. In other words, he demanded that all interpret as he did. If you didn’t, you were in league with Satan. This is far too well documented to be denied.

If Luther said that Scripture could not be interpreted apart from the Church, then why did he revolt and interpret apart from the Church. Furthermore, after he was outside the Church (1521), until the advent of the Lutheran church (pick a date), then how could Luther have believed what you inferred? He didn’t. He justified his break from the Church by the means of Sola Scriptura combined with its evil twin “The Right to Private Interpretation” (SS+PI). He had no authority within the Church and the only way that he could claim authority for himself was to proclaim it for everyone. However, he was so clueless as to where this would lead that he actually believe that once everyone had had an opportunity to see his (correct) interpretations, they would flock to him and leave the much hated Catholic Church. He let those ugly genies out of the bottle and when he FINALLY realized (exactly as better Theologians warned) that it was going to lead to a tremendous diversity of doctrinal beliefs, THEN he reigned it in and proclaimed that the interpretation had to be done in accordance with the Church – his. As a result, you have some of the more conservative denominations who have recognized the danger and have doctrinal benchmarks and confessions. However, you also have the much less ‘constrained’ denominations who prefer things exactly the way Luther originally taught it. This is just one more example of the Theologian had very little foresight and understanding of the ramifications of his actions.

Many, many Protestant Scholars of high standing recognize Luther’s responsibility for the massive doctrinal disunity that infects Protestantism today. Thus the name of McGrath’s amazing book “Christianity’s Dangerous Idea”.

God Bless You Novo, Topper

BTW What does Church of England (Catholic and reformed) mean? What is that?

 

[Topper17]

Part 2:

McGrath begins on page two. “The idea that lay at the heart of the sixteenth-century Reformation, which brought about Anglicanism and the other Protestant churches into being, was that the Bible is capable of being understood by all Christian believers – and that they all have the right to interpret it and to insist upon their perspectives being taken seriously. Yet this powerful affirmation of spiritual democracy ended up unleashing forces that threatened to destabilize the church, eventually leading to fissure and the formation of breakaway groups. Anglicanism may yet follow the pattern of other Protestant groups and become a “family” of denominations, each with its own way of reading and applying the Bible.

The dangerous new idea, firmly embodied at the heart of the Protestant revolution, was that all Christians have a right to interpret the Bible for themselves. However, it ultimately proved uncontrollable, spawning developments that few at the time could have envisaged or predicted. The great convulsion of the early sixteenth century that historians now call “the Reformation” introduced into the history of Christianity a dangerous new idea that gave rise to an unparalleled degree of creativity and growth, on the one hand, while on the other causing new tensions and debates that, by their very nature, probably lie beyond resolution. The development of Protestantism as a major religious force in the world has been shaped decisively by the creative tensions emerging from this principal. (3)

To it’s supporters, the Protestant Reformation represented a necessary correction and long-overdue renewal of the Christian faith, liberating it from its imprisonment to the transient medieval intellectual and social and preparing it for new challenges as western Europe emerged from the feudalism of the Middle Ages. Christianity was being born all over again, with a new potency and capacity to engage with an emerging new world order.

Yet from its outset, the movement was seen by its opponents as a menacing development, opening the way to religious mayhem, social disintegration, and political chaos. It was not simply that Protestantism seemed to revise, corrupt, or abandon some of the traditional beliefs and practices of the Christian faith. Something far more significant – and ultimately much more dangerous – lay beneath the surface of the Protestantism criticisms of the medieval church. At its heart, the emergence and growth of Protestantism concerned one of the most fundamental questions that can confront any religion: Who has the authority to define its faith? Institutions or individuals? Who has the right to interpret its foundational document, the Bible?

Protestantism took its stand on the right of individuals to interpret the Bible for themselves rather than be forced to submit to “official” interpretations handed down by popes or other or other centralized religious authorities. For Martin Luther, perhaps the most significant of the first generation of Protestant leaders, the traditional authority of clerical institutions had led to the degradation and distortion of the Christian faith. Renewal and reformation were urgently needed. And if the medieval church would not put its own house in order, reform would have to come from its grass roots – from the laity. Luther’s radical doctrine of the “priesthood of all believers” empowered individual believers. It was a radical, dangerous idea that bypassed the idea that a centralized authority had the right to interpret the Bible. There was no centralized authority, no clerical monopoly on biblical interpretation. A radical reshaping of Christianity was inevitable, precisely because the restraints on change had suddenly – seemingly irreversibly – been removed.

The outbreak of the Peasants’ War in 1525 brought home to Luther that this new approach was dangerous and ultimately uncontrollable. If each individual was able to interpret the Bible as he pleased, the outcome could only be anarchy and radical religious individualism. Too late, Luther tried to rein in the movement by emphasizing the importance of authorized religious leaders, such as himself, and institutions in the interpretation of the Bible. But who, his critics asked, had “authorized” these “so-called” authorities? Was not the essence of Luther’s dangerous new idea that there was no such centralized authority? That all Christians had the right to interpret the Bible as they saw fit?” “Christianity’s Dangerous Idea”, p. 2-4

So the question is this: With SS+PI, how could there not be such massive doctrinal confusion as we see within Protestantism? How could it NOT be: "Those other Protestants sure don’t know what the Bible says about (this and that), but we ______ (fill in the blank with the name of your denomination), we understand what it says, thanks to the Holy Spirit which leads us of course.

Thanks Marty, that was really helpful!

Again, it is really wrong to presume that Luther’s doctrinal ‘works in progress’ are unimportant because it is exactly those ‘works in progress’ that created such a mess. I completely understand why a lot of people want to run away from Luther but, as I have stated before, the best way for us to achieve a real reunion is to have an understanding of what, specifically and exactly, happened. What happened centers around Martin Luther. What he did between 1517 and the establishment of his very own church has had a huge (and detrimental) effect on Christianity.

God Bless You Novo, Topper

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I’ve noticed Psalm 151 to 155 are left out of most Bibles regardless of tradition. The process of determining the Canon is quite interesting.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Prior to the Council of Trent, Catholics had the liberty to hold varying views concerning not only the OT Deuterocanonical books, but also the NT Antilegomena books, and Luther had the same liberty to act as he did, to write his prefaces as he did, to hold the opinions he held. It is unreasonable to hold him accountable to the Council of Trent when he died prior to it.

In regard to catholic vs. protestant opinions on the canon, this really is the final point in the Luther / canon discussion, and I appreciate how succinctly JonNC said it.

Whenever I’ve ventured into this discussion, I’ve tried to argue from a catholic point of view. For instance, since the majority of people here are catholic, I think it’s quite fitting to use a catholic paradigm from a reputable catholic source.The New Catholic Encyclopedia has pointed out, “According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the Biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church (at the Council of Trent). Before that time there was some doubt about the canonicity of certain Biblical books, i.e., about their belonging to the canon.” So, let’s go with this for the sake of the argument.

Along with such 16th Century men like Erasmus and Cardinal Cajetan, Luther was a theologian. Accordingly then, Erasmus, Cajetan, and Luther had every right within catholic theology to engage in Biblical criticism and debate over the extent of the Canon. All expressed "some doubt.” Theirs was not a radical higher criticism. The books they questioned were books that had been questioned by previous generations. None were so extreme as to engage in Marcion-like canon-destruction (recall: both Erasmus and Luther translated the entirety of Bible, and published it). Nor am I aware of any dogmatic statement from the catholic church during Luther’s day that stated he could not hold an opinion on the canon.

Even at the Council of Trent there was a group of fairly good catholic scholars that wanted to classify the dueterocanon as canonici et ecclesiastici rather than libri canonici et authentic. According to a catholic paradigm, even now for catholics there is at least one book that may or may not be sacred scripture, because Trent passed over the question of its canonicty. In other words, a faithful catholic is free to hold an opinion on that specific book.

There are certainly a number of issues to chastise Luther over, but his view of the canon really is trivial when historical catholic standards are applied.When one looks at the totality of Luther’s New Testament canon criticism, it is quite minute: four books. Of his opinion he allows for the possibility of his readers to disagree with his conclusions. And, the Lutheran church didn’t follow his conclusions on the New Testament, so the points he made are curiosities rather than lasting Lutheran doctrinal standards.

JS

 

[spina1953]

Part 2:

McGrath begins on page two. “The idea that lay at the heart of the sixteenth-century Reformation, which brought about Anglicanism and the other Protestant churches into being, was that the Bible is capable of being understood by all Christian believers – and that they all have the right to interpret it and to insist upon their perspectives being taken seriously. Yet this powerful affirmation of spiritual democracy ended up unleashing forces that threatened to destabilize the church, eventually leading to fissure and the formation of breakaway groups. Anglicanism may yet follow the pattern of other Protestant groups and become a “family” of denominations, each with its own way of reading and applying the Bible.

The dangerous new idea, firmly embodied at the heart of the Protestant revolution, was that all Christians have a right to interpret the Bible for themselves. However, it ultimately proved uncontrollable, spawning developments that few at the time could have envisaged or predicted. The great convulsion of the early sixteenth century that historians now call “the Reformation” introduced into the history of Christianity a dangerous new idea that gave rise to an unparalleled degree of creativity and growth, on the one hand, while on the other causing new tensions and debates that, by their very nature, probably lie beyond resolution. The development of Protestantism as a major religious force in the world has been shaped decisively by the creative tensions emerging from this principal. (3)

To it’s supporters, the Protestant Reformation represented a necessary correction and long-overdue renewal of the Christian faith, liberating it from its imprisonment to the transient medieval intellectual and social and preparing it for new challenges as western Europe emerged from the feudalism of the Middle Ages. Christianity was being born all over again, with a new potency and capacity to engage with an emerging new world order.

Yet from its outset, the movement was seen by its opponents as a menacing development, opening the way to religious mayhem, social disintegration, and political chaos. It was not simply that Protestantism seemed to revise, corrupt, or abandon some of the traditional beliefs and practices of the Christian faith. Something far more significant – and ultimately much more dangerous – lay beneath the surface of the Protestantism criticisms of the medieval church. At its heart, the emergence and growth of Protestantism concerned one of the most fundamental questions that can confront any religion: Who has the authority to define its faith? Institutions or individuals? Who has the right to interpret its foundational document, the Bible?

Protestantism took its stand on the right of individuals to interpret the Bible for themselves rather than be forced to submit to “official” interpretations handed down by popes or other or other centralized religious authorities. For Martin Luther, perhaps the most significant of the first generation of Protestant leaders, the traditional authority of clerical institutions had led to the degradation and distortion of the Christian faith. Renewal and reformation were urgently needed. And if the medieval church would not put its own house in order, reform would have to come from its grass roots – from the laity. Luther’s radical doctrine of the “priesthood of all believers” empowered individual believers. It was a radical, dangerous idea that bypassed the idea that a centralized authority had the right to interpret the Bible. There was no centralized authority, no clerical monopoly on biblical interpretation. A radical reshaping of Christianity was inevitable, precisely because the restraints on change had suddenly – seemingly irreversibly – been removed.

The outbreak of the Peasants’ War in 1525 brought home to Luther that this new approach was dangerous and ultimately uncontrollable. If each individual was able to interpret the Bible as he pleased, the outcome could only be anarchy and radical religious individualism. Too late, Luther tried to rein in the movement by emphasizing the importance of authorized religious leaders, such as himself, and institutions in the interpretation of the Bible. But who, his critics asked, had “authorized” these “so-called” authorities? Was not the essence of Luther’s dangerous new idea that there was no such centralized authority? That all Christians had the right to interpret the Bible as they saw fit?” “Christianity’s Dangerous Idea”, p. 2-4

So the question is this: With SS+PI, how could there not be such massive doctrinal confusion as we see within Protestantism? How could it NOT be: "Those other Protestants sure don’t know what the Bible says about (this and that), but we ______ (fill in the blank with the name of your denomination), we understand what it says, thanks to the Holy Spirit which leads us of course.

Thanks Marty, that was really helpful!

Again, it is really wrong to presume that Luther’s doctrinal ‘works in progress’ are unimportant because it is exactly those ‘works in progress’ that created such a mess. I completely understand why a lot of people want to run away from Luther but, as I have stated before, the best way for us to achieve a real reunion is to have an understanding of what, specifically and exactly, happened. What happened centers around Martin Luther. What he did between 1517 and the establishment of his very own church has had a huge (and detrimental) effect on Christianity.

God Bless You Novo, Topper

You gave a lot of great information. it is what I had learned from reading history.