I think that maybe we need to return to the focus on the Protestant canon, or accurately, the Protestant canons, meaning plural. After all, some of the denominations have seen fit to set the canon and some have not. We see this same lack of agreement within Protestantism on literally every issue, budget this one really is telling. All of these Sola Scriptura denominations cannot even agree on whether they should or should not close the canon. It’s no wonder that they can’t agree about anything else (except of course their opposition to the Church).
“It was particularly within the canon that Luther practiced theological criticism of its individual parts. The standard of this criticism is the same as his principal of interpretation, that is, Christ: the gospel of free grace and justification through faith alone. (WA 12, 260)”, Paul Althaus, “The Theology of Martin Luther”, pg. 82
Here the celebrated Lutheran Theologian Paul Althaus makes the exact same point that I have been making. In one sentence Althaus mentions Luther’s ‘criticism’ of the canon, ties it to his ‘principal of interpretation’, and for the trifecta, throws in that Luther’s concept of: “Christ: the gospel of free grace and justification through faith alone”. Bada Bing – Bada Boom, a Lutheran Theologian and I agree on something!
Now, if anyone wants to provide an ‘alternative understanding’ of this quote, it will require an actual dealing with the actual words of Althaus, and must include (in order to be either credible or compelling), the specifics in regards to what Althaus maybe meant to say, but like James according to Luther, was “unequal to the task”.
Most Christians would think of the idea of “theological criticism of its individual parts” (of the canon) as being some kind of ultra-liberal blasphemous practice whereby the individual places themselves or their own personal judgment above that of Holy Scripture. And yet, this is exactly what the Lutheran church has done, of course following Luther who did the exact same thing.
Althaus continues. “This is what Luther means when he says that the standard is ‘that which is apostolic.’……An apostle shows that he is an apostle by clearly and purely preaching Christ as Savior.” Althaus, pg/ 82. In other words, an Apostle is an Apostle if they teach Luther’s Salvation by Faith Alone. James did not and so he was deemed by Luther to NOT be an Apostle. Of course we know now that James WAS written by the Apostle James, so at the very least, this fact makes Luther look like a very poor judge of Scripture. Althaus continues:
“Since apostolic authority manifests itself in the gospel of the apostles, the church recognizes the authority of Scripture as being based not on the person of the apostles but on the word of God or the gospel which bears witness to itself. The apostolic character of a New Testament author manifests itself in the content of his writing and in the clarity of his witness to Christ. Luther now applies this standard or criterion to the canonical books. ‘All genuine books agree in preaching Christ. He allows the canon to stand as it was established by the ancient church. But he makes distinctions within the canon. He evaluates the books according to the norm of their apostolic content. ‘This is the true test of all books, when we see whether or not they preach Christ. For all 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. Again whatever preaches Christ would be apostolic even though Judas, Ananias, Pilate, or Herod were doing it.’ If this characteristic is missing or inadequate in any of the canonical writings, as it is, for example in James, then the author cannot be an apostle. For Luther, ‘preaching’ Christ means proclaiming that the crucified and risen Christ is the Savior and that the salvation he brings is received through faith alone. Luther is 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 criteria but with the standard which Scripture itself offers in it on-going central proclamation (‘St. Paul and all the evangelists’). Luther obtained this standard from nowhere else than Scripture. To that extent it is the Scripture itself that criticizes the canon.” Althaus, pg. 82-3
This is a classic case of circular thinking. How can Scripture criticize the canon when Scripture is not closed because the canon is not closed. It’s no wonder that Protestantism has such complete lack of doctrinal certainty. What a mess!
This is of course not to mention something that Lutherans (not even Althaus) don’t make a big deal out of (or even a miniscule deal), - that Luther was DEAD WRONG about James not being an Apostle. Luther was extremely aware that James spoke directly against Salvation By Faith Alone, but he also believed that “apostolic authority manifests itself in the gospel of the apostles”. This means that if an Apostle taught against something (say Salvation by Faith Alone as an example), then that was the end of it. An Apostle had spoken. However, Luther’s terrors over his everlasting salvation demanded that he ‘find’ SBFA in Scripture. Luther’s ‘answer’ – James had to be downgraded to a non-Apostolic writing:
“Therefore I do not want to have him in my Bible.”
Luther had no choice but to defend Salvation by Faith Alone, which was a radical version of Salvation, and had NEVER been taught as such in the then 1500 year history of Christendom.
It’s no wonder that so many Lutheran Theologians are converting to Catholicism.
No, I am saying you are denying historical fact about what Josephus wrote. It is universally accepted by the Jewish people what is Hebrew canon. And God DOES declare the Jews the oracles of the OT.
I recommend post 387. If that doesn’t interest you, then by all means, keep hammering away. These monologues are certain to convert us heretics.