No one was allowed before to hold their own contrary views, it was simply emphasized
He serves to dispel two false notions: 1) that Luther’s opinion of the canon was novel.
From a Lutheran perspective, this still hasn’t happened.
I never said they were correct. I only said they had the privilege, prior to Trent, to hold those opinions. It is only since Trent that this has changed.
Correct. For you, what they say doesn’t matter. For a Lutheran, what the Church Fathers said is taken into account on how we view and use the books.I’m not. I am simply restating the facts that, 1) there has never, ever been unity on what books are and should be included in the canon of scripture. Heck, there are even different ways to interpret the canon (rule) regarding scripture. 2) 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.
The bolded is simply factually inaccurate. The very fact that saints and Church Fathers, theologians and cardinals express their opinions without consequence is evidence.
I absolutely agree, though Lutheran publishing houses are simply an arm of the respective synods. It is our synods who have let this happen.
Yes, but then for the next 500 years, you will have to contend with…“but don’t you remember when you DIDN’T have them?” from us stubborn Catholics.
lol The ironic thing will be when we ask… “why don’t you have the Prayer of Manasseh in your Bible?” :bible1:Yes, but then for the next 500 years, you will have to contend with…“but don’t you remember when you DIDN’T have them?” from us stubborn Catholics.
Peace!!!
Jon, what if I disagree as to what the relevant point is? Is that OK? Maybe a dialogue is actually considering what the other person says and then dealing with it. Simply declaring what is relevant and what is not does not exactly decide the matter nor is it a compelling argument. Luther dismissed the arguments of his opponents in a manner which did absolutely nothing to convince them that his opinion was correct.
My point is that Jerome is the anti-Luther and to use him to defend what Luther did is to totally misrepresent him. The thing about Jerome is that he backed down when rebuked by the Pope. Luther did not. Jerome recognized that his opinion had to take a backseat when it was in direct opposition to the direction of the Bishop of Rome. That makes Jerome the anti-Luther and makes the facts of Jerome evidence for the Catholic Church, not for Luther.
OK, let’s go that direction as it will lead us to the same place anyway. Are you saying that anybody who wants to should be allowed to translate and then publish the Bible? Does the Lutheran church allow that kind of freedom? If not, then what kind of credentials should the translator have? By what Authority did Luther presume to have the right to translate the Scriptures?
Yes, but gnosticism is not sound doctrine.
It’s a practical test. If the book in question was being used in the churches and proved as a means to spiritual edification then that is one reason to include it.
Of course sound doctrine was a requirement for inclusion in the canon. Those who compiled lists and those councils that that made decisions did so on the basis of whether they thought certain books had sound doctrine, among other things.
Of course usage is a guide. There is no point in making something canonical that nobody reads.
And as to examples like the Book of Mormon or the Koran, well throwing out examples like that is just silly. Muslims may think the Koran is divine, but Christians never have. And the Book of Mormon is not even relevant to the Protestant context because no Protestant church is proposing to add it or any other book to canon.It’s not one measure but all of them working together that matter. And once again, I don’t have any problem with books being deemed outside the canon by the church in the fifth century as long as it was done through a careful process and by consensus of those in the best positions to know. The fact that Protestants accept most of the canon of the undivided church shows that we don’t have many issues with the process. And yet, the deuterocanonicals are one area where concerns persisted.
Well, it seems that custom as to what is Scripture is powerful enough to overrule the desire of people to cut and paste the canon. One reason I say that is because as many Protestant churches that are adopting gay marriage and other unbiblical capitulations to culture, none of them have opted to change the canon. One reason for this is that liberal Protestant higher biblical criticism is in some cases so radical as to make the Bible little more than a history book, so it doesn’t justify moving heaven and earth to change a book that is no different from any other and that they can simply ignore and argue away.
Sure, that’s what dialogue is. But your focus is usually on some wart of Luther, instead of the dialogue. Luther’s short temper isn’t the issue, ISTM. Luther no more dismissed the arguments of his opponents than his opponents did his.
I am not using Jerome to defend Luther, other than the evidence that Luther’s opinion of the canon was not novel.
Disparaging remarks? He certainly would be in jeopardy. To express an opinion regarding a particular book - respectfully? I would be willing to listen to that opinion (it shouldn’t come from the pulpit, however), just like I would expect him to listen to my POV that Wisdom, for example, certainly belongs in scripture, that Luther may have been wrong about it and other DC books.
Here is where I am coming from. I strongly believe that Luther was a terrible Theologian and that what you call his “warts” are the very things that has created such a horrible lack of unity among the Protestants and also resulted in such a lack of doctrinal certainty within Protestantism.
First of all, Luther’s actions virtually demanded that he be excommunicated. In essence, he excommunicated himself and he did it on purpose. He simply could not abide with a teaching that did not give him 100 percent of his everlasting salvation and right now!
What I mean is disparaging remarks about actual Scripture. I’m sure you know what I am talking about. This should be one of those opportunities for you to criticize Luther ‘when need be’.
I’m sorry you have that opinion of him. Some very important Catholic theologians disagree with you. Why would you expect that Luther and his colleagues would have been able to influence Zwingli, or Calvin, or the Anabaptists? Even the Catholic Church was unable to do that. Let’s be clear, the others I have mentioned were not colleagues of Luther and the other Lutheran Reformers. Theirs’ were different movements.
Do you want to talk about his theology? Sure. But let’s keep in mind that the only Luther theology that is important to me is what is part of the teaching of the Confessions.
I’m sure others would say the opposite, but I’m not sure how this applies to the thread.
Of course you as a Catholic will say this, and that’s fine.
What does this have to do with Luther’s view of the canon?
I guess I’m not understanding then. I told you that I would not stand for a disparaging remark about any book of scripture, even the DC’s. But I would be willing to discuss opinions about the canon, and any book therein, or any book disputed. And I’ve already said, that I am not certain that I agree with Luther’s opinion regarding the DC’s.
What authority are you speaking of? If some theologian translates scripture incorrectly, the Lutheran communion will say so and not use it. This is more than hypothetical today anyway, both within the Lutheranism and Catholicism. An example being Liberation Theology.
And also with you,
Yes, that is usually the way of things. Heretics rarely consider themselves heterodox and certainly don’t normally admit to being heretics.
But it was the work of local councils and individual scholars that led to a final consensus. When did the magisterium definitively speak on the composition of the canon prior to Trent and where is the evidence that all other usages and traditions immediately conformed to this single standard?
“Powerful Protestant leaders.” Yeah, in the sense of prominent liberal academics and denominational bureaucrats (which everyone knows are more pagan than Christian in most ways that matter
). The Protestant public doesn’t know who these people are and doesn’t care about their New New Testament. I don’t even think liberal Protestants are even taking this serious as canonical Scripture (maybe as a neat and nice academic project). Joyce Meyer has more name recognition alone than the entire council of 19 who put that anthology together (and she’s perfectly fine with the canon as is).I understand, and actually appreciate your point. However, isn’t a council by “consensus” (I really don’t know)?
The confession are important, but are you saying that his really crazy, un-Christian, hateful, and intolerant teachings should be ignored? Why is that? Could it be because they make him look like a poor Christian Theologian?
If others have suggested otherwise I would love to read their quotes. But my point is that no others have, just you, that’s why I challenged your statement.
It’s not so much that it’s fine that, I as a Catholic, say it, but whether it’s true or not. I will tell you now that I would not have made that statement unless I could back it up, with a lot of evidence from Protestant scholars. Put a different way: Luther had no choice but to force his way out of a church whose teachings could not guarantee him that he would attain heaven, no matter what he did for the rest of his life. If you think that this is not the case, then please state why.
Because there is a pattern involved. Protestants always want us to look at each of Luther’s crazy or un-Christian teachings in isolation from all of the rest of his crazy and un-Christian teachings. We are not allowed to suggest that there is a pattern, meaning that a lot of what he taught was crazy or un-Christian, or – just flat didn’t work in the real world. This Catholic or that Catholic from history is dug up to support Luther’s crazy opinion, often times taking that Catholic’s views out of context, as in the case of Jerome. Nobody in Christian history took the liberty to change or reject more than four dozen Christian doctrines, and Protestants and especially Lutherans seem to expect us to believe that Luther was right and the whole of Christianity that preceded him was wrong. It is the pattern of nutty and un-Christian things that provide the context for judging the doctrinal beliefs that separate us.
First of all – ditto on the Liberation Theology comment. Both of our confessions have elements that have become infected by that heresy.
In part, yes. But the councils weren’t just anyone who happened to show up, some authority had to decide not only who had the expertise, but, crucially, who was orthodox in the faith, to participate. In other words, there had to have been some pre-existing “template” of the faith, and some authority to determine who was orthodox… It doesn’t suffice to say the template came from tradition, because there were many traditions, some contradictory, some trivial. Someone must have had authority to exclude the vast majority of tradition as probably not inspired; but determined a little of it is inspired. Someone had to decide this scholar is orthodox, and his (name removed by moderator)ut considered, while this other scholar, or these other 200 scholars, not. Someone had to weigh the output of this or that council, as to whether this council is orthodox. Maybe that other council, deemed to be not orthodox perhaps.
Ok. I’ve tried. I never make these kinds of statements about any other communion, using terms such as crazy and the like, and I don’t expect them in return. That is not what respectful, charitable dialogue looks like.
Hi Jon,