Protestant "Sola Fide" is a mistake

[Steadfast]

It is probably worth pointing out that many early church fathers had doubts about the apostolicity and therefore canonicity of certain books we have today in the NT.

Eusebius considered James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Hebrews and Revelation to be Antilegomena; i.e. of disputable canonicity.

“It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it is disputed ἀντιλέγεσθαι] by the church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul.”

and

“Among the disputed writings, τῶν ἀντιλεγομένων] which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name. Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews that have accepted Christ are especially delighted. And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books. τῶν ἀντιλεγομένων]”

Luther did no more than dispute the canonicity of these books which disputation had a long history in the church such that these books were generally described under the term antilegomena.

There is a difference between recognizing that the authorship and therefore the canonicity of a text is disputable and rejecting the text outright.

Luther did the former, he never did the latter.

 

[BrianH]

The choice is never ours.

Left to ourselves we would never choose Christ for our hearts are darkened and we are dead in trespasses and sins.

Without God in Christ “bespeaking us righteous” we have and are nothing.

The choice is ALWAYS ours.

**Rev 3:20 **Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

 

[Steadfast]

The choice is ALWAYS ours.

But He has to come to us and knock…

 

[Arnobius]

Well, Arnobius, since the table of contents of Luther’s Bibel is available for anyone to look at and since you were the first to say that Luther moved James, the Ioannine epistles and other NT books to an appendix I think the burden of proof is on you to do better than a mere assertion.

Shifting the burden of proof are you?
The fact that the 1545 version differs from his 1522 version (and it has been constantly revised up through 1984, so really all you have demonstrated is a change of views of Protestantism) does not change the fact that Luther had a very low opinion of these works

Considering Luther said
“Firstly, because in direct opposition to St. Paul and all the rest of the bible, it ascribes justification to works, and declares that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered up his son. St. Paul, on the contrary, in Romans 4:3, teaches that Abraham was justified without works, by his faith alone, the proof being in Gen. 15:6 which was before he sacrificed his son. Although it would be possible to save the epistle by a gloss giving a correct explanation of justification here ascribed to works, it is impossible to deny that it does refer Moses’s word in Gen. 15 (which speaks not of Abraham’s works but of his faith, just as Paul makes plain in Romans 4) to Abraham’s works. This defect proves that the epistle is not of Apostolic provenance.”
Martin Luther, “Martin Luther: Selections from his Writings” Dillenberger, page 35

We have to conclude either:

1. 
   *]Luther believed the Bible was contradictory (he said Paul contradicted James)
   *]He denied the canonicity.
   
   Your choice
   
   As for Erasmus, the point is truly irrelevant unless you would argue either
   1. 
      *]Erasmus was right (and Luther with him) and those Protestants who disagreed with him were wrong in accepting the validity of those works
      *]Erasmus (and those who agreed with him) were wrong in the denial of the canonicity
      
      Of course since Luther was arguing that the Catholics had corrupted scripture and argued for sola scriptura, either way it indicates a huge flaw in that at least one group of Protestants has a false idea of the canon.
      
      Your choice.

 

[Metaron]

This is interesting. Any reference?

See my above quotes.

 

[Arnobius]

But He has to come to us and knock…

Never denied…

But your own citing of Rev 3:20
Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

Puts the condition that the man must open the door as well.

It is Both/And not Either/Or

 

[Steadfast]

Arnobius:

I agreed that Luther had a low opinion of those books but they can be found where they belong even as far back as 1534, the year the complete bible was first published.

This was in response to your assertion that he moved them to an appendix.

You are welcome to prove that assertion or not as you see fit, but it won’t be burden shifting if I don’t rise to your challenge to offer anything until this assertion is substantiated.

 

[BrianH]

But He has to come to us and knock…

So Christ only knocks for an “elect”?

 

[Metaron]

It is interesting also that his opinion (especially on James) changed over time so that by later on in life he was very positive about it.

Do you have any quotes or sources of where/when Luther changed his mind about the books or James?

 

[BrianH]

Shifting the burden of proof are you?

The fact that the 1545 version differs from his 1522 version (and it has been constantly revised up through 1984, so really all you have demonstrated is a change of views of Protestantism) does not change the fact that Luther had a very low opinion of these works

 

[Arnobius]

Arnobius:

I agreed that Luther had a low opinion of those books but they can be found where they belong even as far back as 1534, the year the complete bible was first published.

This was in response to your assertion that he moved them to an appendix.

You are welcome to prove that assertion or not as you see fit, but it won’t be burden shifting if I don’t rise to your challenge to offer anything until this assertion is substantiated.

Given that the discussion is on canonicity, I believe you are in fact diverting the discussion from what is the point to what is secondary.

We do know of his pre 1534 writings, including his introductions to scripture indicate his contempt for these works.

I don’t feel myself obligated to derail the main topic on an issue of minutiae.

We have provided indications that Luther denied the canonicity of these works. So far whatever Protestant site I have gone to has played with semantics seeking to claim he did not… perhaps because the admission that Luther erred would sink sola scriptura.

You are the one arguing he held it was canonical against the citations he did not, so the burden remains on your part.

 

[Steadfast]

Arnobius,

You said he moved Hebrews, James, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelations to “the end as doubtful”.

Please substantiate this.

His opinion of these books is not what is in question. What is in question is your (as yet) unsubstantiated assertion that he moved them to an appendix.

 

[BrianH]

Given that the discussion is on canonicity, I believe you are in fact diverting the discussion from what is the point to what is secondary.

We do know of his pre 1534 writings, including his introductions to scripture indicate his contempt for these works.

I don’t feel myself obligated to derail the main topic on an issue of minutiae.

We have provided indications that Luther denied the canonicity of these works. So far whatever Protestant site I have gone to has played with semantics seeking to claim he did not… perhaps because the admission that Luther erred would sink sola scriptura.

You are the one arguing he held it was canonical against the citations he did not, so the burden remains on your part.

no proof then
whatever

 

[Steadfast]

You have provided no indications that Luther “denied the canonicity” of these books either.

You’ve provided ample evidence that he was doubtful of their canonicity and at times held a very low view of them, but no one is really disputing this.

In order for doubt to equal rejection, you would have to agree that several ECF’s who had reservations about the canonicity of these very same texts also “rejected” them and “denied their canonicity”.

It seems that where Luther is involved you can say just about anything you like and never have to support it.

 

[Arnobius]

Not the point, you said it was in an appendix. Hey, I don’t care either way but if you are going to make a historically verifiable comment, prove it. IF this is the case, it should be easy.

 

[Arnobius]

no proof then
whatever

Proof provided (see above)

People forget the Luther New Testament (or prefer to leave it unmentioned)

But the point is Luther either denied the canonicity of these parts of scripture or else believed the Bible was contradictory.

 

[Steeltemplar]

no proof then
whatever

Is immature sarcasm really necessary?

 

[Steadfast]

Arnobius,

Thank you. I’ll accept that.

I have seen a reproduction of Luther’s 1534 Bibel (you can order one) and it did not separate the legomena from the antilegomena of the NT. I have also seen very early printings of some very old editions at University of Michigan.

If he did so in the 1522 edition of the NT this is significant though perhaps mitigated by the larger 1534 publication of the whole Bible in German.

 

[Metaron]

Some Lutheran theologians like to make a distinction between the books of the New Testament which were unanimously received as canonical in the early church (the so-called Homologoumena or undisputed books) and the books which were disputed by some (the Antilegomena). In this class of ‘disputed books’ are the Epistle to the Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and the Revelation of John.

The English translation and notes are derived from the American edition of Luther’s Works, vol 35 (St. Louis: Concordia, 1963), pp. 395-399.

Luther’s Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude (1522)

Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, 1 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.

In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works. It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac; though in Romans 4 St. Paul teaches to the contrary that Abraham was justified apart from works, by his faith alone, before he had offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15. Now although this epistle might be helped and an interpretation 2 devised for this justification by works, it cannot be defended in its application to works of Moses’ statement in Genesis 15. For Moses is speaking here only of Abraham’s faith, and not of his works, as St. Paul demonstrates in Romans 4. This fault, therefore, proves that this epistle is not the work of any apostle.

In the second place its purpose is to teach Christians, but in all this long teaching it does not once mention the Passion, the resurrection, or the Spirit of Christ. He names Christ several times; however he teaches nothing about him, but only speaks of general faith in God. Now it is the office of a true apostle to preach of the Passion and resurrection and office of Christ, and to lay the foundation for faith in him, as Christ himself says in John 15, “You shall bear witness to me.” 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. For all the Scriptures show us Christ, Romans 3; and St. Paul will know nothing but Christ, I Corinthians 2. Whatever does not teach Christ is not apostolic, even though St. Peter or St. Paul does the teaching. Again, whatever preaches Christ would be apostolic, even if Judas, Annas, Pilate, and Herod were doing it.

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. He calls the law a “law of liberty,” though Paul calls it a law of slavery, of wrath, of death, and of sin. 3

Moreover he cites the sayings of St. Peter: “Love covers a multitude of sins,” and again, “Humble yourselves under the hand of God;” also the saying of St. Paul in Galatians 5, “The Spirit lusteth against envy.” And yet, in point of time, St. James was put to death by Herod in Jerusalem, before St. Peter. 4 So it seems that this author came long after St. Peter and St. Paul.

In a word, he wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without works, but was unequal to the task in spirit, thought, and words. He mangles the Scriptures and thereby opposes Paul and all Scripture. 5 He tries to accomplish by harping on the law what the apostles accomplish by stimulating people to love. 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 in worldly things; how, then, should this single man alone avail against Paul and all the rest of Scripture? 6

Concerning the epistle of St. Jude, no one can deny that it is an extract or copy of St. Peter’s second epistle, so very like it are all the words. He also speaks of the apostles like a disciple who comes long after them and cites sayings and incidents that are found nowhere else in the Scriptures. This moved the ancient fathers to exclude this epistle from the main body of the Scriptures. Moreover the Apostle Jude did not go to Greek-speaking lands, but to Persia, as it is said, so that he did not write Greek. Therefore, although I value this book, it is an epistle that need not be counted among the chief books which are supposed to lay the foundations of falth.

 

[Metaron]

Luther’s Preface to the Revelation of St. John (1522)

About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment. I say what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic.

First and foremost, the apostles do not deal with visions, but prophesy in clear and plain words, as do Peter and Paul, and Christ in the gospel. For it befits the apostolic office to speak clearly of Christ and his deeds, without images and visions. Moreover there is no prophet in the Old Testament, to say nothing of the New, who deals so exclusively with visions and images. For myself, I think it approximates the Fourth Book of Esdras; 8 I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.

Moreover he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly – indeed, more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important – and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will take away from him, etc. Again, they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there are many far better books available for us to keep.

Many of the fathers also rejected this book a long time ago; 9 although St. Jerome, to be sure, refers to it in exalted terms and says that it is above all praise and that there are as many mysteries in it as words. Still, Jerome cannot prove this at all, and his praise at numerous places is too generous.

Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit leads him. My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it. But to teach Christ, this is the thing which an apostle is bound above all else to do; as Christ says in Acts 1, “You shall be my witnesses.” Therefore I stick to the books which present Christ to me clearly and purely.

Luther’s statement that the epistle was “rejected by the ancients” is only partly true. Its canonical status was doubted by some. Eusebius (died 339) in his Ecclesiastical History (II, xxiii, 25) writes “Such is the story of James, whose is said to be the first of the Epistles called Catholic. It is to be observed that its authenticity is denied, since few of the ancients quote it, as is also the case with the Epistle called Jude’s.” Eusebius also includes both epistles in his list of ‘Disputed Books’ (History, III, xxiv, 3). See also the statement by Jerome (d. 420) in his Liber de Viris Illustribus (II) concerning the pseudonymity ascribed to the epistle of James and its rather gradual attainment of authoritative status.