Protestants: Here is what Luther did to some NT books you use

[Catholic_Dude]

First of all I would like to thank Axion who showed me this page of quotes from Luter’s views on James, Jude and Revelation…

Luther says about James:

…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…

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. …
… And that is the true test by which to judge all books, when we see whether or not they inculcate Christ. …
…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…

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

Here is what he says about Jude:

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.

Here is what he says about Revelation of St John:

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. …
… 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.

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.

What are your thoughts on what Luther did?

 

[Milliardo]

CD, a little OT, but maybe you’d like a stab at what TertumQuid said in Luther’s defense in the forum Non-Catholic Religions about the film on Luther?

 

[Malachi4U]

So. Luther was such a great reformer that he reformed the word of God too to fit his own opinions!

Great point!

 

[Catholic_Dude]

OK I just got back from HERE. It is TertiumQuid’s webpage of his defense of Luther who he claims is being unfairly portrayed by Catholics and the tactic is known as playing the “Luther Card” in attempt to make Luther look bad by misquoting what Luther said, especially concerning the books Luther removed.

I took notes and here are my thoughts on a few of the quotes from that page, ALL QUOTES FROM THE LINK:

“It is a simple historical fact that Luther’s translation of the Bible contained all of its books.”

Here is a theme that pops up all through the page. It claims that Catholics use the term “throw out” as in if you opened a Bible you wouldnt see them. That is not what Catholics are saying there, we are going on the grounds that Luther has no business degrading those books the way he does, and all through the page this point is downplayed. Second Catholics claim that Luther’s actions were a direct consequence of passages getting in the way of his religious agenda/opinion.

These books are not hel equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.

Another smoke screen used by Luther to pretend he accepts them when he really doesnt, this claim occurs a lot in many forms on the www.

“[Luther] did not pretend that the church could undertake the construction of the canon anew, or that it could function with a canon open at both ends. Never, even at the height of his criticism of James, did he drop it from his editions of the Bible, any more than he dropped the Old Testament Apocrypha. From his own experience he could testify that often a Christian found one or another book of the canon difficult or useless to him at a particular time, only to discover later on that it was just what he needed in a time of trouble or temptation. Had such a person been permitted to re-edit the canon on the basis of his passing mood, he would have been deprived of the patience and comfort of the Scriptures when he needed them most. Within the received canon Luther made sharp distinctions, to the point of constructing a private miniature canon. But he was realistic enough in his theology to know that one had to operate with the canon as given by tradition. That** realism provided the framework within which he could say and do the things he did** in relation to the canon without involving himself in a hopeless set of contradictions.

Here is the whole page in a nutshell. It starts off making the claim that Luther would never even go there, but as you read on you find the recurring problem, and that is Luther had an agenda and this simple observation is ignored/downplayed using smoke screens. Look it says that messing around with the books just because something bothers your is A BAD IDEA because in the future you will need them. It finishes off by saying that he had a “framework” to do what he was doing, so does this admit that he had an agenda, but wanted to stay under the radar as long as possible? The idea that he removed them to the trash physically is what the author claims that Catholics are saying. What the author misses is the issue that Luther removed them ideologically/spiritually to the trash, which is just as bad, that is what Catholics are saying.

(cont.)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

The second thing Luther tells us is that he praises James and considers it a “good book” “because it sets up no doctrine of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God.” Luther clearly values the law of God. Rarely have I seen Luther detractors inform its readers that Luther praises James, or point out Luther’s respect for God’s law. On the other hand, I have seen many papers insisting Luther was either morally corrupt or an antinomian. Luther though insists James is worthy of praise because it puts forth God’s law. Luther then says he is going to state his own opinion, “without prejudice to anyone.” These are hardly the words of one claiming to be an infallible authority or “super-pope.

Here it is again, not in the trash physically, but to throw people off the trail he thows in some words of praise to James. We have seen from other quotes how he feels about James.

“Althaus continues, “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 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 its on-going central proclamation…Luther obtained this standard from nowhere else than the Scripture. To this extent it is the Scripture itself that criticizes the canon.”

Here is the first hints of Luther’s agenda, FAITH ALONE. And later the agenda of Sola Scriptura. The outrageous claim comes at the end when the author claims that scripture actually turns on itself if we dont believe as Luther wants.
The truth is the only time scripture attacks/contradicts itself is when an agenda like this is pushed upon it.

Luther says he cannot include James among his “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.” In a conversation I once had with a Roman Catholic, my opponent underlined the words, “cannot include him among the chief books,” while I, utilizing the same quote underlined “though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him.” The Roman Catholic emphasized Luther’s questioning of James, while I emphasized how Luther was not dogmatic: he allowed people the freedom to disagree with him.

Here is the main theme again in another mask. Pretending to accept the book, while admitting he detests the book. And again SolaScriptura is emerging.

1. Thus it is by faith alone, so that neither reason, nor law, nor the very fulfillment of the law, which is called love, accomplish anything toward justification.

Here is another quote from Luther of FA, which is treated as if it were a solid case. Here is the chip on the shoulder.

Note also that Luther does not deny the answer put forth by Schmedenstede. What Luther does point out is heavy Catholic reliance on James 2.** It troubled him** that this passage weighed so strongly in Catholic arguments against justification by faith alone. Interestingly, he says that he has previously interpreted it “according to the sense of the rest of Scriptures.” Here we find that in practice, Luther admits to weighing it as Scripture. In his Lectures on Romans we find a clear example of how he interpreted it: “The question is asked, “How can justification take place without the works of the Law, and how by the works of the Law can there be no justification, since James 2:26 clearly states: ‘Faith apart from works is dead’ and ‘a man is justified by works,’ using the example of Abraham and Rahab (James 2:23–25)?

Here are some claims to wiggle around James2:24. His agenda is clear, he wants FA. Next we find him attacking the difficult passage “HEAD ON” and seems satisfied with his answer… Notice the underlined verse he quotes, and references it to James2:23-25…Did you catch it? He “forgot” to add the most important clause:
24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
Very sneaky.

(cont)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Similar to Luther’s comments on James, we find that his questioning of Jude primarily has to do with its status in Church history, and it’s internal evidence as to its apostolicity.
So the question is how are the comments to Jude similar to James, when he claims his dislike for Jude is due primarily to history and apostolicity? (also in post #1)
Why he put this book at the bottom of the pile is a mystery to me.

Luther did not want to make the error of accepting the canon of Scripture because the institutional Church had declared it as such
Here SolaS shows its ugly head. The agenda is more and more clear.

As has been demonstrated, Luther’s treatment of the canon is not the claim of authoritarian dogma. When one looks at the totality of Luther’s New Testament canon criticism, it is quite minute: four books. Of his opinion he allows for the possibility of his readers to disagree with his conclusions
Well the Gospels are quite minute I guess. The idea that picking and choosing being left up to the individual has been fully exposed.

And in regards to post #1where Luther claims that James has nothing to do with the Gospel, yet in appendix B of the article the author cites a sermon which uses James and in the sermon Luther talks about “Why Men Reject the Gospel” and “Christ’s Resurrection”. So is James worthy of teaching the Gospel or Not?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Malachi4U:

So. Luther was such a great reformer that he reformed the word of God too to fit his own opinions!

Great point!

From what I have read it sounds right to me.

 

[CommonMan]

Luther’s opinion of the book of James in his sermons increased as he grew older. His early writings don’t reflect that, but that is what critics of Luther like to point out. I can post some of his later writings on James if it matters to you.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

CommonMan:

Luther’s opinion of the book of James in his sermons increased as he grew older. His early writings don’t reflect that, but that is what critics of Luther like to point out. I can post some of his later writings on James if it matters to you.

Sure, I would love to see them.

 

[CommonMan]

OK, Since these are in the Weinmar edition of LW I will have to type them in. I will do that within 24 hours.

 

[ames61]

What’s interesting to me is that Luther’s intense deliberation of these books implies that they were in the canon and he was justifying or rationalizing deleting or downgrading them. This is contrary to the opinion most of my Prostestant friends seem to have which is that the Catholic Church inserted them into the canon, almost out of thin air, at the Council of Trent. Do I misunderstand my Protestant friends, or did Luther acknowledge he was altering the canon in some way. If he did acknowledge that he was altering the existing canon of scripture, to have the quote would be very handy.

In Christ,
amy