Protestant Canon

[JonNC]

=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.

By the "ancients, Luther is referring to, among others, Eusebius.
Luther follows by saying he praises the book, for the reasons he gives.
He then makes sure people understand that he writes his own opinion, and no one is bound to them.

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.

While I disagree that James “is flatly against Paul”, Luther had the privilege to hold these views. And he was not alone in them, nor were they a novelty to him.

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…….

Of course, there is nothing wrong with driving the law. We the regenerate need that at times, and it was the regenerate that James was talking to. Luther’s view was that Gospel is the mark of an apostolic writer, and in his time and before there were others who did not consider it the writing of St. James.

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.

Again the bolded provides evidence that Luther was not opposed to it being in the canon (Luther had no control over that, anyway), but also he considered it in many ways a good book.

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.”

Luther held a personal view of what he considered chief books for himself, and he makes clear this was not to be forced on others.

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

The preface was just that, a preface. This particular one appeared only in the 1522 publication of the NT, but was removed by him in later publications. It is also true that Luther often preached from the book of James throughout his life.

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.

Obviously, Luther did not think himself the “judge of scripture”, as he often remarks here and in other prefaces that these are his opinions. All Catholics were permitted there opinions. Cajetan, prior to Trent, held similar views of the DC’s as Luther, though he could not in any way be confused as a Luther ally. There was and is nothing blasphemous in Luther’s comments. Similarly, there was nothing blasphemous in Eusebius’ comments about James either.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

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

Thanks spina,

It’s a fascinating period of time, one that is not well known here on this side of the pond, and what we do know about it is sometimes told differently than how it happened. Finding sources that tell it fairly can be a challenge sometimes.

In my last post I documented how Luther is the one who is responsible for unleashing the doctrine of Private Interpretation on modern Christendom. Actually it was not his intention whatsoever, but was rather an ‘Unintended Consequence’ of his revolt against the Church. It got very messy fast, and very bloody. It should also be noted that he taught Private Interpretation of Scripture in spite of the warning of St. Peter.

R. C. Sproul also ‘gets it’ regarding Luther and Private Interpretation:

“Two of the great legacies of the Reformation were the principal of private interpretation and the sharp focus in the sixteenth century. Hidden beneath the famous response of the Reformer to the ecclesiastical and imperial translation of the Bible into the vernacular……. It was Luther himself who brought the issue of private interpretation of the Bible authorities at the Diet of Worms was the implicit principal of private interpretation.

When asked to recant of his writings, Luther replied, “Unless I am convinced by Sacred Scripture or by evident reason, I cannot recant. For my conscience is held captive by the Word of God and to act against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, God help me.” (of course Luther never said “Here I stand…….” –Topper) Notice that Luther said “unless I am convinced…….” In earlier debates at Leipzig and Augsburg, Luther had dared to presume to interpret Scripture contrary to interpretations rendered by Popes and by church councils. That he would be so presumptuous led to the repeated charge of arrogance by church officials. Luther did not take these charges lightly but agonized over them. He believed that he could be wrong but maintained that the Pope and councils could also err. For him only one source of truth was free from error. He said, “The Scriptures never err.” Thus, unless the leaders of the church could convince him of his error, he felt duty-bound to follow what his own conscience was convinced Scripture taught. With this controversy the principal of private interpretation was born and baptized with fire.” R.C. Sproul, Knowing Scripture, pg. 33-4

Luther demonstrated that he placed his own personal, independent, private understanding and his conscience above those of all the popes and Councils with all of their thousands of Theologians, On the face of it it seems pretty foolish doesn’t it?

Luther appealed to ‘his own conscience’, presuming of course that – somehow – it would lead him correctly to Scriptural Truth. But we should remember, that it was Luther’s conscience which led him to call for the deaths of Jews, peasants, ‘reluctant wives’ and Anabaptists to mention only a few.

“When through his translation Luther placed the Bible into the hands of every Christian, (1522) he was convinced that the principal of private judgment is correct.” Henry Linderman, (Lutheran Ph.D.), “Martin Luther, Man of God”, pg. 46.

“The importance of this theological tournament (the Diet of Worms 1521) lies in this: that it marks a progress in Luther’s emancipation from the papal system. Here for the first time he denied the divine right and origin of the papacy, and the infallibility of a general council. Henceforward he had nothing left but the divine Scriptures, his private judgment, and his faith in God who guides the course of history by his own Spirit, through all obstructions by human errors, to a glorious end. The ship of the Reformation was cut from its moorings, and had to fight with the winds and waves of the open sea.

From this time Luther entered upon a revolutionary crusade against the Roman Church until the anarchical dissensions in his own party drove him back into a conservative and even reactionary position.” Philip Schaff, “The History of the Christian Church, Chapter III, 37. The Leipzig Disputation. June 27-July 15, 1519”

Schaff informs us that by 1519 Luther had come to rely completely on his own private judgment (and conscience of course). However, by the time of the anarchical dissentions, including the Peasant’s War in 1525, Luther had concluded that maybe, just maybe, Private Interpretation was – maybe – not such a smashing idea, that is unless the unity of Christianity is the thing you want smashed, which of course was not Luther’s intention at all. Why couldn’t Luther have listened to all those (better Theologians)? He could have saved himself a lot of trouble and heartache, and also a lot of blood, the blood of others actually.

Luther’s Revolt began in 1517. From basically 1519 until 1525 he taught Private Interpretation, during which time he spent a whopping 11 weeks translating the New Testament and making disparaging remarks about Holy Scripture (1522). If he had known in 1519 what knew about the damage done by Private Interpretation in 1525, he could not have proclaimed PI as a Christian Doctrine. However, without that initial proclamation at the Leipzig Debate, how could he ever have justified defying the Church? This is not to say that he certainly would have done anything differently. At any rate, by 1525, when the evidence of the results of his teachings began to be obvious, even to him, it was too late. Way too many cats were out of the bag, and as he learned they are practically impossible to put back in.

God Bless You spina and thanks for your response, Topper

 

[spina1953]

Hi Topper 17: I enjoyed you post! Lots of worthwhile information. I remember reading several years ago that Luther once was quoted as saying that ‘everything I have and everything I know came from the Catholic Church’. I do not remember the author or the book I read it from but only that it struck in my mind. I think from reading some bio’s on Luther that he was a very unstable person much of it stemming from his childhood. What gets me is that Luther was not willing to stay in the Catholic Church and help resolve the issues he felt were abuses in the Church. King henry the VIII once supported the Catholic Church yet when the Church would not grant him an annulment he choose instead to make himself the leader of the Church in England so that he could take all that the Churches in England in order to replenish his coffers. While Luther was not like King Henry VII Luther looked to the protection of princes of Germany, who really did not want the Church to tell them what to do or how they rule. This can be seen in light of the Peasant war. This why he was able to defy the Church leaders in promoting his own interpretations and thinking.

 

[TertiumQuid]

R. C. Sproul also ‘gets it’ regarding Luther and Private Interpretation

Thanks for all the interesting info.

I found the section from Sproul you quoted so intriguing that I wanted to read more of what Dr. Sproul said. As I read pages 33 and following, Sproul contrasts Luther’s embracing private interpretation with the notion of an infallible interpreter of sacred scripture (p. 34). Luther was holding that the only infallible voice of God on earth is that recorded in sacred Scripture. On page 35 Sproul points out that Trent responded by saying “it is the responsibility of the teaching office of the… Catholic Church to expound the Scriptures and to declare the meaning of the Scriptures.” In other words, Luther was challenging the infallibility of the church of his day. When Luther was fighting for the right to interpret, he was basically saying that the church certainly can have a collected wisdom and understanding of what the Scriptures are saying, but it isn’t an infallible understanding because only God and His word are infallible.

Sproul then goes on to say:

Did the Reformers promote the notion of unbridledness? Does private Interpretation mean that an individual has the right to interpret Scripture to suit himself? May a person interpret Scripture in a whimsical, capricious manner with no restraint? Should the private individual take seriously the interpretations of others such as those who specialize in teaching the Scriptures? The answers to these questions are obvious. The Reformers were also concerned with ways and means to check unbridled spirits. (That is one of the reasons they worked so hard to delineate sound principles of biblical interpretation as a check and balance to fanciful interpretation.) But the way in which they sought to check unbridled spirits was not to declare the teachings of churchmen infallible. Private interpretation never meant that individuals have the right to distort the Scriptures. With the right of private interpretation comes the sober responsibility of accurate interpretation. Private interpretation gives license to interpret but not to distort.

-snip-

Private interpretation opened the Bible for laymen, but it did not do away with the principle of the educated clergy. Going back to biblical days, the Reformers recognized that in Old and New Testament practice and teaching there was a significant place for the rabbi, the scribe and the ministry of teaching. That teachers should be skilled in the ancient languages, customs, history and literary analysis is still .an important feature of the Christian church.

What I found fascinating about Sproul’s chapter as well is that he goes on to discuss the error of subjectivism in regard to interpretation. Sproul places a high value in the collected wisdom of the historic church and proper methods of interpretation (as did the Reformers).

One final related point comes to mind: The Catholic church has had quite a long time since Trent declared that the church has the power to have the true sense and interpretation of scripture, but, as far as I know, the Catholic church has not infallibly interpreted a lot of passages. This leads me to wonder whether or not Catholics likewise are engaging in a fair degree of private interpretation (while in the confines of declared dogma). The issue is not private interpretation (because Catholics and protestants both do it), the issue for the Reformers was whether or not the church has the ability of infallible interpretation.

Thanks again for raising such interesting issues.

 

[spina1953]

Thanks for all the interesting info.

I found the section from Sproul you quoted so intriguing that I wanted to read more of what Dr. Sproul said. As I read pages 33 and following, Sproul contrasts Luther’s embracing private interpretation with the notion of an infallible interpreter of sacred scripture (p. 34). Luther was holding that the only infallible voice of God on earth is that recorded in sacred Scripture. On page 35 Sproul points out that Trent responded by saying “it is the responsibility of the teaching office of the… Catholic Church to expound the Scriptures and to declare the meaning of the Scriptures.” In other words, Luther was challenging the infallibility of the church of his day. When Luther was fighting for the right to interpret, he was basically saying that the church certainly can have a collected wisdom and understanding of what the Scriptures are saying, but it isn’t an infallible understanding because only God and His word are infallible.

Sproul then goes on to say:

-snip-

What I found fascinating about Sproul’s chapter as well is that he goes on to discuss the error of subjectivism in regard to interpretation. Sproul places a high value in the collected wisdom of the historic church and proper methods of interpretation (as did the Reformers).

One final related point comes to mind: The Catholic church has had quite a long time since Trent declared that the church has the power to have the true sense and interpretation of scripture, but, as far as I know, the Catholic church has not infallibly interpreted a lot of passages. This leads me to wonder whether or not Catholics likewise are engaging in a fair degree of private interpretation (while in the confines of declared dogma). The issue is not private interpretation (because Catholics and protestants both do it), the issue for the Reformers was whether or not the church has the ability of infallible interpretation.

Thanks again for raising such interesting issues.

Thanks for the info lots of good stuff. I tend to agree with the thought that there are Catholic’s who also I think engage in private interpretation. To read is to interpret, however as Catholic’s are to interpret within the confines of what the Catholic Church teaches, and not outside of it. What is missing here I think is that in order to understand what Scripture says and what it means, one needs to have several of the disciplines, such as history, hermeneutics, science, languages etc. etc. etc. The average person while having an education generally does not specialize to any great extent in the disciplines needed in order adequately draw out the meaning and real intention of what Scripture is saying. some things found in Scripture are indeed easy to understand but not all. if it were all that easy to interpret Scripture all would understand the same things in any of the passages found in Scripture. but tis not so since those who are interpreting are interpreting by their own lack of the disciplines needed in order to properly understand what they are interpreting. Biblical scholars have a hard time trying to understand just what the inspired authors were conveying and the intention they wanted understood. the Catholic Church does not try to interpret every passage of Scripture and is silent in other words due to the fact that unless some passage is contested and distorted in such a way that its meanings are contrary to accepted norms or causes confusion of Church teaching and the Doctrines the Church does not say one way or the other.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thank you for your response,

By the "ancients, Luther is referring to, among others, Eusebius.
Luther follows by saying he praises the book, for the reasons he gives.
He then makes sure people understand that he writes his own opinion, and no one is bound to them.

Jon, remember, this is 1522, during that 7-12 year period when Luther did NOT demand that people agree with him. It was beginning in 1525 or so that he started demanding that everybody line up behind him doctrinally. By 1530 he was recommending that Anabaptists be executed by the state, simply for their beliefs alone, (solo belief-o). If you want to portray Luther as being tolerant of the beliefs of others, then you should mine for proof texts in this brief period. After he realized that this tolerance produced the results he was warned about, THEN he became VERY intolerant. He many not have desired to ‘bind’ people to his opinions in 1522, but that changed in only a few years.

While I disagree that James “is flatly against Paul”, Luther had the privilege to hold these views. And he was not alone in them, nor were they a novelty to him.

Whether Luther ‘had the privilege’ to hold these views is not the issue. Having a privilege and using it wisely are obviously two different matters. The issues is much bigger than that though. Luther claimed that the Book of James was not written by an Apostle, and that “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.” The point is that IF he had been a decent Theologian, and a respectful of Scripture, he would NOT have said those things, and about throwing James in the fire, etc. How can someone be a good Theologian when they can’t even determine what is Scripture and what is not? Are you saying that Luther was right? That James was not inspired by the Holy Spirit? Or, conversely, is this where you offer some extremely mild form of criticism for Luther?

Of course, there is nothing wrong with driving the law. We the regenerate need that at times, and it was the regenerate that James was talking to. Luther’s view was that Gospel is the mark of an apostolic writer, and in his time and before there were others who did not consider it the writing of St. James.

I understand how Luther judged Scripture on the basis of whether he saw it as preaching Christ. But, rather than my droning on about what I think that means, please explain what that truly entailed for Luther? After all, he is your guy and you should be allowed to detail what he believed, and then I can react to that. How did Luther judge whether something was ‘Apostolic’ or ‘inspired’?

Again the bolded provides evidence that Luther was not opposed to it being in the canon (Luther had no control over that, anyway), but also he considered it in many ways a good book.

First of all, you did not comment on: “He mangles the Scriptures and thereby opposes Paul and all Scripture.” To me, to accuse a Holy Spirit Inspired Apostle of Our Lord Jesus Christ of mangling Scripture is an indication that there is something SERIOUSLY lacking in Luther. Don’t you? As for the canon, the subject of this thread and which we need to discuss in much more detail, I have a couple of questions, which I will be in part 2.

 

[Topper17]

To Jon, part 2

a. Could you please explain the teaching of the Lutheran church on the canon? Is it closed? Open? Or something really fuzzy in between?
b. If we are to believe that it is acceptable for each person to have what they consider to be ‘chief books’, by which they formulate and justify their doctrinal beliefs, then what restrictions are there on these ‘personal canons’?

The preface was just that, a preface. This particular one appeared only in the 1522 publication of the NT, but was removed by him in later publications. It is also true that Luther often preached from the book of James throughout his life.

Jon, Luther made disparaging remarks about books of Scripture, meaning WHOLE BOOKS, and included that text between the covers of the Bible that HE published. Is that an acceptable thing for a Christian Theologian to do? Or is that the kind of thing that you would expect from the Jesus Seminar people? It is true that Luther removed that one comment from subsequent publications, which makes what he did even worse. Furthermore, it is an indication of the mindset of the man when he broke from the Church. At that point, he was rebelling against everything including Scripture. Does that say anything to us about whether his revolt against the Church was right or wrong in God’s Eyes? Do you think that Christ was pleased that Luther was making disparaging remarks about Holy Spirit inspired Scripture? If the Holy Spirit leads Christians, do you think that Luther was being led by the Spirit when he wrote those things? (which by the way was the same time that he broke from the Church). I don’t have the reference handy but I know that I have read that Luther only preached from James a very small handful of times, as opposed to all of the books that he actually ‘liked’.

Obviously, Luther did not think himself the “judge of scripture”, as he often remarks here and in other prefaces that these are his opinions. All Catholics were permitted there opinions. Cajetan, prior to Trent, held similar views of the DC’s as Luther, though he could not in any way be confused as a Luther ally. There was and is nothing blasphemous in Luther’s comments. Similarly, there was nothing blasphemous in Eusebius’ comments about James either.

John – I would bet that if you asked Luther if he was judging Scripture he would probably have begun cursing at you for bringing up such a ridiculous notion. But then, it doesn’t really matter if Luther THOUGHT he was judging Scripture because the historical record of his own writings make it perfectly clear. He did place himself such as to be the judge of Scripture. By what authority did he presume to question the decisions of all that had come before him? Furthermore, why, specifically and exactly was it SO necessary to make such disparaging remarks about books of Holy Scripture? What would cause a man to do such a thing? Do you think he was right to do that? Do you, personally Jon, believe that he was wrong to do that? I can understand having concerns about this or that, but couldn’t he ever just keep his mouth shut? Why did he feel it necessary to spout off his every thought? Did he think the world deserved to know his blasphemous thoughts about all of those books of the NT?
You mention Cajetan and could have mentioned others who have questioned the DC’s. It is true that a in the previous 1100 years or so, a handful of people had questioned them. But the thing that separates Luther from the others is the matter of degree. Can you name one of those other who was blasphemous enough to call any Scripture an “epistle of straw” or claim that he wanted to throw it in the fire or out of his university, or my favorite, that St. James ‘mangled Scripture’? Can you quote a one of them who treated Holy Scripture with that level of disrespect? Of course you can’t and the reason you can’t is because in this matter, Luther is in a class by himself.

Jon, please allow me to ask a couple of questions?

1. Do you think Luther was right or wrong to speak of Holy Scripture so disrespectfully? Yes or no?
2. Would you be opposed to a Lutheran minister today who either wrote such things or preached them from the pulpit?
3. Would there be consequences for your minister if they were to make those kinds of public statements?
4. Do you think that the Catholics of Luther’s day were wrong to criticize him over his statements?
5. Most importantly, by what Authority (specifically and exactly) did Luther make those disrespectful comments about Holy Scripture?

Thanks for your response Jon and May God Bless You, Tim

 

[Topper17]

We have been discussing Luther’s disrespect for Scripture and especially the way that he viewed the Canon.

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

Bainton, who normally gives Luther every break possible, makes a startling admission, admitting that he believes that Luther might have changed the canon if he thought he could get away with it. Thankfully, it wasn’t just the Catholics who were up in arms. If it had been, he definitely would have changed it. We must remember though, that he produced his translation in only a mere 11 weeks (and part time at that), so it wasn’t like he really did a thorough job. In addition, he did it alone, hiding at the Wartburg, seething over his failure to achieve his goals at Worms, obviously determined to damage the Catholic Church as much as possible and further his do or die doctrine – Salvation by Faith Alone.

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

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

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

Luther was extremely aware that James and Paul were in disagreement. Of course they were not, but Luther understood Paul to support SBFA, while James can only be understood to oppose it. How was Luther to procede from there? Possibly drop back and reconsider SBFA? Naw – that was the LAST thing that Luther could do. His terrors would not allow that. What about finding a way to harmonize Paul and James? Naw – too much trouble. “I know” Luther thought. I’ll downgrade James. I mean, he can’t be a real Apostle because he disagrees with ME, so I’ll just claim that James was not written by an Apostle, but by some Jew who might have met a Christian – might. I’ll also tell people about how this James guy was a terrible writer - real jumbled stuff. I can write all of these things to preceed each book. That way people will start to book knowing what to think about it.

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

The Church determined that James’ book was canonical, over and over again. If Luther wants to start re-questioning the ancient Church’s judgment on such matters as biblical books, why not also in matters of the Holy Trinity, and Christology, which were hammered out for many centuries, too? I understand that James was late to be included in the canon, but the fact remains that eventually it was considered canonical. Luther, then, has to explain why he rejects this ancient determination by the Church. On what grounds? It is ultimately decided on the basis of his own subjective opinion, as he so often decided things. All of those councils and popes who had set the 73 book canon and Luther, an insignificant monk and an even less significant university, decides, totally on his own, that the bible should be different (because parts of it didn’t line up with his radical pet doctrine.)

The thing we have to wonder about is this:

Did Luther’s attitude towards the canon translate to Lutheranism specifically and to Protestantism in general? Could somebody here please explain the position of the Lutheran church on the canon?

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;11586930]We have been discussing Luther’s disrespect for Scripture and especially the way that he viewed the Canon.

Perhaps you have had a monologue on this, be we certainly haven’t been having a discussion on it.

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

How about that! Tradition was strong for him.

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

That’s not what the quote says. He doesn’t say “change” the canon. He says “disrupt”. the only way I might disagree with Bainton is I don’t believe Luther had the power to change the canon. And Luther’s response to Tradition is precisely what I’ve been saying: Luther had the Catholic liberty to challenge and even dispute the canon prior to Trent, just like any other Catholic, and this he did while frequently stating it was his opinion, and in the end, he responds and defers to the Tradition of the western Church by seeing to it that all 73 books are translated and included, except for the arrangement of the books, and the addition of the Prayer of Manasseh.

We must remember though, that he produced his translation in only a mere 11 weeks (and part time at that), so it wasn’t like he really did a thorough job. In addition, he did it alone, hiding at the Wartburg, seething over his failure to achieve his goals at Worms, obviously determined to damage the Catholic Church as much as possible and further his do or die doctrine – Salvation by Faith Alone.

This is, at best, deceptive. Luther did not produce a final translation until 1534, and he had plenty of help, particularly with the OT.
He was hiding at Wartburg because there was a death threat on his head.
And the last part of this is why it is so difficult to dialogue with you. You, in the bolded, make an accusation on a man 450 years dead that simply is not true.

The thing we have to wonder about is this:

Why would you even wonder about this, as you seem to have such a viral dislike for the man?

Did Luther’s attitude towards the canon translate to Lutheranism specifically and to Protestantism in general? Could somebody here please explain the position of the Lutheran church on the canon?

I can’t speak for protestants, but as for Lutheranism, the Lutheran confessions do not identify by book a specific canon. It can be said that, technically, for Lutherans, the canon remains open. In practice, however, this:
internetmonk.com/archive/thinking-about-the-canon-a-lutheran-view

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Thanks for the info lots of good stuff. I tend to agree with the thought that there are Catholic’s who also I think engage in private interpretation. To read is to interpret, however as Catholic’s are to interpret within the confines of what the Catholic Church teaches, and not outside of it. What is missing here I think is that in order to understand what Scripture says and what it means, one needs to have several of the disciplines, such as history, hermeneutics, science, languages etc. etc. etc. The average person while having an education generally does not specialize to any great extent in the disciplines needed in order adequately draw out the meaning and real intention of what Scripture is saying. some things found in Scripture are indeed easy to understand but not all. if it were all that easy to interpret Scripture all would understand the same things in any of the passages found in Scripture. but tis not so since those who are interpreting are interpreting by their own lack of the disciplines needed in order to properly understand what they are interpreting. Biblical scholars have a hard time trying to understand just what the inspired authors were conveying and the intention they wanted understood. the Catholic Church does not try to interpret every passage of Scripture and is silent in other words due to the fact that unless some passage is contested and distorted in such a way that its meanings are contrary to accepted norms or causes confusion of Church teaching and the Doctrines the Church does not say one way or the other.

I agree with much of this.

Jon

 

[TertiumQuid]

We have been discussing Luther’s disrespect for Scripture and especially the way that he viewed the Canon. “Luther treated Scripture with amazing freedom, with so much freedom indeed that one wonders why he did not disrupt the canon. Tradition at this point was presumably too strong for him”, Roland Bainton, Studies on the Reformation, pg. 5 Bainton, who normally gives Luther every break possible, makes a startling admission, admitting that he believes that Luther might have changed the canon if he thought he could get away with it.

Perhaps you have had a monologue on this, be we certainly haven’t been having a discussion on it. How about that! Tradition was strong for him. That’s not what the quote says. He doesn’t say “change” the canon. He says “disrupt”. the only way I might disagree with Bainton is I don’t believe Luther had the power to change the canon. And Luther’s response to Tradition is precisely what I’ve been saying: Luther had the Catholic liberty to challenge and even dispute the canon prior to Trent, just like any other Catholic, and this he did while frequently stating it was his opinion, and in the end, he responds and defers to the Tradition of the western Church by seeing to it that all 73 books are translated and included, except for the arrangement of the books, and the addition of the Prayer of Manasseh.

Interesting discussion, thanks guys.

I happen to have the book in question by Roland Bainton. There is nothing in Bainton’s essay “The Bible and the Reformation” [Studies on the Reformation (Boston: Beacon Press, 1963)] that suggests “he believes that Luther might have changed the canon if he thought he could get away with it,” and for that matter, “Bainton, who normally gives Luther every break possible,” actually Bainton presents a short essay that includes critical reflection.

The actual comment on Luther and the canon is more of a passing comment that was part of Bainton’s broad overview on who had the authority to interpret the Bible during the Reformation period. Bainton points out that “Luther epitomized two centuries of antipapal critique” (p.4); that is, Luther wasn’t doing anything new when he questioned whether or not the pope had the infallible ability to interpret the Bible, this debate had been going on for quite some time. Bainton presents the argument given back to the Reformers that the church created the canon, therefore she had such infallible authority. Bainton says the Reformers countered that the Gospel or “Word” made the church, so the Gospel or “Word” is above the church, and therefore the church must be submit to the authority of the Gospel or “Word.” Bainton cites “a canon lawyer at the Council of Basel” who had earlier reflected Luther’s view “in matters touching the faith, the word of a single person is to be preferred to that of a pope, if that person is moved by sounder arguments from the Old Testament and the New Testament” (p.4). The point is that this issue of Biblical interpretative authority was nothing new when Luther showed up on the radar.

As JonNC has explained the canon was also a related issue during this time period. Luther’s solution was (in part) to evaluate the canon by the “Word.” When Luther did so, certain books accepted by broad Tradition appeared to lack a pedigree of containing the “Word,” but as Bainton points out, “Tradition at this point was presumably too strong for him.” In essence, one sees that Luther was being cautious (for instance, simply compare Luther’s early preface to Revelation with the later revision).

The heart of the issue is that Luther questioned the infallibility of the church, and this questioning included whether or not the church infallibly determined the canon, linked with this was the confusion present during the Reformation period. M. Reu notes,

How was it that [Luther] came to consider the question of the canon at all? There were a number of factors that almost compelled him to do so. Towards the end of the middle ages uncertainty had arisen in the Church not only concerning the canonicity of the Old Testament Apocrypha but also concerning the extent of the New Testament Canon; an uncertainty that existed in actual usage rather than in the attitude of the official Church. Many medieval Bible manuscripts included a fifth Gospel, the Gospel of Nicodemus; many manuscripts and all the printed German Bibles included an additional epistle of St. Paul, the so-called Epistle to the Laodiceans, which is even to be found as late as 1544 in Dietenberger’s Roman Catholic translation of the Bible [M. Reu, Luther’s German Bible: An Historical Presentation Together with a collection of Sources (Ohio: The Lutheran Book Concern, 1934), 175].

One of the big questions as I see it is not, “Why did Luther question the contents of the canon?” but rather, “Given the historical situation in the 16th Century, why wouldn’t Luther question the contents of the Bible?” The entire credibility and infallibility of the papacy was a major issue, and had been so for quite some time before Luther came on the scene. He inherited the issues of his day, like we inherit the issues of ours.

 

[JonNC]

Interesting discussion, thanks guys.

I happen to have the book in question by Roland Bainton. There is nothing in Bainton’s essay “The Bible and the Reformation” [Studies on the Reformation (Boston: Beacon Press, 1963)] that suggests “he believes that Luther might have changed the canon if he thought he could get away with it,” and for that matter, “Bainton, who normally gives Luther every break possible,” actually Bainton presents a short essay that includes critical reflection.

The actual comment on Luther and the canon is more of a passing comment that was part of Bainton’s broad overview on who had the authority to interpret the Bible during the Reformation period. Bainton points out that “Luther epitomized two centuries of antipapal critique” (p.4); that is, Luther wasn’t doing anything new when he questioned whether or not the pope had the infallible ability to interpret the Bible, this debate had been going on for quite some time. Bainton presents the argument given back to the Reformers that the church created the canon, therefore she had such infallible authority. Bainton says the Reformers countered that the Gospel or “Word” made the church, so the Gospel or “Word” is above the church, and therefore the church must be submit to the authority of the Gospel or “Word.” Bainton cites “a canon lawyer at the Council of Basel” who had earlier reflected Luther’s view “in matters touching the faith, the word of a single person is to be preferred to that of a pope, if that person is moved by sounder arguments from the Old Testament and the New Testament” (p.4). The point is that this issue of Biblical interpretative authority was nothing new when Luther showed up on the radar.

As JonNC has explained the canon was also a related issue during this time period. Luther’s solution was (in part) to evaluate the canon by the “Word.” When Luther did so, certain books accepted by broad Tradition appeared to lack a pedigree of containing the “Word,” but as Bainton points out, “Tradition at this point was presumably too strong for him.” In essence, one sees that Luther was being cautious (for instance, simply compare Luther’s early preface to Revelation with the later revision).

The heart of the issue is that Luther questioned the infallibility of the church, and this questioning included whether or not the church infallibly determined the canon, linked with this was the confusion present during the Reformation period. M. Reu notes,

One of the big questions as I see it is not, “Why did Luther question the contents of the canon?” but rather, “Given the historical situation in the 16th Century, why wouldn’t Luther question the contents of the Bible?” The entire credibility and infallibility of the papacy was a major issue, and had been so for quite some time before Luther came on the scene. He inherited the issues of his day, like we inherit the issues of ours.

Francis Pieper makes this comment:

For the Scriptures of the New Testament we have the historical witness of the Early Church (ecclesia primitiva). Its witness is unanimous as to the Four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the thirteen Epistles of Paul, the First Epistle of John, and the First Epistle of Peter (homologoumena). But as to the canonicity of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Second Epistle of Peter, the Second and Third Epistles of John, the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, and the Apocalypse, doubts, more or less strongly expressed, were entertained (antilegomena). Eusebius in his Church History lists the homologoumena and the antilegomena.2** The historical fact that the Early Church differentiated between the homologoumena and the antilegomena cannot be changed by a resolution of the later Church.**

I have argued here in this thread and others that, whether they are right or wrong, Luther’s ideas and opinions regarding the canon were not new or novel, and that they were based on the historic teaching of the Church. As Pieper says, the fact that these disputes took place in the early Church can’t be changed or erased by Trent.

He goes on to say:

Luther, too, abides by this judgment of the primitive Church; he says, appealing to Eusebius (Church History III, 25), that in ancient times the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistles of James and Jude, and the Apocalypse “had a different reputation.” He finds much excellent instruction in the antilegomena, grants that the offensive passages may be explained acceptably by “glosses,” and will keep no one from appraising them as he sees fit. But he will not class them with the “right certain chief books of the New Testament.” As for himself, he will let the doubt entertained by the Early Church remain

Pieper confirms the other point I’ve tried to make; that Luther was not claiming for himself some authority to change the canon, to shape it to his own liking based on his theology. Luther regularly states these are his opinions, and history shows that his opinions were quite similar to that reflected by the early Church.

Jon

angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.pieperwitness.html

 

[TertiumQuid]

Pieper confirms the other point I’ve tried to make; that Luther was not claiming for himself some authority to change the canon, to shape it to his own liking based on his theology. Luther regularly states these are his opinions, and history shows that his opinions were quite similar to that reflected by the early Church.

This is certainly true, to a degree, as I see it. Take the Book of James for instance. Even though Luther arrived at the harmonizing solution between James and Paul, it is probably the case that the question of James’ apostleship outweighed it. Luther’s questioning of James primarily has to do with the book’s status in Church history, and it’s internal evidence as to its apostolicity. For Luther, James was the writing of a second century Christian, therefore not an apostle nor an eyewitness of the risen Christ. Did Luther simply arrive at this conclusion without a basis? No. Throughout his career, he maintained (as you have pointed out) a position that echoed other voices from church history. This trumped any type of harmonization between Paul and James.

On the other hand, while I have not read Pieper’s article, it it usually brought out that Luther also had a theological construct of a canon within a canon. Paul Althaus once stated “[Luther] allows the canon to stand as it was established by the ancient church. But he makes distinctions within the canon.” It is these “distinctions” that are often seen as removal. In these prefaces, Luther explained that he understood the Biblical books in an order based on how clearly “Christ the gospel of free grace and justification through faith alone” was enunciated. He considered this to be the apostolic standard by which all was evaluated.

 

[JonNC]

This is certainly true, to a degree, as I see it. Take the Book of James for instance. Even though Luther arrived at the harmonizing solution between James and Paul, it is probably the case that the question of James’ apostleship outweighed it. Luther’s questioning of James primarily has to do with the book’s status in Church history, and it’s internal evidence as to its apostolicity. For Luther, James was the writing of a second century Christian, therefore not an apostle nor an eyewitness of the risen Christ. Did Luther simply arrive at this conclusion without a basis? No. Throughout his career, he maintained (as you have pointed out) a position that echoed other voices from church history. This trumped any type of harmonization between Paul and James.

On the other hand, while I have not read Pieper’s article, it it usually brought out that Luther also had a theological construct of a canon within a canon. Paul Althaus once stated “[Luther] allows the canon to stand as it was established by the ancient church. But he makes distinctions within the canon.” It is these “distinctions” that are often seen as removal. In these prefaces, Luther explained that he understood the Biblical books in an order based on how clearly “Christ the gospel of free grace and justification through faith alone” was enunciated. He considered this to be the apostolic standard by which all was evaluated.

I think a lot of the complaint in this regard comes from Luther’s typical bravado and hyperbole. He often speaks in extremes, even though in the end his views are not extreme at all (in fact so not extreme that other protestants even today opine that he did not go far enough). Some of that hyperbole and bravado, ISTM, comes from an (over?)reaction to the practices of the day. He complains of the CC using James to a far greater degree than Paul, for example.

Jon

 

[TertiumQuid]

I think a lot of the complaint in this regard comes from Luther’s typical bravado and hyperbole. He often speaks in extremes, even though in the end his views are not extreme at all (in fact so not extreme that other protestants even today opine that he did not go far enough). Some of that hyperbole and bravado, ISTM, comes from an (over?)reaction to the practices of the day. He complains of the CC using James to a far greater degree than Paul, for example. Jon

Good point. My experience has been that the acceptance or rejection of Luther’s use of bravado and hyperbole depends on the interpretation of the reader. This is one of the complexities of dialog between Catholics and Protestants on history. Each of us has an interpretation of history, and this includes all individual Catholics (there is no infallible interpretation of the Reformation period). I think this problem of historical interpretation is quite evident in this very discussion. Whose interpretation of history is correct? Whose interpretation of Luther is correct? Within Catholicism, Protestantism, and secularists there are quite a number of Luther’s, which is one of the reasons I’ve so enjoyed studying him. “Luther” is simply a complexity. The Reformation period is a complexity. For me in these discussions, quoting this or that historian (like Bainton) has its uses, but ultimately I’m more interested in those opinions coming from people who’ve actually read Luther and can back up their opinions from primary contexts.

In regard to the “Protestant Canon” (the actual topic here, despite a myriad of tangents), the fundamental issue comes down to answering How is canonicity determined? Luther’s was one answer that has strengths and weaknesses, but I never found his way of determining canonicity completely satisfying. Similarly with the Catholic paradigm, I don’t see the answers they provide being consistent with history. Both though have strengths and weaknesses.

 

[JonNC]

Good point. My experience has been that the acceptance or rejection of Luther’s use of bravado and hyperbole depends on the interpretation of the reader. This is one of the complexities of dialog between Catholics and Protestants on history. Each of us has an interpretation of history, and this includes all individual Catholics (there is no infallible interpretation of the Reformation period). I think this problem of historical interpretation is quite evident in this very discussion. Whose interpretation of history is correct? Whose interpretation of Luther is correct? Within Catholicism, Protestantism, and secularists there are quite a number of Luther’s, which is one of the reasons I’ve so enjoyed studying him. “Luther” is simply a complexity. The Reformation period is a complexity. For me in these discussions, quoting this or that historian (like Bainton) has its uses, but ultimately I’m more interested in those opinions coming from people who’ve actually read Luther and can back up their opinions from primary contexts.

In regard to the “Protestant Canon” (the actual topic here, despite a myriad of tangents), the fundamental issue comes down to answering How is canonicity determined? Luther’s was one answer that has strengths and weaknesses, but I never found his way of determining canonicity completely satisfying. Similarly with the Catholic paradigm, I don’t see the answers they provide being consistent with history. Both though have strengths and weaknesses.

I agree with much of what you have said. The irony for me is that while I’m defending Luther’s liberty to dispute the DC’s, I’m not convinced that Luther’s conclusions show enough deference to the Church Catholic, while I’m working my way through the DC’s and other apocryphal books. :whacky:

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,
Thanks for your response.

Perhaps you have had a monologue on this, be we certainly haven’t been having a discussion on it.

First of all, this is a dialogue and it isn’t. It is in that I post things and you respond and then I respond back. That is a dialogue. On the other hand, when I ask very simple, very important and very pointed questions and you avoid them, then that is NOT a dialogue. If you can’t answer the questions (without admitting things you don’t want to admit, then just say so. Those questions, repeated from earlier are as follows:

1. Do you think Luther was right or wrong to speak of Holy Scripture so disrespectfully? Yes or no?
2. Would you be opposed to a Lutheran minister today who either wrote such things or preached them from the pulpit?
3. Would there be consequences for your minister if they were to make those kinds of public statements?
4. Do you think that the Catholics of Luther’s day were wrong to criticize him over his statements?
5. Most importantly, by what Authority (specifically and exactly) did Luther make those disrespectful comments about Holy Scripture?

That’s not what the quote says. He doesn’t say “change” the canon. He says “disrupt”. the only way I might disagree with Bainton is I don’t believe Luther had the power to change the canon. And Luther’s response to Tradition is precisely what I’ve been saying: Luther had the Catholic liberty to challenge and even dispute the canon prior to Trent, just like any other Catholic, and this he did while frequently stating it was his opinion, and in the end, he responds and defers to the Tradition of the western Church by seeing to it that all 73 books are translated and included, except for the arrangement of the books, and the addition of the Prayer of Manasseh.

You say that Luther had the Catholic liberty’. I need to understand this statement better. Exactly who, specifically and exactly, that the ‘Catholic liberty’? Did all lay Catholics have that liberty? Or was it Catholic Theologians, or Professors, or Doctors, or monks or Priests? Which is it?

This is, at best, deceptive. Luther did not produce a final translation until 1534, and he had plenty of help, particularly with the OT.
He was hiding at Wartburg because there was a death threat on his head.
And the last part of this is why it is so difficult to dialogue with you. You, in the bolded, make an accusation on a man 450 years dead that simply is not true.

First of all Jon, the word ‘deceptive’ is a VERY STRONG WORD. An offensive word. It implies that I have intentionally misrepresented some fact and I have NOT! What, specifically and exactly are you accusing me of? If you don’t have anything specific to point to then I will simply presume that you mistakenly chose the wrong word to use

It is a known fact that Luther spent 11 week translating the NT, which was published in 1522. This was hardly a scholarly accomplishment and I would say that the it was extremely disrespectful towards Scripture to do such a rushed job. Furthermore, his “translation” was very biased in favor of his pet doctrine, Salvation by Faith Alone. In fact, he read SBFA into Scripture where it

I can’t speak for protestants, but as for Lutheranism, the Lutheran confessions do not identify by book a specific canon. It can be said that, technically, for Lutherans, the canon remains open. In practice, however, this:
internetmonk.com/archive/thinking-about-the-canon-a-lutheran-view

First of I, I find it astonishing that Lutherans do not have a canon. Not the least bit surprising, but still – astonishing. I think that this is something which need to be further explored.

I read the article, which says:

“So what’s our answer? Well, go back to that word, “canon.” “Canon” means “rule.” So the point of a canon isn’t to just have some final Table of Contents on which to draw up a dogma and so that we can excommunicate everyone who refuses to stop asking the historical questions, it’s to have a rule of faith for settling doctrinal disputes and the like. Thus the Lutheran approach to the canon is to have a rule of interpretation essentially defined by the certainty to which we can establish a book’s origin:

1. A dogma must be established by the universally attested books (homolegomena).
2. Dogma may be corroborated by the contested books (antilegomena), and they may be read for historical background, advice, and other edifying purposes, but no dogma can be established from the antilegomena alone, nor can the antilegomena be pitted against the homolegomena.

An example of the application of this is that Lutherans will never make some particular interpretation of Revelation a church-defining issue.”

So, I see that just like Luther, the Lutheran church judges Scripture. Of course the above quote begs the following question.

Jon, which books belong in the homolegomena and which books belong in the antilegomena?

God Bless You Jon, Tim

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;11589686]Hi Jon,
Thanks for your response.
First of all, this is a dialogue and it isn’t. It is in that I post things and you respond and then I respond back. That is a dialogue. On the other hand, when I ask very simple, very important and very pointed questions and you avoid them, then that is NOT a dialogue. If you can’t answer the questions (without admitting things you don’t want to admit, then just say so. Those questions, repeated from earlier are as follows:

The title of the thread is the “protestant canon”, not “Luther’s disrespect for scripture”.

1. Do you think Luther was right or wrong to speak of Holy Scripture so disrespectfully? Yes or no?
I don’t believe he was disrespectful to scripture.

1. Would you be opposed to a Lutheran minister today who either wrote such things or preached them from the pulpit?

One’s opinion in the Lutheran setting regarding the canon probably doesn’t belong in the pulpit

1. Would there be consequences for your minister if they were to make those kinds of public statements?

I will let Walther respond.

What induces us to discuss this question is the fact that Pastor Roebbelen in connection with the glosses on the Revelation of St. John published in the Lutheraner also stated that with Luther he does not regard the Apocalypse as canonical. This has, we are informed, given great offense in some quarters. Now, we do not agree with our dear brother Roebbelen on this point; we are convinced that this precious book, so rich in comfort for the Christians and the Church, belongs to the canon. Still, we believe that it is not fair – probably it is due to ignorance of the facts of the case – to stamp an otherwise unimpeachable theologian as a dangerous false teacher, who renders the very Word of God suspect, one who sincerely receives as canonical all homologoumena (universally accepted books), but who has his doubts as to the canonicity of one or the other of the antilegomena (disputed books). This would be thoroughly un-Lutheran. For our dear fathers in the faith, with hardly an exception till after the time of the Formula of Concord, regarded and declared all or at least some of the antilegomena as not belonging to the canon; and they did that not from hastiness or levity toward the Word of God, but, on the contrary, because they were very conscientious with regard to the Word of God. Luther’s opinions on the antilegomena are not a “blot” on our Church, but they rather bear witness how careful our Church once was in determining the standard and norm of our faith and life.

4. Do you think that the Catholics of Luther’s day were wrong to criticize him over his statements?
No. They were allowed their opinion, as well. It would be hypocritical for me, on the one hand, to demand Luther be given his liberty, while on the other complaining about the Catholic liberty of others.

1. Most importantly, by what Authority (specifically and exactly) did Luther make those disrespectful comments about Holy Scripture?

They were not disrespectful comments, but to answer the rest of the question while ignoring the polemic, he had the same authority as Cajetan had:

“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.”

and Eusebius:

Among the disputed writings, 10 which are nevertheless recognized 11 by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James 12 and that of Jude, 13 also the second epistle of Peter, 14 and those that are called the second and third of John, 15 whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name.
Among the rejected writings 16 must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, 17 and the so-called Shepherd, 18 and the Apocalypse of Peter, 19 and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, 20 and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; 21 and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, 22 but which others class with the accepted books. 23

continued

 

[JonNC]

You say that Luther had the Catholic liberty’. I need to understand this statement better. Exactly who, specifically and exactly, that the ‘Catholic liberty’? Did all lay Catholics have that liberty? Or was it Catholic Theologians, or Professors, or Doctors, or monks or Priests? Which is it?

Certainly Catholic theologians such as Luther, Cajetan, Erasmus, Melito, Eusebius, Jerome, and more.

First of all Jon, the word ‘deceptive’ is a VERY STRONG WORD. An offensive word. It implies that I have intentionally misrepresented some fact and I have NOT! What, specifically and exactly are you accusing me of? If you don’t have anything specific to point to then I will simply presume that you mistakenly chose the wrong word to use

It is a known fact that Luther spent 11 week translating the NT, which was published in 1522. This was hardly a scholarly accomplishment and I would say that the it was extremely disrespectful towards Scripture to do such a rushed job. Furthermore, his “translation” was very biased in favor of his pet doctrine, Salvation by Faith Alone. In fact, he read SBFA into Scripture where it

You didn’t say the NT. You said: We must remember though, that he produced* his translation **in only a mere 11 weeks (and part time at that), so it wasn’t like he really did a thorough job. In addition, he did it alone, hiding at the Wartburg, seething over his failure to achieve his goals at Worms, obviously determined to damage the Catholic Church as much as possible and further his do or die doctrine – Salvation by Faith Alone. *
He translated the entire 74 books, and he had help, and it took far more than 11 weeks to do it. He didn’t finish it entirely until 1534. For obvious reasons, I interpreted your meaning as you presented it.

First of I, I find it astonishing that Lutherans do not have a canon. Not the least bit surprising, but still – astonishing. I think that this is something which need to be further explored.

I’m happy to try.

I read the article, which says:

“So what’s our answer? Well, go back to that word, “canon.” “Canon” means “rule.” So the point of a canon isn’t to just have some final Table of Contents on which to draw up a dogma and so that we can excommunicate everyone who refuses to stop asking the historical questions, it’s to have a rule of faith for settling doctrinal disputes and the like. Thus the Lutheran approach to the canon is to have a rule of interpretation essentially defined by the certainty to which we can establish a book’s origin:

1. A dogma must be established by the universally attested books (homolegomena).

1. Dogma may be corroborated by the contested books (antilegomena), and they may be read for historical background, advice, and other edifying purposes, but no dogma can be established from the antilegomena alone, nor can the antilegomena be pitted against the homolegomena.

An example of the application of this is that Lutherans will never make some particular interpretation of Revelation a church-defining issue.”

So, I see that just like Luther, the Lutheran church judges Scripture. Of course the above quote begs the following question.

Jon, which books belong in the homolegomena and which books belong in the antilegomena?

Then you misunderstand the article. We view the canon from the POV of the early Church, during which there are attested, disputed, and rejected books. Again from Walther:

This entire dispute, then, resolves itself into the question whether it is certain and indubitable that these books are the divinely inspired Scriptures. The entire antiquity responds that this is not certain, but has been doubtful because of the contradiction of so many…

Does this mean that these books are simply to be rejected and condemned? We are by no means seeking this. Then of what use is this dispute? I answer: To make sure the rule of faith or sound doctrine in the Church. For the ancients held that the authority of the Church dogmas rests solely on the canonical books. It was held that only by the authority of the canonical books could those things be established about which any dispute arose. The rest of the books which Cyprian calls ecclesiastical, Jerome apocryphal, were to be read in the Church for the edification of the people, but not to prove the dogmas of the Church. … No dogma which does not have a certain and clear foundation in the canonical books dare be constructed from these books. Nothing that is in controversy may be proved from these books if there are no other proofs and confirmations in the canonical books. But what is said in these books must be explained and understood according to the analogy of what is clearly set down in the canonical books. There can be no doubt that this is the meaning of the ancient Church.

God Bless You Jon

And also with you. Here’s hoping that you and I, in the future, can have charitable dialogue, as our communions are currently having.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Jon, which books belong in the homolegomena and which books belong in the antilegomena?

Sorry I missed this, Tim.
It depends on who you are speaking of. Of the ancients and the Fathers, the list of disputed books vary. As a result, Lutherans have taken a cautious, conservative approach to James, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation. Just because they are Antilegomena doesn’t mean they aren’t apart of the canon.

Jon