Questions about Martin Luther

[JoeyWarren]

And he’s the one who lied.

Did I lie?

I never said Martin Luther actually removed the books.

What I did say as have another million commentaries have done: Is that Martin Luther WANTED to remove these books.

I have not seen any refutes to this claim.

I also said that his supported convinced him to not remove them. I have gotten this statement from others as I have shown.

So, what exactly is the lie I have committed?

 

[JoeyWarren]

All I want to know is who got him to include the books he didn’t want to include and what they said to get him to do it and when they did so.

I honestly don’t know the who. Does anyone know for sure. Speculation and common sense would say it was his closest supporters that I have listed.

No one yet has given any proof that Martin Luther decided to include them on his own with out influence from his supporters.

If you look at his history, He was helped out by his close supporters a lot during most of his life. To rule out that he was not counciled by his close supporters to retain the 3 or 4 books in question is nonsense givng the overwhelming evidence of guidance and support he recieved from his close supporters.

And exactly what is reputable?

Who is reputable and who is not reputable?

Do you have any guildelines to what is reputable and what is not?

 

[JoeyWarren]

The burden of proof is not on me. There is plenty of good material out there on the Reformer.

If so, please provide exact quotes and references as I have done.

Ball is in your court.

 

[Turtullian]

Have you actually read both documents?

I have.

Maybe you can show me how they’re different.

Luther’s diatribe was theologically driven. So was Chrysostoms.

It was not theologically drivem. Luther’s Pamphlet "On the Jews was written after the Jews in Germany refused his appeal to support him against the The Church. Once they rebuffed, he turned to anti-semitism in order to get back at them for rebuffing him. He bacame an anti-semite becuase he had a political axe to grind.

Here’s the thing…what I’ve seen in this thread is that I know more about Luther than any six of you put together. I don’t call him a “hero of the faith”, my eyes are open to his weaknesses and failures and I admit them as such. On the other hand all you have are expressions of disapproval from “authorities” like O’Hare (the Catholic Boettner) and Crocker and such propagandists.

I don’t read from O’hare or Crocker or from anywhere else. I only look at the facts presented to me. I have read St. John’s 8 homilies on “Against Jews” and Luther’s “On the Jews and thier Lies”. Both are miles in part in the the vitriol and hand hatred spewed out by Luther.

And Chrysostom has no weaknesses. He’s a saint.

On the one hand you borderline call him an anti-semite then on the otherhand you don’t. You actually refuse to compare what is being said in “on the Jews and thier Lies” with Chrysostom’s Worl “Adversus Judae”.

I’m told that annulments are different than divorces. I know that. One cannot be raised Catholic without having the distinction pounded into ones skull.

Yet you accuse Catholics of getting divorced and the Church supporting such moves. This itself is an intellectually dishonest attack on the Church.

And yet, it is denied that the Church ever issued an annulment solely for money or without proper canonical reason, a thing manifestly refuted by history.

Yet there have been Emperors and Kings who have threatened the Holy See with seiges for anullments. No one is denying it. What we are denying is that somehow the weakness of one pope translates that into teaching it is OK to have a polygamous relationship on the Church as whole through her magisterium. That itself is a false notion and not necisarrily a free-will move as such thing were made under duress.

Infact such simonious acts have been repeatedly throughout the centuries condemned as grave and mortal sin that run contrary to how the sacraments operate.

And if the church has done so (and it has) even twice (and it has, far more than twice) then it has made more harlots and bigamists than Luther.[/QUOTEI
Absolutely not. In fact, the number of Kings and Queens recieving an anullment through use of arms is quite low. Besides, such things were made under duress as it usually took a sack of Rome to forcefully get a sitting Pope to give an annullment. Even if it was the case, such an act would be an act made under duress. Afterall, throughout the middle ages as soon as the armies left Rome, an excommunication was given to the king and Emperor who sacked Rome in the firstplace. (ie Charles V who sacked rome to get an anullment eventually got an excommunication for sacking Rome and had the penalty of being barred from Holy Matrimony as a result of getting excommunicate)

But, Luther is the proponent of bigamy

.
Absolutely, he said that it was OK to get married again even while still married to the first wive. Church teaching says to the contrary. Which makes Luther, possibly a false prophet for changing the traditions of the Church.

Do you see the box you’ve put yourselves in?.

I see no box here. Other than the accusation that somehow that kings and emperors who haven gotten anullments meant that somehow they either bought thier anullment. Even though most of the anullments given were usually at the opposite end of the sword. just becuase a monarch was given an anullment dooesn’t mean that money invariably was involved.

In preference for black and white caricatures, the truth is ignored.

 

[Steadfast]

Did I lie?

I never said Martin Luther actually removed the books.

What I did say as have another million commentaries have done: Is that Martin Luther WANTED to remove these books.

I have not seen any refutes to this claim.

I also said that his supported convinced him to not remove them. I have gotten this statement from others as I have shown.

So, what exactly is the lie I have committed?

1. 
   *]You lied when you said that Luther didn’t want to include those books (that he did actually include them is evidence to the contrary).
   *]You lied when you said that his supporters convinced him to include them against his will.
   
   So, you lied twice.
   
   Lets take a look at what you actually posted:
   

   Luther rejected the book of Esther. He says: “I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist.” In his “Bondage of the Will,”

   Does this mean he wanted to remove it? Luther was given to strong expressions. I won’t excuse him. He could have made his point more gently, I willingly concede. But he didn’t.
   
   It remains that this doesn’t mean he wanted to remove it. All it means is that he really didn’t like it at all and that he wished it didn’t exist.
   

   He rejected the book of Jonah. He says: “The history of Jonah is so monstrous as to be absolutely incredible.” (Colloquia, Chap. LX., Sec. 10).

   The colloquia are private conversations, not theological documents. This is an unfortunate expression, but it too does not mean that he wanted it removed from the Bible.
   

   He rejected Hebrews: “The Epistle to the Hebrews is not by St. Paul; nor, indeed, by any apostle.” (Standing Preface to Luther’s New Testament).

   No, he didn’t reject Hebrews, he doubted the Pauline authorship of it and felt that, therefore, it’s canonicity was questionable. He believed Apollos may have written it and Apollos was not an Apostle.
   

   He rejected the Epistle of James: “St. James’ Epistle is truly an epistle of straw.” (Preface to Edition of 1524).

   And later he writes that James has many good saying in him and that he would not prevent anyone from reading him or extolling him as he pleases.
   

   He rejected Jude. “The Epistle of Jude,” he says, “allegeth stories and sayings which have no place in Scripture." (Standing Preface).

   Here is what he says later 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 [Jude 17] and cites sayings and incidents that are found nowhere else in the Scriptures [Jude 9, 14]. 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 faith.
   

   He rejected Revelation. He says: “I can discover no trace that it is established by the Holy Spirit.” (Preface to Edition of 1522).

   Again, there is nothing here proving that he wanted to remove it from the Bible. Many ECF’s agreed with him the canonicity of the Apocalypse was in doubt for a long time.
   
   +++
   
   What we have are a number of strongly expressed opinions by Luther about books of the Bible. He was entitled to these opinions by his doctors cap and at the time that he held them no one raised an eyebrow because they understood that whatever an embattled Saxon monk might think the Bible was what it was.
   
   And again that there is no evidence at all that Luther ever even briefly considered omitting the translation of any of the books of the Bible when he got around to doing so is absolutely telling.
   
   Your fabrication that his supporters compelled him proves the point.

 

[Steadfast]

I honestly don’t know the who. Does anyone know for sure. Speculation and common sense would say it was his closest supporters that I have listed.

No one yet has given any proof that Martin Luther decided to include them on his own with out influence from his supporters.

If you look at his history, He was helped out by his close supporters a lot during most of his life. To rule out that he was not counciled by his close supporters to retain the 3 or 4 books in question is nonsense givng the overwhelming evidence of guidance and support he recieved from his close supporters.

And exactly what is reputable?

Who is reputable and who is not reputable?

Do you have any guildelines to what is reputable and what is not?

Joe,

I don’t have to prove anything. He did actually translate all the books in question including the OT Deuteros. The evidence has been in publication since the 16th century and remains today as the German language equivalent of the KJV.

You said that his supporters convinced him to include them.

This is a positive statement that ought to be historically verifiable.

I am just asking for verification beyond the opinion of some guy with a bbs login.

 

[Mickey]

I have read St. John’s 8 homilies on “Against Jews”

What is unfortunate is that the misuse of the saint’s words is based significantly on a mistranslation of the title of the sermons, translated as "Against the Jews", rather than "Against the Judaizers", which is the rendering the most up to date translations are now using.

 

[JoeyWarren]

I don’t have to prove anything. He did actually translate all the books in question including the OT Deuteros. The evidence has been in publication since the 16th century and remains today as the German language equivalent of the KJV.

Yes he did translate them, no one is arguing that. The issue is that he regulated them to an addendum or appendix which is outside the main body of the Holy Writ. And he willfully excluded them from his Index. That you must deal with.

This is just as bad as the NIV bible where whole verses are taken out of the main body of the "Word of God’ in the written and placed on the ground like garbage as a footnote.

 

[Turtullian]

It remains that this doesn’t mean he wanted to remove it. All it means is that he really didn’t like it at all and that he wished it didn’t exist.

IF he wished it did not exist and really hated it, you can’t say that Luther really didn’t want it removed. He hates it and wishes it never existed. Meaning he considers the book of Esther to be non-canonical.

The colloquia are private conversations, not theological documents. This is an unfortunate expression, but it too does not mean that he wanted it removed from the Bible.

TRue, but is very but his neverthless very vitriolic as to how he feels about the the Books of Jonah.

No, he didn’t reject Hebrews, he doubted the Pauline authorship of it and felt that, therefore, it’s canonicity was questionable. He believed Apollos may have written it and Apollos was not an Apostle.

If he felt the canonicity was questionable, wouldn’t that translate into the fact that he wanted it removed becuase he felt it did not have an apostolic hand in it’s writings?

And later he writes that James has many good saying in him and that he would not prevent anyone from reading him or extolling him as he pleases.

But again, he considers the Epistles of St. James to be non-canonical and taught this very fact. If I taught that the Gospel According to St. Matthew was a “Gospel of Straw” and said that it was just a good collection of stories and nothing else, I would be branded a heretic and rightly so. Here Luther is saying the exact same thing here.

Here is what he says later about Jude:

Let me Bold that for you:

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 [Jude 17] and cites sayings and incidents that are found nowhere else in the Scriptures [Jude 9, 14]. 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 faith.

Luther himself taught by this statement taht he considers that the Epistle of Jude a just a good collection of Christian writing and declares taht this book is not Canonical and that it is not part of the canon by which we are supposed to derive our doctrines as Christians.

 

[Turtullian]

QUOTE]
Again, there is nothing here proving that he wanted to remove it from the Bible. Many ECF’s agreed with him the canonicity of the Apocalypse was in doubt for a long time.
You are essentially are playing word games by saying That unless he came out and said it verbatimly that means that he didn’t reall want it out of the Canon. That ius a rediculous statment and very untenable posistion to hold as luther is teaching and instructing through his letters and his commentaries outright hersy regarding the Canon of Holy Scripture.

Some of the Anti-nicene Fathers also support book that are found in neither the Tridentine re-affirmations of Damsus I or Luther’s stripped down Canon like the Shephard of Hermas, the Proto-evengelium of James, the Acts of the Martyrs, the Didache, etc.

ECF gave thier understanding of what they thought of what the canon should be but they all submitted thier thoughts and feelings for correction by the Church as a whole and the See of St. Peter in particular as Jerome did just as the Synod of Rome came to a close.

+++

What we have are a number of strongly expressed opinions by Luther about books of the Bible. He was entitled to these opinions by his doctors cap and at the time that he held them no one raised an eyebrow because they understood that whatever an embattled Saxon monk might think the Bible was what it was.

Point being? H taught such things that the books either were not-edifying and therefore to him, they might as well should have never existed or taht they didn’t belong to the Apostolic age (Hebrews), or that they are edifying but no doctrine can come fro it (James and Jude) or that they have no place whatsover in the NT (The Revelation of St. John). He taught that these books were in some way shape or form were non-canonical and had no place to get doctrine from them according to his idea of "Sola Scriptura)

NOw, it is an absolute dishonest thing to deny he openly changed the Canon to suit his needs and proclaimed them. According to the various canons of the Church (Even the Quintsext Canons of the Orthodox at Nicea II declare that the that the findings of the Council of Carthage are binding upon the Entire Church) to change the Canon which had been set down and ratified by the Church, would be to openly proclaim heresy. To teach that Canonical books are NOT Canonical is a heretical action.

And again that there is no evidence at all that Luther ever even briefly considered omitting the translation of any of the books of the Bible when he got around to doing so is absolutely telling

.
TRue, but again, he taught in his own writing that such books were un-canonical and thusly no doctrine can come from them in violation of both the Decaree of the Pope Damsus I and the ORthodoxy’s Quintsext Canons at Nicea II in 787 on the pronouncement of the findings of the regional Synod on the canon of Scripture at Carthage.

 

[JoeyWarren]

You said that his supporters convinced him to include them.

Yes just as others have in other places.

This is a positive statement that ought to be historically verifiable.

You negative of my own statement should be historically verifiable.

I am just asking for verification beyond the opinion of some guy with a bbs login.I have already answered this.

And I am asking you for the same verification beyond your own opinion that he did decided to include them without any supporter infuence or advice.

I am sure if I look long enough, I can provide the evidence you want. Are you equally sure in your own stance that you can provide evidence that he included them on his own without influence or advice from his supporters?

 

[Iraneaus]

That you must deal with.

Joey, just relax.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Joey, just relax.

taking a deep breath and going to the restroom to dump off some steadfast…

be back in a few.

 

[sadie2723]

Yes just as others have in other places.

You negative of my own statement should be historically verifiable.

And I am asking you for the same verification beyond your own opinion that he did decided to include them without any supporter infuence or advice.

I am sure if I look long enough, I can provide the evidence you want. Are you equally sure in your own stance that you can provide evidence that he included them on his own without influence or advice from his supporters?

I gotta say that I agree with Joey. Why the heck does proof always have to come from the Catholic side of things? Yet, our protestant brothers and sisters get to make wild claims without backing them up? I think not. If you are SO sure that Martin acted alone, where is your proof for that? I personally have never found indication that he acted alone. I have found a multitude of statements saying that there were books he decided that he did not want.

And, lets not forget that there were several books…Macabees for instance, that Luther did help to remove. And, as I have pointed out, Luther did this to establish a difference between his new church and the Catholic Church. As I pointed out, he had to do this in order to make anyone follow him.

In any event, I do think that the protestants on this site have as much duty to prove their claims as the Catholics do.

Cheers!

 

[JoeyWarren]

Here is something from someone I have met during a seminar given by Michael Cumbie:

This is an excerpt from John Giles’ conversion story located here: chnetwork.org/gilesconv.htm

John Giles is President of the Alabama chapter of the "Christian Coalition. This chapter of the Coalition is breaking away from the National Group because they believe the national group has strayed away from it’s core tenants and beliefs. The National Group is making too many compromises.

I find this pertinent based on the parallelism of what I have placed in bold of John’s statement.

In addition, there have been doctrinal changes across Protestantism. Under Martin Luther certain books were removed from the Old Testament, even though they were in the Bible used by Jesus and the Apostles. Martin Luther even wanted to remove the book of James because he thought it conflicted with the doctrine of being saved by grace alone. James 2:20 states, “But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead.”

Two things followed Martin Luther’s departure from the Catholic Church; one is that men will scatter quickly outside of authority. The divisions in the Protestant ranks vary over a wide range of disputes and differences, which led us today to having over 33,000 denominations. Each year new church splits occur over the most insignificant issues, which continue to multiply.

Yet, Martin Luther’s departure forced the Catholic Church to reform and vigorously deal with the valid and undisputable accusations levied against the Church. History teaches the doctrines of the Catholic Church have been consistent and scriptural; man did fail, but God never fails and the teachings and traditions of Christ are tried, true and tested over time, even until today. Man did fail, but the doctrinal scriptural teachings did not fail.

 

[JoeyWarren]

P.S. The Alabama Chapter is not the only one breaking away.

 

[sadie2723]

Rock on!

 

[Steadfast]

Are you equally sure in your own stance that you can provide evidence that he included them on his own without influence or advice from his supporters?

Joey.

I don’t have to anything to prove.

Luther translated the Bible.

He included all the books in question, and then some.

The reasonable assumption is that he did so because he thought they belonged there.

Your contention that he only did so because he was persuaded to do so by friends is what is in question.

I appreciate your attempt to deflect, but please, either answer the charge or withdraw it…

 

[Hegesippus]

I do not know much about Luther, but I have a question. If he did not want to split from the Church why did he do away with many Church teachings? Why did he do away with the ordained priesthood and the hierarchy and replace the Church with the Bible? Did he think the Church was going to actually change Her teachings and if it did it would no longer be the Catholic Church, but Luther’s Church.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Joey.

I don’t have to anything to prove.

Luther translated the Bible.

He included all the books in question, and then some.

The reasonable assumption is that he did so because he thought they belonged there.

Your contention that he only did so because he was persuaded to do so by friends is what is in question.

I appreciate your attempt to deflect, but please, either answer the charge or withdraw it…

I will only withdraw the charge if you can provide the evidence I requested. This is not a court of law, so the burden of proof does not lie with the prosecutor. Burden of proof lies with the defender. I have provided two sources to serve as witnesses that he was challenged or influenced by his supporters. You have provided nothing.