Protestant Canon

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

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.

OK, so according to you, Luther saying that he would like to throw James in the fire is not disrespectful? If that is true, then please don’t ever accuse me of being disrespectful towards Luther, because you have set the bar extremely low. Of course, in using that high (or low) bar as a definition as to what is disrespectful, you would be perfectly within bounds to associate the pope with the anti-Christ, as you have recently on another thread.

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

Criticism of whole books of the bible shouldn’t be done from the pulpit but is ok within the covers of the Bible?

I will let Walther respond.

Jon. I have no idea who this Walther is, or what text this is from. For all I know he is a Lutheran and is therefore biased towards Luther. Without understanding the context of the situation, I am not sure what it is saying. Please tell me what you think this quote means.

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.

That’s good because it means that I can criticize him as much as “needs be” and you have to support me in my ‘Catholic liberty’. That would also mean that you were wrong to criticize me earlier for my comments about Luther.

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: and Eusebius:

That’s not at all true Jon. The throwing in the fire comment was not disrespectful? If not then what could be? As for Cajetan and Eusebius, both of them were Bishops. They were both successors to the Apostles. Luther was not. Furthermore, Eusebius died before the Catholic Church settled the canon in the late 4th century. You can claim that it was not dogmatically settled, but for all practical purposes it was. There was relatively little disagreement on the canon until the Reformation, when Luther chose to question literally everything, showing very little deference to all those who had come before him. The canon was set and the only reason that the Church HAD to pronounce it AGAIN, dogmatically, was because Luther was like a wild boar in the vineyard, running amok with the canon. If you would like I post the information on all of the early Christian Councils and popes who had pronounced the 73 book canon. Then you could explain what it was, specifically and exactly, that made your Lutheran forefathers judgment superior.

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

OK, so it was his function as a Catholic Theologian which gave him the ‘right’ to question the canon? Certainly when he became a Doctor he was given more rights to question and dispute than prior to becoming a Doctor. Are you saying that anyone who is a Catholic Doctor (sanctioned by the Church) has the right to question EVERYTHING about the canon? If not, then what are the limits of what is allowable?

In addition, the Church grants those rights to the Doctors which it sanctions. Luther WAS sanctioned by the Church as a Doctor of Sacred Scripture. But then, beginning with his being released from his vows as a monk by Staupitz in 1518 (I think), and culminating with his excommunication from the Church, Luther no longer was a Catholic sanctioned Theologian. He was judged to be an unrepentant heretic and as such, from the time of his excommunication, he no longer had any rights a Catholic, not even as a lay Catholic. When he was rushing through his 11 week effort to translate the NT, he was no longer a Catholic and was no longer sanctioned to do anything. What he did he did 100% on his own personal authority, which he probably didn’t notice because that is what he had been doing for years,

All of the people you listed stayed in communion with the Church. Even Erasmus, who was less inclined to liberal actions after watching the problems that Luther’s revolt caused. In essence, Luther had certain limited authorities before his excommunication and none after. In addition, there is a practical limit as to how many things you can challenge at one time, and how fiercely you can do it. Luther went WAY overboard in that respect, by taking some really extreme positions on dozens of issues, which is the mark of a dangerous heretic.

Part two next

 

[Topper17]

Part 2, part 1 is the previous post.

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:

I think what this really comes down to Jon is the Lutheran inability (officially) to see any value in or give any credence to the Councils of the Catholic Church. Your denomination has very much adopted Luther’s extreme distrust for anything Catholic. Of course he believed that neither popes nor councils can be trusted to be infallible, because they are just human. On the other hand, he taught and wrote with an astonishing level of presumed authority and it certainly doesn’t appear that he viewed his own self-appointed authority with such skepticism. In addition, whereas Lutherans dismiss all but the earliest Councils, because they were only meetings of human beings, somehow, we Catholics are supposed to place a great deal more trust in the ‘ability’ of the Lutheran meetings where the same kind of human men met and drew up a bunch of doctrinal documents. How do you explain the Lutheran acceptance of and reliance on one set of humans over the other(s)?

Please tell me – How many people were involved in the formulation of the Lutheran Confessional documents? Where were they from – meaning, where they all from one restricted area of the earth, or were they from all of the Christian world? Most importantly, especially in regards to the determination of the canon (or not), how are we Catholics supposed to believe that this body of men were inspired by the Holy Spirit to determine what the canon should be?

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

You have to admit Jon, that downgrading James and the others really makes it easier to promulgate SBFA because you don’t have to worry about what that confused Jew who lived generations after the Apostles said about faith alone. In addition, Luther, and apparently also Lutherans did not judge Scripture only on the basis that you describe. If he had, and if Lutherans did, they would also question the canonicity of several other NT books.

“Luther knew that those books had been disputed in earlier days: that, however, is not his main reason for relegating them to a secondary status. He appears to have had no difficulty with 2 Peter or 2 or 3 John, which had also been disputed. His main reason is that in the four relegated books he could not find that clear promotion of Christ which was the principle note of holy scripture. (Protestant) F. F. Bruce, “The Canon of Scripture”, pg 244, from a Dave Armstrong article, (that is the GREAT Dave Armstrong)

So why didn’t Luther and why don’t Lutherans question the canonicity of 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John? After all, if they “follow” the ancient Fathers, then they would have to place these three books in the Antilegomena. To not do so is to be very subjective, which of course is a charge that Protestantism is used to dealing with (but not successfully).

Jon, this discussion will soon be digging into the absolute minutia if we each continue to respond to last comment by the other. Although I prefer to address everything that has been said, it is not conducive to advancing the topic with new information. Therefore I leave it to you to decide whether you want to comment on these posts or whether you are willing to start fresh. Your choice.

May God Bless You Jon, Tim

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;11593121]Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

OK, so according to you, Luther saying that he would like to throw James in the fire is not disrespectful? If that is true, then please don’t ever accuse me of being disrespectful towards Luther, because you have set the bar extremely low. Of course, in using that high (or low) bar as a definition as to what is disrespectful, you would be perfectly within bounds to associate the pope with the anti-Christ, as you have recently on another thread.

Do you know the context of the remark?
do you know the context of the usage of the term?

Criticism of whole books of the bible shouldn’t be done from the pulpit but is ok within the covers of the Bible?

You’re complaint then is equally attached to Jerome. The practice of putting personal prefaces is not new to Luther.

Jon. I have no idea who this Walther is, or what text this is from. For all I know he is a Lutheran and is therefore biased towards Luther. Without understanding the context of the situation, I am not sure what it is saying. Please tell me what you think this quote means.

Well, of course I quoted a Lutheran. The question you asked was about Lutheran practice.
." Would there be consequences for your minister if they were to make those kinds of public statements?"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._F._W._Walther

That’s good because it means that I can criticize him as much as “needs be” and you have to support me in my ‘Catholic liberty’. That would also mean that you were wrong to criticize me earlier for my comments about Luther.

Criticize him, or his opinion about the canon. If you make personal attacks, then you know I won’t respond in kind, but will just stop dialogue. That’s up to you. If you think that his understanding of the history of, say, the book of James was faulty, criticize away, and we can talk about it.

That’s not at all true Jon. The throwing in the fire comment was not disrespectful? If not then what could be?

Research the context of the quote. James Swan has done so, and its posted on his blog, beggars all.

As for Cajetan and Eusebius, both of them were Bishops. They were both successors to the Apostles. Luther was not. Furthermore, Eusebius died before the Catholic Church settled the canon in the late 4th century.

Cajetan was a Cardinal as well. So, you believe it was ok for a Cardinal to claim the DC’s were not canon, and dispute some of the NT Antilegomena, but not Luther? I don’t think it worked that way, Tim. Eusebius’ view of the canon is highly respected to this day.

You can claim that it was not dogmatically settled, but for all practical purposes it was.

Then your argument is with The New Catholic Encyclopedia, and Robert Sungenis.

There was relatively little disagreement on the canon until the Reformation, when Luther chose to question literally everything, showing very little deference to all those who had come before him.

Tim, this is just historically inaccurate.

The canon was set and the only reason that the Church HAD to pronounce it AGAIN, dogmatically, was because Luther was like a wild boar in the vineyard, running amok with the canon. If you would like I post the information on all of the early Christian Councils and popes who had pronounced the 73 book canon. Then you could explain what it was, specifically and exactly, that made your Lutheran forefathers judgment superior.

You need to read back in the thread, where TertiumQuid quotes the Catholic Encyclopedia. Trent is the final word for the Rome.

OK, so it was his function as a Catholic Theologian which gave him the ‘right’ to question the canon? Certainly when he became a Doctor he was given more rights to question and dispute than prior to becoming a Doctor. Are you saying that anyone who is a Catholic Doctor (sanctioned by the Church) has the right to question EVERYTHING about the canon? If not, then what are the limits of what is allowable?

I’m not the Catholic here. you are. The canon of scripture was open for dispute prior to Trent. If you have documentation of greater authority than what has been quoted from Catholic sources in the thread on the matter, present them. Here’s the quote from Sungenis:

As regards infallibility, it is true that only at the council of Trent did the canon finally become infallible and irreformable, and that is because Trent made it crystal clear it was doing so. The Council of Florence did not use the key words in its formulation that Trent finally used. Granted, Catholics during the time of Florence had to give their assent to what Florence decreed, but this did not mean, for sake of conscience, that a Catholic could not contest what Florence said about the canon. This is why even Cardinal Cajetan contested Florence’s canon list. So yes, Luther could contest the canon prior to Trent and do so quite legitimately. But this would only force the Church to make the final decision, and it did so in 1563, after which Luther would have been bound to obey it. If not, he would have been excommunicated, just as he was in 1520.

The bolding is mine.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Part 2, part 1 is the previous post.

I think what this really comes down to Jon is the Lutheran inability (officially) to see any value in or give any credence to the Councils of the Catholic Church. Your denomination has very much adopted Luther’s extreme distrust for anything Catholic. Of course he believed that neither popes nor councils can be trusted to be infallible, because they are just human. On the other hand, he taught and wrote with an astonishing level of presumed authority and it certainly doesn’t appear that he viewed his own self-appointed authority with such skepticism. In addition, whereas Lutherans dismiss all but the earliest Councils, because they were only meetings of human beings, somehow, we Catholics are supposed to place a great deal more trust in the ‘ability’ of the Lutheran meetings where the same kind of human men met and drew up a bunch of doctrinal documents. How do you explain the Lutheran acceptance of and reliance on one set of humans over the other(s)?

 

[TertiumQuid]

The throwing in the fire comment was not disrespectful? If not then what could be?

There are at least two sources I’m aware of in which Luther is said to have wanted “to throw James in the fire.” The first statement is a Tabletalk reference, which means Luther didn’t write it, but is something he is reported to have said. The second statement comes from a 1542 writing in which it isn’t clear at all that the actual book of James is in question, but rather a statue of Saint James. Regardless, the statements reflect Luther’s frustration with his catholic critics who relied on James 2. Where I would fault Luther here is not for his fire / stove comment (which is nothing more than polemics), but rather the ease in which he gave up on the consistent harmonizing of James with Paul as a response to the critics. In the same context of the second statement, Luther admits to having interpreted James 2 previously according to the sense of the rest of scripture. In fact, one can actually find Luther presenting the typical protestant harmonization of James and Paul.

There was relatively little disagreement on the canon until the Reformation, when Luther chose to question literally everything, showing very little deference to all those who had come before him.

I’ve seen this particular topic debated endlessly over the years. As far as I can tell in terms of the Intertestamental books. there were two traditions running concurrently through the church, one accepting them, one rejecting them (I’ve seen both traditions argued as the prevalent one). This is why there were a group of excellent scholars at Trent arguing to exclude them. In regard to the New Testament books, I would agree that there probably was 'relatively little disagreement." What I think provoked 16th Century theologians like Cajetan, Luther, Erasmus, etc. was the recovery of Greek and Hebrew. Cajetan for instance, came under heavy attack from the Paris theologians for relegating the Latin Vulgate as inferior to the Hebrew and Greek. Cajetan questioned the authenticity of a number of New Testament Bible passages, and in his criticism he invoked Jerome’s authority as support. To sum it up, the reason for questioning the New Testament canon during the 16th Century had a lot to do with the recovery of the original Biblical languages. Certainly Luther went a step further and attached a theological criteria, but once again there were no dogmatic parameters in place to prevent this.

In addition, the Church grants those rights to the Doctors which it sanctions. Luther WAS sanctioned by the Church as a Doctor of Sacred Scripture. But then, beginning with his being released from his vows as a monk by Staupitz in 1518 (I think), and culminating with his excommunication from the Church, Luther no longer was a Catholic sanctioned Theologian. He was judged to be an unrepentant heretic and as such, from the time of his excommunication, he no longer had any rights a Catholic, not even as a lay Catholic.

First, Trent never condemned Luther by name. That is, there is no infallible dogmatic pronouncement against Luther. In other words, a Catholic has no official judgment on Luther to which he is bound. This is why there is such a thing as Catholic Luther scholarship. Second, Jimmy Akin has an interesting article called “Identifying Infallible Statements.” In that article he points out that Exsurge Dominae was not infallible, nor was Luther condemned for violating infallibly defined dogmas. Third, the Edict of Worms was decreed by Charles V deeming Luther a heretic, but to my knowledge, the statements of Charles V are not considered infallible by the Catholic church.

Pope John Paul II exhorted his hearers one time to “meditate, in truth and Christian charity” on the Reformation period. This suggests to me that the same sort of allowances made for the theological errors of Erasmus and Cajetan could be extended to Luther on the extent of the canon. John Paul went on to say that the event of the Reformation can be “understood and represented better” when those of us in later centuries can look back and reflect on what happened What JonNC has been demonstrating is that if one takes the time to look at the actual historical situation of Luther’s canon, he was certainly not alone. To allow Cajetan and Erasmus a free pass while condemning Luther on this issue could, in the minds of some people, demonstrate double standards or an underlying unjustified bias.

"Where polemics have clouded the view, the direction of this view must be corrected and independently by one side or the other."- John Paul II on Luther and the Reformation

 

[spina1953]

Hi Tertium Quid: Your post 244 is excellent and very informative and enlightening. made a lot of sense.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

As I mentioned in an earlier post, Luther’s radical doctrine of Salvation by Faith Alone (SBFA) was what drove him and was an integral part of not only how he interpreted Scripture but also how he translated Scripture. In addition, SBFA had a great deal to do with his criticism of and also his disrespectful attitudes towards whole books of inspired Scripture. The following quotes help flesh out this point:

“But the text never mattered much to him (Luther). If he did not have (when preaching), the Pauline words, “The just shall live by faith,” he could readily extract the same point from the example of the paralytic in the Gospels, whose sins were forgiven before his disease was cured.” Bainton, pg. 361

This is a startling admission from an unusually pro-Luther biographer. Luther was so intent on ‘discovering’ SBFA in as many places as he could ‘find’ it that he had to ‘find’ it where it didn’t exist. The comment “the text never mattered much to him” should be troubling to Protestants, especially with respect to Luther as a translator of Sacred Scripture, or as a judge of books of the Bible.

One of the things common to all heresies is that they tend to focus on one (poorly understood) aspect of Christian teaching, emphasizing that aspect to the detriment of the whole gospel message. For Luther, SBFA was emphasized at the expense of the Scriptural teachings on Christian charity, or Christian love. The noted Lutheran Theologian Paul Tillich makes the point rather bluntly:

“It is a shortcoming of Protestantism that it never has sufficiently described the place of love in the whole of Christianity. This is due to the genesis and history of Protestantism. The Reformation had to fight against the partly magical, partly moralistic, partly relativistic distortion of the idea of love in later Catholicism. But this fight was only a consequence of Luther’s fight against the Catholic doctrine of faith. And so faith and not love occupied the center of Protestant thought. While Zwingli and Calvin, by their humanisti-biblistic stress on the function of the law, were prevented from developing a doctrine of love, Luther’s doctrine of love and wrath (of God and government) prevented him from connecting love with law and justice. The result was puritanism without love in the Calvinist countries and romanticism without justice in the Lutheran countries.” Paul Tillich, “The Protestant Era”, pg. xxii

It should not surprise anyone, that, at least in the estimation of a Lutheran Theologian, Luther had a detrimental impact on the place of love in Protestantism. After all, Luther was not exactly the most ‘loving’ Theologian in history.

“He grounded his claims of certainty on Scripture, and even in his own time, scripture proved to be a frail reed. Many of the problems illuminated by later biblical scholarship were known in outline form in Luther’s time, and he skinned his knees on lots of them. 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

Because of the “profound needs of his own psyche”, Luther found it necessary to ‘find’ Scripture to support Salvation by Faith Alone that he FORCED them to say it. All of this was done to overcome his terrors, terrors which he felt would tear his body apart if they lasted another second. His fears caused him to “make” the Bible say what it didn’t say. To admit that Salvation was not by Faith Alone was to return him to a terror which was extremely mild compared to the fear associated with excommunication.

Luther’s disrespectful attitude towards Scripture has obviously had a tremendous impact on Protestantism in general and Lutheranism in particular. By defining a NT homologoumena and a NT antilegomena, using one in a manner different than the other, is placing one group of Scripture above the other. That is judging Scripture and the fact is that Luther rejected (at least) James, mostly because it disagree with Salvation By Faith Alone. The idea that he placed those four books into a separate category simply because they had been doubted by the ancient Church is to be far too willing to find the best in Luther. If that had been his conscious reasoning, then he would have found it ‘necessary’ to question several other books also (2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John).

Jon, the fact of the matter is that Luther judged Scripture and put a “different value” on some books of the NT in relation to other books. In addition, what Luther really did was make distinctions on the basis of what he thought was the ‘relative authority’ of various books of the NT. These things cannot be denied.
God Bless You Jon, Tim

BTW, yes in fact I do know the context.

 

[steido01]

I just want to give a big ‘thank you’ to those who are teaching us so much about our faith and the history of Christendom. It takes much effort and study to find the truth, which is often shrouded by polemics of the past and proof-texters of the present. The sincere Christian patience displayed by the more knowledgeable posters on CAF truly, truly amazes me. If reunification ever happens on this earth, it will be because of Christians like you. Thanks again for your wonderful example!

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon,

Jon, the fact of the matter is that Luther judged Scripture and put a “different value” on some books of the NT in relation to other books. In addition, what Luther really did was make distinctions on the basis of what he thought was the ‘relative authority’ of various books of the NT. These things cannot be denied.
God Bless You Jon, Tim

.

You’re right. Luther had distinct personal view of books, based on his very Christocentric view. Nothing wrong with that. I have a remarkable strong liking for the Prayer of Manasseh. I disagree with some of the things Luther said about James. I am more inclined and find more personal value in Isaiah and the other prophetic books of the OT than I find in books such as 1 and 2 Kings. I’ve made these distinctions in my personal piety. Nothing wrong with these, either.
But, Tim, if you have different preferences, by all means, you are welcome to them.
Jon

 

[TertiumQuid]

You’re right. Luther had distinct personal view of books, based on his very Christocentric view. Nothing wrong with that.

What’s interesting about placing different values on books of the Bible is that in theory, it isn’t all that radical, and is typically done to some degree, either intentionally or unintentionally by most people committed to the Bible. For instance, I can recall conversations about justification in which a protestant will gravitate around Romans and a Catholic will gravitate around one of the four gospels. Each thinks the Biblical book they’re utilizing is more important on the subject at hand and is clearer on the issue at hand. This is simply placing value on individual Biblical books.

This is what Luther did. All the books of the Bible testified to Christ, some more clearly than others. Here there should be no disagreement (that the entirety of the Scriptures testify to one unifying theme: Jesus Christ). Shouldn’t anyone claiming to be “Christian” have a “Christocentric view” of the Scriptures?

Here there should be no disagreement either that certain books will present Christ and the way of salvation clearer than in other books. That’s really the heart of what Luther was getting at. One can argue that he didn’t work it out correctly (i.e., his opinions on James, etc.), but in theory, I think he was spot on.

 

[TertiumQuid]

“But the text never mattered much to him (Luther). If he did not have (when preaching), the Pauline words, “The just shall live by faith,” he could readily extract the same point from the example of the paralytic in the Gospels, whose sins were forgiven before his disease was cured.” Bainton, pg. 361

This is a startling admission from an unusually pro-Luther biographer. Luther was so intent on ‘discovering’ SBFA in as many places as he could ‘find’ it that he had to ‘find’ it where it didn’t exist. The comment “the text never mattered much to him” should be troubling to Protestants, especially with respect to Luther as a translator of Sacred Scripture, or as a judge of books of the Bible.

I’m not troubled by Bainton’s quote.

Bainton’s Here I Stand is arguably the most popular of all Luther biographies in English (perhaps though not the best), and is available free on-line if you snoop around for it. In context, Bainton was saying that Luther could find Paul’s explicit theology that “The just shall live by faith” (Romans 3:28) implicitly in the Gospels. That’s why Bainton gave the example of the paralytic. Both Protestants and Catholics have a systematic theology. It shouldn’t be surprising when a preacher of either persuasion finds unifying themes implicitly where they’re presented elsewhere explicitly. That’s all Bainton was getting at.

Bainton goes on to point out immediately that Luther also exegeted Scripture in his sermons beyond finding the heart of the gospel:

Luther’s sermons followed the course prescribed by the Christian year and the lessons assigned by long usage to each Sunday. In this area he did not innovate. Because he commonly spoke at the nine o’clock service, his sermons are mostly on the Gospels rather than upon his favorite Pauline epistles. But the text never mattered much to him. If he did not have before him the Pauline words, “The just shall live by faith,” he could readily extract the same point from the example of the paralytic in the Gospels, whose sins were forgiven before his disease was cured. Year after year Luther preached on the same passages and on the same great events: Advent, Christmas, Epiphany, Lent, Easter, Pentecost. If one now reads through his sermons of thirty years on a single theme, one is amazed at the freshness with which each year he illumined some new aspect. When one has the feeling that there is nothing startling this time, then comes a flash. He is narrating the betrayal of Jesus. Judas returns the thirty pieces of silver with the words, “I have betrayed innocent blood,” and the priest answers, “What is that to us?” Luther comments that there is no loneliness like the loneliness of a traitor since even his confederates give him no sympathy. The sermons cover every theme from the sublimity of God to the greed of a sow.

Having read Luther’s sermons for quite a few years now, I can testify to the truth of what Bainton is saying. Certainly Luther located the theme that “The just shall live by faith” often in his sermons, but he did far more.

 

[spina1953]

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.

 

[Topper17]

You’re right. Luther had distinct personal view of books, based on his very Christocentric view. Nothing wrong with that. I have a remarkable strong liking for the Prayer of Manasseh. I disagree with some of the things Luther said about James. I am more inclined and find more personal value in Isaiah and the other prophetic books of the OT than I find in books such as 1 and 2 Kings. I’ve made these distinctions in my personal piety. Nothing wrong with these, either.
But, Tim, if you have different preferences, by all means, you are welcome to them.
Jon

Hi Jon,

I think all Christians have their favorite books. Mine are Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus. But what Luther did went far beyond that. He judged books of Scripture, meaning by, among other things, by how well they agreed with his radical theory of Salvation by Faith Alone. In addition, not many of us start our own version of Christianity or publish a Bible in which we make blasphemous remarks about whole books of Holy Scripture. He deserves more scrutiny than do you and I because of his actions and because of the extreme level of authority that he took upon his own shoulders.

The comments of the Great Lutheran Theologian Paul Althaus provide a means by which we can further discuss Luther’s criticism of the New Testament.

“This is the true test of all books, when we see whether or not they preach Christ. For all the Scriptures show us Christ (Rom. 3:21) and St. Paul will know nothing but Christ (I Cor. 2:2). Whatever does not teach Christ is certainly not apostolic even though St. Peter or St. Paul teaches it…Luther was so certain of this, as well as of the interpretation of Scripture, that he did not think of himself as approaching the canon with an arbitrary and autonomously chosen criterion but with the standard which Scripture itself offers in it’s on-going central proclamation (“St. Paul and all the evangelists”). Luther obtained this standard from nowhere else than the Scripture. To that extent it is the Scripture itself that criticizes the canon.” Althaus, “The Theology of Martin Luther:, Pg. 83

Althaus comments that Luther “was so certain of this, as well as of the interpretation of Scripture” of course meaning His Personal Interpretation of Scripture, that he did not see himself as applying a “personalized” approach to the canon. Is he saying that Luther did not even understand how radically He approached the Scriptures? Of course this thread points to and questions the astonishing level of “authority” that Luther Presumed that God had “given” Him. How did Luther presume to actually hold that “authority”.

This idea that, ‘it is Scripture itself that criticizes the canon’, there right from the pen of a celebrated Lutheran Theologian, is a prescription for heresy. With that kind of reasoning, any crackpot can develop some, according to them, ‘Christocentric’ doctrine, which they think is contained in and supported by Scripture, and then, judge other Scripture against that doctrine. There has been way too much evidence of this in the last 500 years and in fact, Luther complained of the phenomenon. Clearly, Luther has been the role model for all of those people who took one aspect of the gospel message, to the detriment of the whole Gospel, and then founded yet another denomination.

Jon, how do we not see the connection between the raging denominilazation and the example that Luther established 500 years ago?

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;11600796]Hi Jon,

I think all Christians have their favorite books. Mine are Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus. But what Luther did went far beyond that. He judged books of Scripture, meaning by, among other things, by how well they agreed with his radical theory of Salvation by Faith Alone. In addition, not many of us start our own version of Christianity or publish a Bible in which we make blasphemous remarks about whole books of Holy Scripture. He deserves more scrutiny than do you and I because of his actions and because of the extreme level of authority that he took upon his own shoulders.

You keep referring to justification by Faith Alone as a radical theory. Apparently your communion doesn’t it so radical.
The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification seems to be evidence of this.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html
Pope Benedict seems to have thought it not so radical:

“That is why Luther’s expression “sola fide” "faith alone’’] is true if faith is not opposed to charity, to love. Faith is to look at Christ, to entrust oneself to Christ, to be
united to Christ, to be conformed to Christ, to his life.”

I am convinced that Benedict had Luther’s preface on Galatians 5:6 in mind when he said this.
Apparently, James Akin seems to think it not so radical:
jimmyakin.com/library/justification-by-faith-alone

But back to the topic, how Luther judged them for himself is his business. Why do you think it any different than your preference for Timothy and Titus? You keep saying he made blasphemous remarks, which is just your biased polemic, and you are welcome to believe it. I don’t believe he was blasphemous at all, wrong in some ways, but not blasphemous.

The comments of the Great Lutheran Theologian Paul Althaus provide a means by which we can further discuss Luther’s criticism of the New Testament.

“This is the true test of all books, when we see whether or not they preach Christ. For all the Scriptures show us Christ (Rom. 3:21) and St. Paul will know nothing but Christ (I Cor. 2:2). Whatever does not teach Christ is certainly not apostolic even though St. Peter or St. Paul teaches it…Luther was so certain of this, as well as of the interpretation of Scripture, that he did not think of himself as approaching the canon with an arbitrary and autonomously chosen criterion but with the standard which Scripture itself offers in it’s on-going central proclamation (“St. Paul and all the evangelists”). Luther obtained this standard from nowhere else than the Scripture. To that extent it is the Scripture itself that criticizes the canon.” Althaus, “The Theology of Martin Luther:, Pg. 83

So?

Althaus comments that Luther “was so certain of this, as well as of the interpretation of Scripture” of course meaning His Personal Interpretation of Scripture, that he did not see himself as applying a “personalized” approach to the canon. Is he saying that Luther did not even understand how radically He approached the Scriptures? Of course this thread points to and questions the astonishing level of “authority” that Luther Presumed that God had “given” Him. How did Luther presume to actually hold that “authority”.

And you got that from the above? Really? You don’t see in this your own self-proclaimed “authority” on what Luther thought and meant?
We’ve gone round and round before, Tim, on this. With great frequency throughout the prefaces, he states without equivocation, that these are his views, and no one is held or bound to them. That’s not the words of someone who thinks he has “authority” over what the canon was or wasn’t, and what others have to believe.

This idea that, ‘it is Scripture itself that criticizes the canon’, there right from the pen of a celebrated Lutheran Theologian, is a prescription for heresy.

Interesting. So you think that it is better to take individual verses out of context, than to look at scripture as a whole? Again, not the topic of the thread.

continued

 

[JonNC]

With that kind of reasoning, any crackpot can develop some, according to them, ‘Christocentric’ doctrine, which they think is contained in and supported by Scripture, and then, judge other Scripture against that doctrine. There has been way too much evidence of this in the last 500 years and in fact, Luther complained of the phenomenon. Clearly, Luther has been the role model for all of those people who took one aspect of the gospel message, to the detriment of the whole Gospel, and then founded yet another denomination.

This is the Lemming Doctrine. The lemming doctrine is that other people, like lemmings, followed Luther either in practice or in some other way, but really didn’t follow Luther. I really don’t buy the Lemming Doctrine. While no fan of Calvin, or Zwingli, etc., I don’t think they lemmings mindless following Luther…but not following Luther.

Jon, how do we not see the connection between the raging denominilazation and the example that Luther established 500 years ago?

Off topic again, but the Anabaptists, and Zwingli both were concurrent to Luther, not part of the Lutheran Reformation. They were not Luther Lemmings. Calvin was a hybrid - took things from Zwingli and borrowed things from Luther. He was not a Luther Lemming.
In all cases, these people were not stupid, maybe misguided, but not stupid. They chose their direction on their own, not because of Luther. They were never “with” Luther or the Lutheran Reformers. Most of the “denominization” comes from the Reformed side. There are very few “splinters” off of Lutheranism, unless you count those Lutherans who have drifted from the confessions.

Jon

 

[Isaiah45_9]

This is the Lemming Doctrine. The lemming doctrine is that other people, like lemmings, followed Luther either in practice or in some other way, but really didn’t follow Luther. I really don’t buy the Lemming Doctrine. While no fan of Calvin, or Zwingli, etc., I don’t think they lemmings mindless following Luther…but not following Luther.

Jon

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Ok, here is another thought on this matter. There is no official protestant canon as there is no all encompassing protestants church. In fact I know of not one single denomination that voted came together and said ok here is the canon. As I recall it was a publishing house that dropped the duetro books form the bible. Maybe Jon or some of our other protestant Brothers can enlighten me (us but is there anything in your traditions that say the books in question can not be used, have to be exclude. or anything or the sort?

 

[JonNC]

Ok, here is another thought on this matter. There is no official protestant canon as there is no all encompassing protestants church. In fact I know of not one single denomination that voted came together and said ok here is the canon. As I recall it was a publishing house that dropped the duetro books form the bible. Maybe Jon or some of our other protestant Brothers can enlighten me (us but is there anything in your traditions that say the books in question can not be used, have to be exclude. or anything or the sort?

Hi Scott,
Historically, it isn’t unusual for different communions to have different canons. The ECF’s often held different views as to what books were canonical or not, and the Orthodox churches vary in their canons. So it isn’t surprising that this would be the case when speaking of western communions.
The exclusion of the DC’s is, AFAIK, peculiar to English translations in the western non-Catholic setting. Lutheran Bibles in Germany have always had them, as I think the case is in Scandinavian countries, though I’m willing to be corrected on this if need be.

The doctrine is guided by scripture as reflected by the Lutheran Confessions. The confessions do not specifically, by book identify a canon. So, technically, the canon remains open for us, but in practice, Lutheranism is fairly specific on how books are used.
To confirm doctrine requires support from the attested books, while the disputed books of the NT can be used in support. Books of the Apocrypha (DC’s) have historically been used liturgically and in our hymnody, and for reading and study. American Lutherans are rediscovering that important role for the DC’s.

Jon

 

[Per_Crucem]

Ok, here is another thought on this matter. There is no official protestant canon as there is no all encompassing protestants church. In fact I know of not one single denomination that voted came together and said ok here is the canon. As I recall it was a publishing house that dropped the duetro books form the bible. Maybe Jon or some of our other protestant Brothers can enlighten me (us but is there anything in your traditions that say the books in question can not be used, have to be exclude. or anything or the sort?

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.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Hi Scott,
Historically, it isn’t unusual for different communions to have different canons. The ECF’s often held different views as to what books were canonical or not, and the Orthodox churches vary in their canons. So it isn’t surprising that this would be the case when speaking of western communions.
The exclusion of the DC’s is, AFAIK, peculiar to English translations in the western non-Catholic setting. Lutheran Bibles in Germany have always had them, as I think the case is in Scandinavian countries, though I’m willing to be corrected on this if need be.

The doctrine is guided by scripture as reflected by the Lutheran Confessions. The confessions do not specifically, by book identify a canon. So, technically, the canon remains open for us, but in practice, Lutheranism is fairly specific on how books are used.
To confirm doctrine requires support from the attested books, while the disputed books of the NT can be used in support. Books of the Apocrypha (DC’s) have historically been used liturgically and in our hymnody, and for reading and study. American Lutherans are rediscovering that important role for the DC’s.

Jon

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
.