Protestants

[AClark]

Hello everyone,
I have heard Protestants call the Church a liar or allege that it offers a route to salvation contrary to Christ’s Will. I was wondering why they say such things (whether it’s our historical mistakes, a disagreement over doctrine, or something else). If these remarks are over doctrine, I would be interested to know if there are any specific points of contention between us.

 

[JonNC]

Hello everyone,
I have heard Protestants call the Church a liar or allege that it offers a route to salvation contrary to Christ’s Will. I was wondering why they say such things (whether it’s our historical mistakes, a disagreement over doctrine, or something else). If these remarks are over doctrine, I would be interested to know if there are any specific points of contention between us.

First, I do not call the Catholic Church a liar. I think, for the early reformers at least, it had to do with abuses (so “historical mistakes”, as you say), and disagreements over the Doctrine of justification. While there has been much improvement and closer understanding in this area (The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, and other joint statements), this is still an important issue to be resolved.

Jon

 

[CWBetts]

The issue that needs to be resolved is that Martin Luther, while (undertansibly) upset about the abuse of indulgances at the time, was WAAAAAAAAAY off base when he started gutting the Scriptures just to try to make them match his invented doctrines of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide.

 

[JonNC]

The issue that needs to be resolved is that Martin Luther, while (undertansibly) upset about the abuse of indulgances at the time, was WAAAAAAAAAY off base when he started gutting the Scriptures just to try to make them match his invented doctrines of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide.

A bit off topic, CW, but I’ll urge you to find a copy of Luther’s translation and find where he “gutted” it. I’m glad we agree about the abuse of indulgences in the 1500’s. Hope we can agree on more in the future.

Jon

 

[CWBetts]

A bit off topic, CW, but I’ll urge you to find a copy of Luther’s translation and find where he “gutted” it. I’m glad we agree about the abuse of indulgences in the 1500’s. Hope we can agree on more in the future.

Jon

1st edition of his German Tranlation was Missing:

Tobit
Judith
I Maccabees
II Maccabees
Wisdom
Sirach
Baruch
James
II John
III John
Jude
Revelations

Esther and Daniel were heavily edited
The New Testament Books were put back in after being urged to do so bu some of his less radical followers, but to this day Protestant Bibles are incomplete.

 

[BrianH]

1st edition of his German Tranlation was Missing:

Tobit
Judith
I Maccabees
II Maccabees
Wisdom
Sirach
Baruch
James
II John
III John
Jude
Revelations

Esther and Daniel were heavily edited
The New Testament Books were put back in after being urged to do so bu some of his less radical followers, but to this day Protestant Bibles are incomplete.

ntrmin.org/Luther%20and%20the%20canon%202.htm#a2
1: Martin Luther Did Not Remove Books From The Bible
An obvious sign that someone has not read anything about Luther and the canon is the assertion, “Luther removed books from the Bible,” or “Luther removed books from the New Testament.” It is a simple historical fact that Luther’s translation of the Bible contained all of its books. Luther began translating the New Testament in 1521, and released a finished version in 1522. He published sections of the Old Testament as he finished them. He finished the entire Bible by 1534. During these years, various incomplete editions were released. Some Protestants might be surprised to learn that Luther also translated the Apocrypha. The editors of Luther’s Works explain, “In keeping with early Christian tradition, Luther also included the Apocrypha of the Old Testament. Sorting them out of the canonical books, he appended them at the end of the Old Testament with the caption, ‘These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.’”[8]

Even after Luther finished his translation, he never ceased revising it. Phillip Schaff has pointed out, “He never ceased to amend his translation. Besides correcting errors, he improved the uncouth and confused orthography, fixed the inflections, purged the vocabulary of obscure and ignoble words, and made the whole more symmetrical and melodious. He prepared five original editions, or recensions, of his whole Bible, the last in 1545, a year before his death. This is the proper basis of all critical editions.”[9] Great care and work went into Luther’s Bible. This means that every book in the Bible was given great concern and attention. No book of the Bible was left un-translated. As Catholic writer John Todd observed, “The work was done with great method…”[10] Todd then relates this famous description:

“Dr. M. Luther gathered his own Sanhedrin of the best persons available, which assembled weekly, several hours before supper in the doctor’s cloister, namely D. Johann Burgenhagen, D. Justus Jonas, D. Creuziger, M. Philippum, Mattheum Aurogallum; Magister Georg Roerer, the Korrektor was also present…M. Philipp brought the Greek text with him. D Creuziger a Chaldean Bible in addition to Hebrew. The professors had their rabbinical commentaries. D. Pommer also had the Latin text…The President submitted a text and permitted each to speak in turn and listened to what each had to say about the characteristics of the language or about the expositions of the doctors in earlier times.”[11]

This information is provided to show that Luther’s Bible is not simply the result of Martin Luther: “Especially in his work on the Old Testament, Luther considered himself to be only one of a consortium of scholars at work on the project. He was convinced a translator should not work alone, for as he said, ‘the correct and appropriate words do not always occur to one person alone.’”[12] Rather than Luther expressing authoritarian power over the translation or removing books from the Bible by fiat, the facts of history show Luther involved other capable scholars. They worked throughout their lives to translate every book of the Bible, and even those books which “are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.”

Those who assert Luther took books out of the Bible sometimes wrongly use this sentiment interchangeably with “Luther removed books from the canon.” For an example of such confusion, see the claims of this Catholic apologist here. If indeed Luther took books out of the Bible, then one expects to open Luther’s Bible and find certain books missing. One does not. Catholic apologists that equivocate in such a way should either define their arguments more carefully, or account for the fact that Luther included all the books in his Bible.

 

[CWBetts]

Luther DID remve books. The canon was approved in the third century. Luther lived in the sixteenth century. The canon that was approved had 73 books. The Protestant bible has 66. For the math challenged 66 is less then 73, therefore Luteher removed books. To state otherwise is blatant ignorance.

 

[JonNC]

Luther DID remve books. The canon was approved in the third century. Luther lived in the sixteenth century. The canon that was approved had 73 books. The Protestant bible has 66. For the math challenged 66 is less then 73, therefore Luteher removed books. To state otherwise is blatant ignorance.

I have a copy of Luther’s Translation (not an original, of course). It contains all of the books of the Catholic Bible. Not unlike Jerome, he questioned whether or not the books of the DC were canon. He did translate them and include them in his translation, albeit as an appendix.
My apology to the OP for participating in the derailing of your thread.

Jon

 

[O.S.Luke]

Luther DID remve books. The canon was approved in the third century. Luther lived in the sixteenth century. The canon that was approved had 73 books. The Protestant bible has 66. For the math challenged 66 is less then 73, therefore Luteher removed books. To state otherwise is blatant ignorance.

This is one of those “things everyone knows” that everyone doesn’t know. Luther’s first bible had all the books in it, as did the first version of the King James’ bible. Luther didn’t do the translation work for what he called the “apocryphal” books - he left that to Melanchthon (I think). But to say that he removed books is not quite accurate. He left them in with the explanation that they were books not present in the Hebrew canon, but that they were useful for instruction and living.

You’ll get no argument from me that Luther took great liberties with translation from Hebrew and Greek to German. The King James (the first English translation) was far more accurate - in its day. As we have had access to older texts - and as we speak the King’s English now only in Shakespearean plays - the KJV is archaic and not very accurate. But it’s simply not true that Luther “removed” books. However, he did take great liberties with injecting his opinions on canon, not just with what he called the Apocrypha, but also with Jonah, Esther, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation (calling them antilegomena).

The best sources to get the “poop” on Luther and his translation work is Phillip Schaff and Martin Brecht. Luther did some things well, and some things not so well. German is a tough idiomatic language and Luther probably took liberties in translations. But there is no doubt he exceeded any authority by doubting canon. One of the things he did (by accident) was unify German language - there were 10’s of dialects running around at the time and his work brought German language to the same page (no pun intended).

Just goes to prove the dangers of having one too many steins of beer…

O+

 

[O.S.Luke]

I should add that some of this is semantics - but semantics are important. Saying Luther removed books is akin to saying that Catholics worship Mary.

It is more accurate to say that Luther took liberties (some horrible) with canon, but he didn’t (and couldn’t) remove books. Catholics adore Mary and ask her to pray for them.

I think that’s more accurate.

 

[Hesychios]

I should add that some of this is semantics - but semantics are important. Saying Luther removed books is akin to saying that Catholics worship Mary.

It is more accurate to say that Luther took liberties (some horrible) with canon, but he didn’t (and couldn’t) remove books. Catholics adore Mary and ask her to pray for them.

I think that’s more accurate.

Excellent analogy!

 

[humble_in_doubt]

The issue that needs to be resolved is that Martin Luther, while (undertansibly) upset about the abuse of indulgances at the time, was WAAAAAAAAAY off base when he started gutting the Scriptures just to try to make them match his invented doctrines of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide.

just curious (even though I guess it’s not my problem really); where do the Catholics believe the word of God is found? Understandably there is tradition, but even within your church there is disagreement on soteriology (and justification) i.e. Thomism vs. Molinism (and different orders tend to adhere to different soteriological perspectives i.e. Benedictines vs.the Jesuits). So then tradition isn’t something even the CC looks to in affirming much of their theology (since there is permissible variance, particularly in the area of soteriology).

So if disagreement is allowed on these issues within your church, then the church can hardly fault protestants for having similar disagreements over issues like justification (both internally within protestantism and with the CC).

Did your god author confusion? Sounds to me like he did

 

[CWBetts]

just curious (even though I guess it’s not my problem really); where do the Catholics believe the word of God is found? Understandably there is tradition, but even within your church there is disagreement on soteriology (and justification) i.e. Thomism vs. Molinism (and different orders tend to adhere to different soteriological perspectives i.e. Benedictines vs.the Jesuits). So then tradition isn’t something even the CC looks to in affirming much of their theology (since there is permissible variance, particularly in the area of soteriology).

So if disagreement is allowed on these issues within your church, then the church can hardly fault protestants for having similar disagreements over issues like justification (both internally within protestantism and with the CC).

Did your god author confusion? Sounds to me like he did

No, God did not author confusion, but His Holy Church is peopled by infallible men. Catholics believe the Bible came from Hebrew tradition (Old Testament, including the Deterocanonicals) and early writings of the Apostles (New Testament). Three early ecumenical caouncils (Rome, Hippo, and Carthage) established the canon through guidance of the Holy Spirit, which was unchallenged until the Reformation in the 16th century when the canon was brought into question by Luther and other reformers. The Catholic canon has remained unchanged.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Hello everyone,
I have heard Protestants call the Church a liar or allege that it offers a route to salvation contrary to Christ’s Will. I was wondering why they say such things (whether it’s our historical mistakes, a disagreement over doctrine, or something else). If these remarks are over doctrine, I would be interested to know if there are any specific points of contention between us.

They say such things, certainly not because of “historical mistakes” or for any other like reason, but simply because, like Luther, they will not accept the authority of Church and of St. James, both of which clearly teach that good works of charity (not “Works of the Law,” or more appropriately, “Works of the Torah”) are salvific.

Luther, without a shred of authority, tossed out several books of both the Old and New Testaments, because they contradicted his personal opinion in the matter. And despite his having no authority himself, he nevertheless would not endure the least contradiction, even if they be from the Sacred Writers or even the holy angels themselves! He writes

I shall not have it judged by any man, not even by an angel. For since I am certain of it, I shall be your judge and even the angels’ judge through this teaching (as St. Paul says [1 Cor. 6:3] so that *whoever does not accept my teaching may not be saved *- for it is God’s and not mine. Therefore, my judgment is also no mine but God’s.

Against the Spiritual Estate of the Pope, (Wyder den falsch genantten geystlichen Standt), Weimar ed., 10 / 2, p. 106 f. ; Erlangen. ed., vol. 28, p. 143 f.

Luther’s Works, Vol. 39, Church and Ministry I, (1917), Eric W. Gritsch, Fortress Press, ISBN 0800603397, 9780800603397, p. 249,
(Luther, Hartmann Grisar, vol. 6, p.143) archive.org/details/luthergris06grisuoft

And in his Antwort deutsch auf König Heinrichs Buch, German Answer to King Henry’s Book, 1522, Luther says:

Whoever teaches differently form what I have taught herein, or condemns me for it, he condemns me God and must be a child of hell

Luther’s German:

Wer Anders lehret, denn ich hierin gelchret habe, oder mich darin verdammt, der verdammt Gott und muß ein Kind der Hölle bleiben.

, 1884, Henry O’Connor, S.J., Benziger Brothers, p. 40. Luther’s Own Statement Concerning His Teaching and its Results

, 1907, vol. 10 /2, pp. 229-230.D. Martin Luthers Werke; kritische Gesamtausgabe

So it all has to do, really, with authority, plain and simple. The Fathers held the Church to be the final authority. Protestants, on the other hand, hold the individual believer to be the full and final authority. Despite its many obscurities, each man is to be able to decided on his own *final authority * what the Bible means. Erasmus saw the tragic results of this unfortunate hypocrisy in his own day.

Listen to how he respondes to Luther, from his ***Hyperaspistes ***(“Warrior Shielding”):

You stipulate that we should not ask for or accept anything but Holy Scripture, but you do it in such a way as to require that we permit you to be its sole interpreter, renouncing all others. Thus the victory will be yours if we allow you to be not the steward but the lord of Holy Scripture.

Collected Works of Erasmus, Vol. 76: Controversies: De Libero Arbitrio / Hyperaspistes I, Univ. of Toronto Press, 1999. ISBN 0802043178 ISBN-13: 978-0802043177, pp. 204-205.

Dave Armstrong has an extensive collection of such quotes from the Hyperaspites; I believe you’ll find them well worth reading.
socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/02/luther-meets-his-match-part-vi-erasmus.html

As for the Sacred Writer, St. James, here’s what Luther said of him and, by extension, God’s Sacred Word.

In his *Table Talk * (Ger., Tischreden), Luther rejected the Epistle of St. James, claiming it “contains not a syllable about Christ” “Nullam syllabam habet de Christo.”

Luther has Low Opinion of Epistle of James: Summer or Fall, 1542. No. 5443. Recorded by Caspar Heydenreich (Kaspar Heidenreich (1510-1586)).

We should throw the Epistle of James out of this school, 27 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. Sine he heard that Christians place great weight on faith in Christ, he though, ‘Wait a moment! I’ll oppose them and urge works alone.’ This he did. He wrote not a word about the suffering and resurrection of Christ, although this is what all the apostles preached about.

Besides, there’s no order or method in the epistle. Now he discusses clothing and the he writes about wrath and is constantly shifting from one to the other. He presents a comparison: ‘As the body apart form the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead’ [Jas. 2:26]. O Mary, mother of God! What a terrible comparison that is! James compared faith with the soul! The ancients recognized this, too, and therefore, they didn’t acknowledge this letter as one of the Catholic Epistles. 28

Luther’s Works, American Ed., 1967, Theodore G. Tappert, Helmut T. Lehmann, eds., Fortress Press, Philadelphia, ISBN 0800603540 ISBN 9780800603540, vol. 55, pp. 424-425.

Editors notes:

1. I. e., out of the University of Wittenberg. For a similar judgment of Luther concerning James, see LW 35, 395-397.
2. Up to the fourth century the Epistle of James was not included in the canon by many Christian leaders, and earlier writer did not quote form it. Cf. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, II, 23, 25.

Luther’s German and Latin here:

Analecta Lutherana et Melanthoniana, Tischreden Luthers und aussprüche Melanthons, Martin Luther, Philipp Melanchthon, Johann Mathesius, Johann Karl Seidemann, Georg Loesche, 1892, Friedrich Andreas Perthes, Gotha, No. 483, p. 296.
books.google.com/books?id=zLw9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA296&dq=%22Nullam+syllabam+habet+de+Christo%22&lr=&ei=B2LXSfyMM4mmNoqkxPMC&client=firefox

D. Martin Luthers Werke; Kritische Gesamtausgabe, 1919, Weimar, Herman Bolaus Nachfolger, vol. 5, p. 157, No. 5443
archive.org/details/werketischreden10205luthuoft

 

[O.S.Luke]

No, God did not author confusion, but His Holy Church is peopled by infallible men. Catholics believe the Bible came from Hebrew tradition (Old Testament, including the Deterocanonicals) and early writings of the Apostles (New Testament).

CW, I actually have no problem with the canon as formulated in the Early Church - I’m a little more Anglican than Methodist where that is concerned.

But it’s simply not true that the Deterocanonicals were a part of Hebrew tradition; indeed, the Masoretic Text/Tanakh did NOT have the deterocanonicals present in them. That’s why they’re called “deterocanonicals”, as opposed to “protocanonicals”, which WERE part of the Masoretic texts.

The acceptance of the Deuterocanonicals was not universal, as someone noted before (Jerome in particular). And in Eastern Orthodoxy, there are other significant differences where the Deuterocanonicals are concerned.

I think I will have that stein of beer now…

O+

 

[madabkr4tx]

Hello everyone,
I have heard Protestants call the Church a liar or allege that it offers a route to salvation contrary to Christ’s Will. I was wondering why they say such things (whether it’s our historical mistakes, a disagreement over doctrine, or something else). If these remarks are over doctrine, I would be interested to know if there are any specific points of contention between us.

For me, its the whole praying to The Saints and the Madonna to intervene on your behalf. I believe this is counter to what the Christ promised us: A personal relationship with The Lord.

Of course I can speak only for myself as I do not belong to a church.

 

[mark_a]

Hello everyone,
I have heard Protestants call the Church a liar or allege that it offers a route to salvation contrary to Christ’s Will.

These folks have multitudes of scripture interpretations and cannot agree on many of them. Many of their teachings are closer to the Catholic Church than they are to each other. Still, in order to be serious contenders as Christ’s Church, they must challenge the original. It seems to be a point of unity for them.

I have never had a face-to-face discussion with a Protestant who actually knew what he was talking about concerning Catholic teaching, not that they don’t exist. Most speak ignorantly against the Catholic Church, and many will not even acknowledge when they speak erroneously.

Simply put, they are trying to challenge the big dog about scripture theology when their moral theology is equivelent to straining the gnat and swallowing the camel.

 

[O.S.Luke]

For me, its the whole praying to The Saints and the Madonna to intervene on your behalf. I believe this is counter to what the Christ promised us: A personal relationship with The Lord.

Of course I can speak only for myself as I do not belong to a church.

It’s supposed to be personal AND corporate. Christ died for us (plural) and the world, not just me.

In other words, it’s not just about me. Or you.

O+

 

[madabkr4tx]

It’s supposed to be personal AND corporate. Christ died for us (plural) and the world, not just me.

In other words, it’s not just about me. Or you.

O+

I was addressing YOU, specifically, about US.

 

[madabkr4tx]

It’s supposed to be personal AND corporate. Christ died for us (plural) and the world, not just me.

In other words, it’s not just about me. Or you.

O+

You is often used as a plural as well.