Protestant Canon

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

The Lutheran Confessions operate under the assumption that the prevalent canon of Scripture used in the Western Churches of the time of the Book of Concord is the accepted one. Though it allows for disagreement over the deuterocanonicals, the majority of the Lutheran Reformers and the authors of the Formula of Concord were in agreement that the deuterocanonicals were Scripture, if of lesser authority than other OT books.

To the best of my knowledge, it isn’t until the Reformed Confessions of Calvin, and later the Belgic and Westminster Confessions, that the canon is defined and the DC books explicitly rejected as Scriptural.

Thank you. I will allow some of my more learned catholic brother to correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that your use of the wording " of lesser authority" is what the Church is also stating by referring to them as deutrocanonical.

Pease

 

[Per_Crucem]

Thank you. I will allow some of my more learned catholic brother to correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that your use of the wording " of lesser authority" is what the Church is also stating by referring to them as deutrocanonical.

Pease

I would think so. However, there are some Catholics who I’ve heard argue that the Council of Trent essentially held that the DC books were of the same dogmatic authority as the rest of the OT. I’ve also read Catholics argue that they are not. I am not sure, then, if that is an open question.

The early Lutherans used the DC in their hymnody and readings for the Divine Service. They generally felt the DC books could not determine church dogma, but reiterated already accepted OT teachings. Of course, the DC books themselves really don’t seem to teach any dogma, since they are mostly purported historical records and/or proverbial sayings.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Topper: You have some very good points which make a lot of sense concerning Luther’s SBFA. I thought that I would add this; It seems to me That Paul Tilich’s thought or remark that faith and not love became the center place of Protestantism is strong argument which in a sense alludes to Luther’s thinking about SBFA. It seems to me after reading many bio’s on Luther, one thing keeps popping up and that the lack of love growing up. Luther it appears went against his fathers will when he, Luther decided to enter the Augustine order. It also seems to me Luther had low-self-esteem having scrupulosity meaning the fear of damnation which seemed to me to be the root cause for his notion of SBFA interpretation. History shows that Luther was not a very stable person due to his obsessions in trying to overcome or find a way out of his obsessions that he could never be saved by anything that he did. it was his notion of SBFA that gave him the courage to post his 95 thesis of what he thought were abuses of the Church. The sad part in all of this is that Luther was unwilling to stay in the Catholic Church and try to help work out ways to correct the abuses he thought needed correction.

Hi Spina,

Thanks for your response.

I think you are right on the mark. It is pretty clear that Tillich’s comment on the “shortcoming of Protestantism (is) that it never has sufficiently described the place of love in the whole of Christianity, is directly traced to Luther. In fact, three sentences later, in discussing the fight that the Reformation was involved in, Tillich comments that: (this) fight was only a consequence of Luther’s fight against the Catholic doctrine of faith. But then how could this not be the case? By focusing on faith alone, hope and charity (love) were reduced in importance. If we need evidence that this belief had concrete results in Luther’s actions, all we have to do is look at the way that treated his opponents.

Thankfully it was a Lutheran who made that comment. If a Catholic had said that, the comment would be immediately dismissed without an instant of thought. In fact, if a Catholic had said it I never would have posted it. It’s like Lutheran quotes about how great Luther was. They are simply not compelling. That’s why I prefer to post thought provoking quotes about Luther from Protestant Scholars.

Professor Mark U. Edwards makes some interesting comments about – as you put it – Luther not being a ‘very stable person’ in a section of his article entitled -

“Luther’s Mental Health

The adult Luther’s psychological health is even harder (than his physical health) to diagnose than his physical health, although some investigators have confidently concluded that Luther suffered from manic-depressive psychosis. Among the symptoms of this illness in his later years they list his frequent bouts with depression and spiritual temptation, his occasional expression of a death-wish, his vulgar and scatological language, his outbursts of rage and vilification and his visions of and contests with the devil.

Most scholars freely concede the unusual and perhaps even abnormal aspects of Luther’s personality without accepting the diagnosis that attributes these traits to an underlying psychosis. By most standards, Luther was a neurotic man who, in later life, suffered from bouts of depression. Given all the evidence of productivity, clarity of thought, and ability to work with others, however, it is highly doubtful that he can properly be diagnosed as psychotic.” Dr. Mark U. Edwards Jr. (Lutheran), “Luther’s Polemical Controversies”, Article in “The Cambridge Companion to Martin Luther, Edited by Donald K. McKim, pg 205.

Interestingly, Edwards is the former President of St. Olaf College, Northfield, MD, (Lutheran). In addition, Edwards is currently an Advisory Member of the Faculty of Divinity and Senior Adviser to the Dean at – The Harvard Divinity School. In other words, Edwards’s credentials as a Lutheran Scholar are impeccable. In fact, Edwards is one of my favorite Lutheran Scholars and I would highly recommend any of his excellent books on Luther. He is extremely insightful and is not at all bashful about delving into the more troubling aspects of Luther’s career.

Here we have an excellent Lutheran Scholar who claims that Luther’s had an abnormal personality, was also neurotic, but that he should not be seen as having some form of psychosis. I found it interesting that Edwards commented that it is doubtful that Luther was psychotic. That’s amazing! Of course the literature on Luther is chock full of comments about Luther’s psychological issues.

part 2 to follow

 

[Topper17]

Part 2

This information on Luther’s psychological problems begs the question as to whether his ‘psychological issues are somehow connected with his discovery of Salvation by Faith Alone. In fact, he described in detail the terrors which he suffered.

Since, according to Luther, Salvation by Faith Alone was extremely clear in Scripture, we are forced to wonder why nobody had ever noticed it previously. No matter what the answer whatever it is, it must by necessity, include something which is very unique to Luther. Yet when you look at the whole of his life prior to his ‘discovery’, there is little that was unique about him at all. He was a young Professor, who, had been assigned to teach at the least distinguished university in Europe. The only thing which makes Luther notably different from his peers are the ‘abnormal aspects of his personality’ (Edwards). There is a great deal of information in the literature which document and further flesh this out.

Personally, I don’t think that Luther was ‘unwilling’ to stay in the Catholic Church. It was more that he was unable to stay in a Church which could not guarantee him his everlasting salvation. Luther desperately needed assurance about his Salvation before he had lived out his life. He solved that problem for himself by ‘finding’ what he needed to find in Scripture, making judgments and disparaging remarks about books of the Bible which got in the way of what he so greatly needed to believe. This ‘theory’ falls into line perfectly with the quotes that I have posted in my last few posts. Remember Marius who said that:

“He extracted dogmas from the Bible according to the profound needs in his own psyche. He raged against those who disagreed with him, although such disagreements were inevitable. How he read the Bible is an essential part of his biography, and we cannot talk about his doctrines and his furious defense of them unless we can see, by examining the Bible, how tenuous these dogmas were on all sides.” Marius pg. xiii

These Harvard Professors are pretty rough on Luther, but then Harvard is at the top of the food chain in terms of Universities. It is not at all the least distinguished in the country.

Spina, do you think that Luther misunderstood Paul’s teachings on Salvation?

God Bless You Spina, Topper

 

[spina1953]

Hi Topper: I just read your posts and they are very interesting. You are spot on! I think it sad that a man such a Luther felt that he could no longer stay in a Church where he did not for sure that he was saved. I think that due to his mental state that he thought that somehow, by staying in the Catholic Church, he would not be saved. I also think that the princes goated him and used him for their own ends as they also wanted to be free of the yolk of the Church. I think this was the real reason why they protected him from the Church.

 

[Novocastrian]

Hi Topper: I just read your posts and they are very interesting. You are spot on! I think it sad that a man such a Luther felt that he could no longer stay in a Church where he did not for sure that he was saved. I think that due to his mental state that he thought that somehow, by staying in the Catholic Church, he would not be saved. I also think that the princes goated him and used him for their own ends as they also wanted to be free of the yolk of the Church. I think this was the real reason why they protected him from the Church.

I think it’s fair to say that Luther didn’t leave the Church. He was excommunicated. You may of course say that heretics are automatically excommunicated, but that’s still a very different scenario to Luther one day packing his bags and shaking the dust off his feet.

 

[Novocastrian]

Thank you. I will allow some of my more learned catholic brother to correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that your use of the wording " of lesser authority" is what the Church is also stating by referring to them as deutrocanonical.

Pease

Yes, originally perhaps, but not according to Trent. Certainly not in the way that Athanasius seems to offer a deuterocanon of sorts in Festal Letter 39. It should be noted, of course, that Athanasius’s deuterocanon (which seems to be required reading for the intellectually-minded among the newly baptised, but not Scripture) is not identical to the modern deuteroncanon/Apocrypha, as it contains both the Didache and Hermas, while Baruch is placed in the canon proper as Scripture.

 

[Novocastrian]

Spina, do you think that Luther misunderstood Paul’s teachings on Salvation?

In what sense are you asking this question? What would it mean to properly understand Paul’s teachings on salvation?

Of course he was conditioned by his own needs and the culture in which he grew up. He was never going to present us with, for example, and E.P. Sanders style philo-semitic portrayal of Paul!

 

[spina1953]

I think it’s fair to say that Luther didn’t leave the Church. He was excommunicated. You may of course say that heretics are automatically excommunicated, but that’s still a very different scenario to Luther one day packing his bags and shaking the dust off his feet.

I agree he, Luther was automatically excommunicated, However, in a sense Luther decided to leave since he would not submit to the Church.

 

[Novocastrian]

I agree he, Luther was automatically excommunicated, However, in a sense Luther decided to leave since he would not submit to the Church.

You may think that, but we should be aware that there are those who think that Luther was within his rights as an early 16th century Catholic to teach what he did, on certain issues at least, prior to the dogmatic definitions of the Tridentine synod.

 

[Topper17]

You may think that, but we should be aware that there are those who think that Luther was within his rights as an early 16th century Catholic to teach what he did, on certain issues at least, prior to the dogmatic definitions of the Tridentine synod.

Hi Novo,

I have heard so many times that Luther ‘was excommunicated’ as if this was something that just sort of happened to him. As if he didn’t do anything wrong and was just sort of an innocent bystander in the whole affair. The fact of the matter is that Luther virtually demanded that he be excommunicated.

We also hear that Luther was ‘within his rights’ to question this or that, or to develop this or that doctrine. While there is some truth in this (nowhere near as much as what we are told), that Luther presumed to have too much authority to determine for himself (this and that) is evidenced in two ways.

The first is the degree to which he changed or altered this or that doctrine. The second is in the number of things that he disputed. In the case of the criticism of the canon, it is true that a few others had questioned a few books of the NT, but nobody criticized the canon or made the kind of blasphemous remarks that Luther made – nobody. Secondly, it wasn’t as if Luther’s criticism of the canon is the only thing he did which makes him look – well – sort of heretical. It was only one of several dozen things, all of which it is suggested we should view in complete isolation from the rest. In fact, it is the ‘whole body’ of Luther’s criticism which identify him as being hugely presumptuous in his self-presumed authority to dictate doctrine.

What it really comes down to is both the ‘quality’ and the ‘quantity’ of Luther’s.

In regards to the ‘quantity’ of Lutehr’s presumptions, the following is from a Dave Armstrong article, which by the way documents his ‘presumptions’ prior to 1522, when he criticized whole books of the Bible and judged the canon. As such, that blasphemous action didn’t even make the following list.

Dave Armstrong article, from Wednesday, March 29, 2006 “50 Ways In Which Luther Had Departed From Catholic Orthodoxy or Established Practice by 1520 (and Why He Was Excommunicated)”

“It is absolutely evident that Luther was heretical and that the Church was under no obligation to even contend with him at the Diet of Worms in 1521. Since it was obvious that he was teaching heresy, it was equally obvious that the Church should demand that he recant, renounce, and cease doing so. He refused, because he knew more than the Church (as he in effect implied, many times). But no Protestant body would have acted any differently, then or now, in the face of dozens of rejections of its own stated dogmas. Here is what Luther believed contrary to the Church (without even delving too much into the finer points of soteriology):

1. Separation of justification from sanctification.
2. Extrinsic, forensic, imputed notion of justification.
3. Fiduciary faith.
4. Private judgment over against ecclesial infallibility.
5. Tossing out seven books of the Bible.
6. Denial of venial sin.
7. Denial of merit.
8. The damned should be happy that they are damned and accept God’s will.
9. Jesus offered Himself for damnation and possible hellfire.
10. No good work can be done except by a justified man.
11. All baptized men are priests (denial of the sacrament of ordination).
12. All baptized men can give absolution.
13. Bishops do not truly hold that office; God has not instituted it.
14. Popes do not truly hold that office; God has not instituted it.
15. Priests have no special, indelible character.
16. Temporal authorities have power over the Church; even bishops and popes; to assert the contrary was a mere presumptuous invention.
17. Vows of celibacy are wrong and should be abolished.
18. Denial of papal infallibility.
19. Belief that unrighteous priests or popes lose their authority (contrary to Augustine’s rationale against the Donatists).
20. The keys of the kingdom were not just given to Peter.
21. Private judgment of every individual to determine matters of faith.
22. Denial that the pope has the right to call or confirm a council.
23. Denial that the Church has the right to demand celibacy of certain callings.
24. There is no such vocation as a monk; God has not instituted it.
25. Feast days should be abolished, and all church celebrations confined to Sundays.
26. Fasts should be strictly optional.
27. Canonization of saints is thoroughly corrupt and should stop.
28. Confirmation is not a sacrament.
29. Indulgences should be abolished.
30. Dispensations should be abolished.
31. Philosophy (Aristotle as prime example) is an unsavory, detrimental influence on Christianity.
32. Transubstantiation is “a monstrous idea.”
33. The Church cannot institute sacraments.
34. Denial of the “wicked” belief that the mass is a good work.
35. Denial of the “wicked” belief that the mass is a true sacrifice.
36. Denial of the sacramental notion of ex opere operato.
37. Denial that penance is a sacrament.
38. Assertion that the Catholic Church had “completely abolished” even the practice of penance.
39. Claim that the Church had abolished faith as an aspect of penance.
40. Denial of apostolic succession.
41. Any layman who can should call a general council.
42. Penitential works are worthless.
43. None of what Catholics believe to be the seven sacraments have any biblical proof.
44. Marriage is not a sacrament.
45. Annulments are a senseless concept and the Church has no right to determine or grant annulments.
46. Whether divorce is allowable is an open question.
47. Divorced persons should be allowed to remarry.
48. Jesus allowed divorce when one partner committed adultery.
49. The priest’s daily office is “vain repetition.”
50. Extreme unction is not a sacrament (there are only two sacraments: baptism and the Eucharist).

 

[Topper17]

Part 1 of this post, the good part, the part that Dave Armstrong wrote is in the previous post, post number 270 on the previous page. This following is a continuation of the Armstrong text. My comments will follow.

DA - "So that is 50 ways in which Luther was a heretic, heterodox, a schismatic, or believed things which were clearly contrary to the Catholic Church’s teaching or practice, up to and including truly radical departures (even societally radical in some cases). Is that enough to justify his excommunication from Catholic ranks? Or was the Church supposed to say, “yeah, Luther, you know, you’re right about these fifty issues. You know better than the entire Church, the entire history of the Church, and all the wisdom of the saints in past ages who have believed these things. So we will bow to your heaven-sent wisdom, change all fifty beliefs or practices, so we can proceed in a godly direction. Thanks so much! We are forever indebted to you for having informed us of all these errors!!”

Is that not patently ridiculous? What Church would change 50 things in its doctrines because one person feels himself to be some sort of oracle from God or pseudo-prophet: God’s man for the age? Yet we are led to believe that it is self-evident that Luther was a good, obedient Catholic who only wanted to reform the Church, not overturn or leave it, let alone start a new sect. He may have been naive or silly enough to believe that himself, but objectively-speaking, it is clear and plain to one and all that what he offered - even prior to 1520 - was a radical program; a revolution. This is not reform. And the so-called “Protestant Reformation” was not that, either (considered as a whole). It was a Revolt or a Revolution. I have just shown why that is.

No sane, conscious person who had read any of his three radical treatises of 1520 could doubt that he had already ceased to be an orthodox Catholic. He did not reluctantly become so because he was unfairly kicked out of the Church by men who would not listen to manifest Scripture and reason (as the Protestant myth and perpetual propaganda would have it) but because he had chosen himself to accept heretical teachings, by the standard of Catholic orthodoxy, and had become a radical, intent also on spreading his (sincerely and passionately held) errors across the land with slanderous, mocking, propagandistic tracts and even vulgar woodcuts, if needs be.

Therefore, the Church was entirely sensible, reasonable, within her rights, logical, self-consistent, and not hypocritical or “threatened” in the slightest to simply demand Luther’s recantation of his errors at the Diet of Worms in 1521, and to refuse to argue with him (having already tried on several occasions, anyway), because to do so would have granted his ridiculous presumption that he was in a position to singlehandedly dispute and debate what had been the accumulated doctrinal and theological wisdom of the Church for almost 1500 years.” End of Armstrong Article.

Hi – Topper here – So can anyone say that they are not shocked at the Luther’s presumptuousness in assigning himself the role as the man who was authorized to change and or deny SO MUCH of accepted Christian doctrine and practice. Now, people can claim (as they usually do), that they personally agree that Luther was right about this number or that number out of the 50, but that is not the point. The point is that nobody in Christian history took that much doctrinal authority on their own shoulders, and maybe, just maybe, Luther was wrong in doing so.

Those who would suggest that he was in fact right to change or refute SO MUCH should recognize that no Church, no Catholic and no Protestant church would ever put up with such disrespect for their Traditions, even if they didn’t believe they had any. If Luther didn’t believe that he was going to end up being excommunicated when he wrote these things in 1520, two years before he ‘translated’ the NT, then he was seriously disconnected from reality.

In fact, Luther’s disrespect towards the canon and individual books, as important as an issue as it is (and it is), it, in and of itself, does not ‘prove’ anything about Luther. Rather this one issue is simply a medium sized brick in a wall of more many, many dozens of bricks. It is the wall itself that reveals the truth. People can parse words about individual grains of sand within a particular brick, which is sometimes effective in deflecting attention, but it is the size of the wall itself that actually does ‘proves something’.

God Bless You Novo, Topper

 

[steido01]

Good heavens!

Topper, I challenge you to say one good thing about Luther and one good thing about Lutherans. Just one.

 

[Topper17]

Good heavens!

Topper, I challenge you to say one good thing about Luther and one good thing about Lutherans. Just one./QUOTE}Hi Sted,

That’s easy. Luther really cared about doctrine, and he fought for them, He was also a great linguist, and was a compelling and probably even mesmerizing speaker.

As for the Lutheran Church, it had the good sense to dismiss some of the weirder things that Luther taught. In addition, what I really appreciate about Lutherans is something that I have said here on this thread recently. I appreciate them because they are dogmatic. Dogma matters. Of course the liberal ones don’t care as much, but then at least the Church officially is dogmatic. What I don’t respect are those fuzzy wuzzy denominations that believe that whatever the individual believes is ok.

There’’- now how about you give me an honest assessment of what Dave Armstrong wrote and I summarized?

God Bless You Sted. Topper

 

[Per_Crucem]

I agree he, Luther was automatically excommunicated, However, in a sense Luther decided to leave since he would not submit to the Church.

The issue I see with what you say here, spina, is that we are automatically colored by our own personal biases when it comes to evaluating Luther’s submission to the papacy, or lack thereof (myself no less than you). Athanasius refused to submit to “the church” when he opposed the Arian bishops and was deposed five times for doing so. Yet would you call him wrong for refusing to submit to theological error?

 

[TertiumQuid]

Professor Mark U. Edwards makes some interesting comments about – as you put it – Luther not being a ‘very stable person’ in a section of his article entitled - “Luther’s Mental Health
The adult Luther’s psychological health is even harder (than his physical health) to diagnose than his physical health, although some investigators have confidently concluded that Luther suffered from manic-depressive psychosis. Among the symptoms of this illness in his later years they list his frequent bouts with depression and spiritual temptation, his occasional expression of a death-wish, his vulgar and scatological language, his outbursts of rage and vilification and his visions of and contests with the devil. Most scholars freely concede the unusual and perhaps even abnormal aspects of Luther’s personality without accepting the diagnosis that attributes these traits to an underlying psychosis. By most standards, Luther was a neurotic man who, in later life, suffered from bouts of depression. Given all the evidence of productivity, clarity of thought, and ability to work with others, however, it is highly doubtful that he can properly be diagnosed as psychotic.” Dr. Mark U. Edwards Jr. (Lutheran), “Luther’s Polemical Controversies”, Article in “The Cambridge Companion to Martin Luther, Edited by Donald K. McKim, pg 205.

Here we have an excellent Lutheran Scholar who claims that Luther’s had an abnormal personality, was also neurotic, but that he should not be seen as having some form of psychosis. I found it interesting that Edwards commented that it is doubtful that Luther was psychotic. That’s amazing! Of course the literature on Luther is chock full of comments about Luther’s psychological issues.

Edwards goes on to conclude on the very same page:

“When all is said and done, the common description and explanation, for Luther’s polemics and especially the polemics of the older Luther- that they are the product of an ill, aged, and psychologically unbalanced man- is not particularly illuminating historically. This explanation fails particularly to explain the wide range among the polemics of the older Luther, the theological depth of many of the polemics, and, finally, the educational and political functions the polemics performed within the larger Reformation movement.”

It certainly seems to me that Edwards is not making the point you say he is.

 

[steido01]

There’’- now how about you give me an honest assessment of what Dave Armstrong wrote and I summarized?

God Bless You Sted. Topper

I could fill multiple posts responding to the polemics, hyperboles, straw men and downright falsities in Armstrong’s ‘50 Theses,’ but I’m not sure what purpose it would serve; you’ve appear to have made up your mind when it comes to Luther and Lutheranism. James and Jon have already provided legitimate, historically-based responses using highly-credible sources. In fact, several times in this thread, they’ve brought forth the very same sources you have - only they haven’t twisted the authors’ intent by picking-and-choosing bits to post or omit. If their steadfast and educated minds are unable to break through the tired polemics to hold a real discussion with you, I certainly am unable. No, I’ll sit this one out before my frustration finds me a reason to go to Confession.

May God bless you as well, Topper. I look forward to a day when we lay folk can discuss our respective communions’ histories as honestly as our leaders do.

 

[Novocastrian]

Hi Novo,

I have heard so many times that Luther ‘was excommunicated’ as if this was something that just sort of happened to him. As if he didn’t do anything wrong and was just sort of an innocent bystander in the whole affair. The fact of the matter is that Luther virtually demanded that he be excommunicated.

We also hear that Luther was ‘within his rights’ to question this or that, or to develop this or that doctrine. While there is some truth in this (nowhere near as much as what we are told), that Luther presumed to have too much authority to determine for himself (this and that) is evidenced in two ways.

The first is the degree to which he changed or altered this or that doctrine. The second is in the number of things that he disputed. In the case of the criticism of the canon, it is true that a few others had questioned a few books of the NT, but nobody criticized the canon or made the kind of blasphemous remarks that Luther made – nobody. Secondly, it wasn’t as if Luther’s criticism of the canon is the only thing he did which makes him look – well – sort of heretical. It was only one of several dozen things, all of which it is suggested we should view in complete isolation from the rest. In fact, it is the ‘whole body’ of Luther’s criticism which identify him as being hugely presumptuous in his self-presumed authority to dictate doctrine.

What it really comes down to is both the ‘quality’ and the ‘quantity’ of Luther’s.

In regards to the ‘quantity’ of Lutehr’s presumptions, the following is from a Dave Armstrong article, which by the way documents his ‘presumptions’ prior to 1522, when he criticized whole books of the Bible and judged the canon. As such, that blasphemous action didn’t even make the following list.

Dave Armstrong article, from Wednesday, March 29, 2006 “50 Ways In Which Luther Had Departed From Catholic Orthodoxy or Established Practice by 1520 (and Why He Was Excommunicated)”

“It is absolutely evident that Luther was heretical and that the Church was under no obligation to even contend with him at the Diet of Worms in 1521. Since it was obvious that he was teaching heresy, it was equally obvious that the Church should demand that he recant, renounce, and cease doing so. He refused, because he knew more than the Church (as he in effect implied, many times). But no Protestant body would have acted any differently, then or now, in the face of dozens of rejections of its own stated dogmas. Here is what Luther believed contrary to the Church (without even delving too much into the finer points of soteriology):

1. Separation of justification from sanctification.
2. Extrinsic, forensic, imputed notion of justification.
3. Fiduciary faith.
4. Private judgment over against ecclesial infallibility.
5. Tossing out seven books of the Bible.
6. Denial of venial sin.
7. Denial of merit.
8. The damned should be happy that they are damned and accept God’s will.
9. Jesus offered Himself for damnation and possible hellfire.
10. No good work can be done except by a justified man.
11. All baptized men are priests (denial of the sacrament of ordination).
12. All baptized men can give absolution.
13. Bishops do not truly hold that office; God has not instituted it.
14. Popes do not truly hold that office; God has not instituted it.
15. Priests have no special, indelible character.
16. Temporal authorities have power over the Church; even bishops and popes; to assert the contrary was a mere presumptuous invention.
17. Vows of celibacy are wrong and should be abolished.
18. Denial of papal infallibility.
19. Belief that unrighteous priests or popes lose their authority (contrary to Augustine’s rationale against the Donatists).
20. The keys of the kingdom were not just given to Peter.
21. Private judgment of every individual to determine matters of faith.
22. Denial that the pope has the right to call or confirm a council.
23. Denial that the Church has the right to demand celibacy of certain callings.
24. There is no such vocation as a monk; God has not instituted it.
25. Feast days should be abolished, and all church celebrations confined to Sundays.
26. Fasts should be strictly optional.
27. Canonization of saints is thoroughly corrupt and should stop.
28. Confirmation is not a sacrament.
29. Indulgences should be abolished.
30. Dispensations should be abolished.
31. Philosophy (Aristotle as prime example) is an unsavory, detrimental influence on Christianity.
32. Transubstantiation is “a monstrous idea.”
33. The Church cannot institute sacraments.
34. Denial of the “wicked” belief that the mass is a good work.
35. Denial of the “wicked” belief that the mass is a true sacrifice.
36. Denial of the sacramental notion of ex opere operato.
37. Denial that penance is a sacrament.
38. Assertion that the Catholic Church had “completely abolished” even the practice of penance.
39. Claim that the Church had abolished faith as an aspect of penance.
40. Denial of apostolic succession.
41. Any layman who can should call a general council.
42. Penitential works are worthless.
43. None of what Catholics believe to be the seven sacraments have any biblical proof.
44. Marriage is not a sacrament.
45. Annulments are a senseless concept and the Church has no right to determine or grant annulments.
46. Whether divorce is allowable is an open question.
47. Divorced persons should be allowed to remarry.
48. Jesus allowed divorce when one partner committed adultery.
49. The priest’s daily office is “vain repetition.”
50. Extreme unction is not a sacrament (there are only two sacraments: baptism and the Eucharist).

I’m deeply suspicious of any list that includes 43. Clearly nonsense, given Luther’s track record on Baptism and Eucharist.

 

[JonNC]

Thanks Jon, I think that clears some questions. So if I am reading you correctly the DC books are still part of the canon and have not been totally rejected by Lutherans. That their role over the years has been down played and in recent years there has been a reemergence of said books.

That Luther questioned them and did others before him but in the end followed (please excuse as no offense meant) followed the guidance of the Church and left them in the collection of scripture even though placed in their own section.

Peace
.

I think it depends in part on the use of the word canon. Canon, AFAIK, can be applied to those books used as Lutherans historically have used them - liturgically, etc. So, no, they are not rejected by historic Lutheranism, and in a way, that guides us back to the topic of thread.

Originally Posted by SextusEmpiricus

It has been a while since I logged in to CAF, and I asked this question a while back, but never quite received a satisfactory response. This question re-surfaced in my mind when the History channel recently broadcast a documentary about Martin Luther and the Reformation.

The question is this: How is it that the “apocrypha” were declared un-inspired? Put another way, how can something declared Holy and the Word of God in the 4th century – and accepted as such by Christians for many centuries – be declared un-Holy in the 16th century? I realize that some doctrines develop over time, such as the Bible’s table of contents – but has there ever been something declared Holy in one era, subsequently declared un-Holy in another era?

And the answer is that throughout the history of the Church, the books of the Apocrypha/Deuterocanon have always been disputed, to one degree or another. For Lutherans, it isn’t a matter of having them “declared uninspired”. It is the fact that the question of their inspiration has always been there. Our way of looking at scripture, and the books therein, including the DC’s, is through the consideration of the varying views of the early Church.

Jon

 

[Isaiah45_9]

So, in summary:

• Luther included the DC’s in his translation.
• The Original KJV included the DC’s.

And then… poof they were gone.

There’s theories that they were taken out because of lack of use and it was cheaper to print the Bible without them.

Houdini’s family had a printing press.

The DC’s included material that supported Catholic theology.

I mean, What happened? Where’s the beef?

Millions of Bishops throughout history were fine with those books and a few disagree and… let’s go for the underdog!!! The big 'ol bad establishment oppressed the little guys and we must stand up to defend them!!! Nah - no record of that either.

Why do we park the car on the driveway and drive the car on the parkway?

Why does Mickey Mouse wear pants and no shirt and Donald Duck wears a shirt and no pants?

What happened?