Reformers:1) SS is right, 2) The Bible is wrong...

[JRKH]

Martin Luther did not remove books from the Bible. That is simply false! There were two different camps of Judaism, which recognized different Cannon. One group, centered in the area of Greece, recognized more books because they allowed books of cannon that were originally written in Greek. Another group only allowed books of Cannon if they were originally written in Hebrew. The Catholic Church uses the OT books recognized by the first group using the rational that these are the books the apostles had access to because of the area they are from. Martin Luther uses the books recognized by the second group because that group was much larger. I’m not saying either one is right or wrong, just stating the facts.

YEs -Yes - Yes, I understand that there were two different camps in Judaism as regards the OT canon. What has that got to do with how the, Christ Founded, Spirit Guided, Christian Church determined the canon of the Bible for Christans?
Do you believe that Jesus meant what He said when He promised the “Helper” who would lead the Church to all Truth?
Does it make sense that, when the “Spirit Guided” Church determined the canon at the end of the 4th Century would get it wrong?
Does it make sense that the Same Spirit Guided Church would reaffirm the Same (erronious?) canon at no less than 7 councils before the Reformation?
Does it make sense that Martin Luther, who put so much stock in the validity of the “Bible” teaching should begin by changing the long accepted Canon?

I realize that it is difficult to swallow, but the fact is that it makes NO difference WHAT the Jews decided about the canon. The Bible that was handed to Luther by The Church to study and teach from included ALL of the books that it had contained for the last 1000 years. It was LUTHER who advocated and finally managed to have the books removed by his Protestant followers.

Peace
James

 

[Drawmack]

YEs -Yes - Yes, I understand that there were two different camps in Judaism as regards the OT canon. What has that got to do with how the, Christ Founded, Spirit Guided, Christian Church determined the canon of the Bible for Christans?

The Christian Church did not have the authority, or the right, to decide Old Testament Cannon. The Old Testament is not a Christian collection, it is a Jewish collection. Thus, your premise question is erroneous.

Do you believe that Jesus meant what He said when He promised the “Helper” who would lead the Church to all Truth?

Do you believe that Jesus meant what He said when He said that no one comes to the father but by me? Do you also believe that Mary is the mediatrix of salvation? These two statements are diametrically opposed and cannot both be true.

Does it make sense that, when the “Spirit Guided” Church determined the canon at the end of the 4th Century would get it wrong?

What makes sense is that God wanted those books, which while not Cannon and not of the same weight as Cannon, preserved and the only way to preserve them in the 4th century was to have man view them as Cannon. However, later, once man had developed more and gained a better understanding and ability to preserve ancient texts, those books need not be viewed as Cannon to be preserved. Similar to the way the Catholic Church says it can refine beliefs but not change them.

Does it make sense that the Same Spirit Guided Church would reaffirm the Same (erronious?) canon at no less than 7 councils before the Reformation?

It does when you realize that the Catholic Church has never once admitted error – not even for the crusades or the inquisition.

Does it make sense that Martin Luther, who put so much stock in the validity of the “Bible” teaching should begin by changing the long accepted Canon?

It makes more sense than that the “One and only Christian Church” would turn its back on widely accepted Jewish tradition of what is (and is not) Cannon.

I realize that it is difficult to swallow, but the fact is that it makes NO difference WHAT the Jews decided about the canon. The Bible that was handed to Luther by The Church to study and teach from included ALL of the books that it had contained for the last 1000 years. It was LUTHER who advocated and finally managed to have the books removed by his Protestant followers.

Next time you feel like firing a bunch of questions in order to make a point you might do well to allow the other person time to respond to those questions before you assume they will not.

 

[Drawmack]

The canon of Scripture is NOT a matter of opinion. It absolutely IS a matter of fact. To claim the Luter and others did not remove books from the Bible is ludicrous. Are you are doing here is desperately looking for a justification after the fact for their chaning of scripture and you intentionally ignore the other grave changes they wanted to make, but were unable to. You are either ignorant of history or are engaging in revisionist history. Either way, you are not credible on this subject.

Well, you claim that one set of books is Cannon and I claim that another set is Cannon and God hasn’t struck either of us dead – sounds like opinion to me.

Again your post betrays a complete lack of any historical understanding. Seriously you should try reading some secular history of the subject at hand as everything I’ve seen from both Catholic and Protestant sources is slanted (usually extremely slanted).

 

[kcmekim]

I had this thought lying in bed last night and just wanted to get others take on it as a point of fact.
I am not learned enough on the details of the Reformation so please correct me if I am wrong here.

First Martin Luther determined that “The Bible is all you need” (Sola Scriptura)

What’s your source for this quote?

If Luther believed that the Bible is all we need, then why all of the creeds and confessions and catechisms?

 

[kcmekim]

Next you will claim Luther was not anti-semitic and that Hitler did not use him as an excuse for the Holocaust.

Luther wasn’t anti-Semetic. What Hitler did is Hitler’s responsibility, not Luther’s.

Luther made a statement about one specific group of men who happened to be Jewish religious leaders, using the same kind of impreccatory language David used in the Psalms and Paul used in Galatians. Were they anti-Semetic, too?

 

[SemperReformada]

What’s your source for this quote?

If Luther believed that the Bible is all we need, then why all of the creeds and confessions and catechisms?

You need to read what Luther actually wrote about the subject.

 

[kcmekim]

You need to read what Luther actually wrote about the subject.

I have.

 

[SteveGC]

Some clarification of Sola Scriptura is in order…

it is not a proclamation that the Bible is all we need. It is a proclamation that the Bible is the sole authority of the faith.

Both claims are actually false, but the latter is Luther’s belief, not the former.

That’s why Luther and other reformers did not do away with creating creeds and catechisms, nor did they deny the importance of tradition…they indeed believed all of these things to be of value for believers…with one caveat…they all had to first agree with Scripture…which is ok on the surface, but once you look at it closely, it falls flat…

The problem with all this is that it is backwards, and therefore faulty, because it eradicates an essential principle…that scripture itself needs something outside of it to authenticate it and correctly interpret it. In Luther’s world, the buck stopped at Scripture, but that left a gaping hole in determining which scriptural interpretation was the authentic one…something that Luther could not provide once he denied Rome it’s authority. Hence, there was not, and to this day has not been, nor will there ever be, a single genuine infallible interpretation of Sacred Scripture in the post-Reformist Protestant Christian world. This is why Sola Scriptura is false…it denies Scripture it’s absolutely necessary authentic, consistent and inerrant interpretation of the teachings of Jesus Christ that are contained within it. End of story.

 

[SteveGC]

Do you believe that Jesus meant what He said when He said that no one comes to the father but by me? Do you also believe that Mary is the mediatrix of salvation? These two statements are diametrically opposed and cannot both be true.

They aren’t diametrically opposed because they don’t refer to the same reality. Mary as mediatrix does not mean she is the one whom we go to in order to go to the Father, which is clearly Jesus’ role alone. It means the grace we receive from God flows through her unto us. Hence, both statements are indeed true statements of the faith. Consider taking time to read this.

Drawmack:

What makes sense is that God wanted those books, which while not Cannon and not of the same weight as Cannon, preserved and the only way to preserve them in the 4th century was to have man view them as Cannon. However, later, once man had developed more and gained a better understanding and ability to preserve ancient texts, those books need not be viewed as Cannon to be preserved. Similar to the way the Catholic Church says it can refine beliefs but not change them.

Wow. Never heard this theory. So, the Church’s inspired canonization of Sacred Scripture with respect to these specific books was to merely preserve them, not declare them inspired, even though they were indeed declared inspired at the time of canonization?

And God Himself preserved these specific books this way for 1200 years, just so that they could be seen as inspired by the faithful for 1200 years, and then be “ruled” uninspired by Reformers? Help me with this logic. How is it that God would not be capable of “preserving” what you claim are uninspired books by any other means than allowing them in Sacred Scripture, wherein they are, by definition, to be declared as inspired? You seem to be making God an author of confusion.

Drawmack:

It does when you realize that the Catholic Church has never once admitted error – not even for the crusades or the inquisition.

These are errors in behavior, not errors in doctrine. The former is not protected by the Spirit, the latter is.

Drawmack:

It makes more sense than that the “One and only Christian Church” would turn its back on widely accepted Jewish tradition of what is (and is not) Cannon.

And yet, you just said that God Himself made sure they were in the canon to preserve them…so if the Jewish tradition didn’t want them, and God made sure they were in canon, who are you saying actually turned their back on the tradition? Surely you aren’t suggesting God did?

 

[SemperReformada]

I have.

Then what did Luther say of catechisms and creeds?

 

[Drawmack]

Actually, your responses proves that it is you do not know what he wrote nor do you understand history, either 16th century or 20th century. I noticed that you did not refute the statements. You just made an ad hominum attack on me.

Here is some history for you.
nobeliefs.com/luther.htm
wiki.answers.com/Q/Was_Martin_Luther_anti_semitic

Educate yourself before you say that others are ignorant.

By the way, I most certainly HAVE read Martin Luther. His writings are some of the most profane “religious” writings I have ever read. He constantly makes reference to excrement, defecation, support for sodomy with women among other references.

Further study reveals that Luther ushered in a period of violence not seen in Europe since the barbarian invasions that toppled the Roman Empire. He sided wirh noble in the slaughter of and massacre of peasants. It was not until Hitler that a single man was responsible for so many civilian deaths.

There have been papal bulls in support of slavery, what’s your point?

 

[SteveGC]

There have been papal bulls in support of slavery, what’s your point?

I agree, there is no point in highlighting the sins of any person within the context of a discussion about the validity of Sola Scriptura, or any topic regarding the full truth of our faith in Christ.

Luther’s sins are irrelevant, as are the sins of a handful of popes in the Church.

What is relevant is the truth or falsehood of the sole authority of Scripture. And for the subtopic of Luther’s alleged removal of books from the Bible, the relevance is centered around the truth regarding what in fact IS the official canon of Scripture, and if it in fact did or did not, at the time of 4th century canonization, contain a full collection of ALL the inspired books…or were some within it included solely for preservation purposes.

If we’ll all refrain from focusing on the behaviors of those involved, and more on the authenticity of what they did, then we’ll be more fruitful to the purposes of this thread, IMO.

blessings.

 

[cazayoux]

I realize that it is difficult to swallow, but the fact is that it makes NO difference WHAT the Jews decided about the canon.

Exactly!

The Jews didn’t define a canon until AD97.
Why oh why would a Christian give any authority to the Jews or their canon after the resurrection of Christ 63 years before?!
They no longer had any authority.

michel

 

[cazayoux]

There have been papal bulls in support of slavery, what’s your point?

The point is that Luther stood in front of the bishops and said “Here I stand, I can do no other.”
This was his response to the church saying that it has the authority from the apostles.

Luther was in essence saying that what he understood from scripture was what he was relying completely on, and that nobody had the right to tell him differently.

It took less than 2 years for him to become a hypocrit.
He saw the splintering of his own church.
He complained about every person ignoring what the church (his church) taught.
He complained about every individual thinking they were a scholar about such matters.

So did he realize his mistake and come running back to the Catholic Church.
We know he did not.
Instead, he quelled (in not so nice ways) heresies, as he defined them.
Everyone knew that Luther was a hot-head anyway.
What about the even-keeled Calvin?

Same experience.
Calvin, like Luther, could out-pope the pontiff.
58 people put to death in Geneva for heresy, countless others driven from the land.

The point is …
Luther believed that HE had the authority to interpret scripture, he didn’t really believe that YOU had the authority to.

Why do you think, after a short jump in denominations in the 15/16th century time that we see virtually no explosion of the number of denominations in Christianity … until the 18th Century. The West was opened up (America), and THEN we see an explosion of denominations.

The point is, Luther founded a church on himself and his interpretation of scripture.
For scripture that was a problem for his theology, he tried to take it out.
Friends encouraged him to keep the new testament intact. (This is why you see it re-assembled, not because Luther had a change of heart)
The Catholic Church was founded by Christ on Peter, to shepherd his sheep… not on any pope or other individual since. A papal bull on slavery says nothing about the doctrine of the Church, which are the teachings of the church Jesus founded. These teachings are not based on the holiness of the individual pope, but on the holiness of Jesus promise to His church.

The church says: This is the teaching of the church. (not based on an individual)
Luther says: This is my teaching (quite a different basis)

This is why Luther’s character is a focus, and not any sinful pope (that thankfully did not attempt to teach any doctrine).

michel

 

[kcmekim]

Then what did Luther say of catechisms and creeds?

You mean like the Small Catechism?
Martin Luther:

The deplorable, miserable condition which I discovered lately when I, too, was a visitor, has forced and urged me to prepare [publish] this Catechism, or Christian doctrine, in this small, plain, simple form…

…But those who are unwilling to learn it should be told that they deny Christ and are no Christians, neither should they be admitted to the Sacrament, accepted as sponsors at baptism, nor exercise any part of Christian liberty, but should simply be turned back to the Pope and his officials, yea, to the devil himself.

Sounds like he was OK with them.

 

[cazayoux]

What’s your source for this quote?

If Luther believed that the Bible is all we need, then why all of the creeds and confessions and catechisms?

So Luther could explain what he believed, his theology.
I agree, it’s odd that he would have these creeds and confessions.
Why not give everyone a bible and leave it at that?

Luther believed the creeds of old as well … as long as they were in accord with scripture.

The issue is … who’s interpretation of scripture is used when determining if they are in accord.

If any individual believed those confessions to not be in accord with scripture, they they might make their own.
Oh wait … that’s exactly what Calvin did.

michel

 

[kcmekim]

Some clarification of Sola Scriptura is in order…

it is not a proclamation that the Bible is all we need. It is a proclamation that the Bible is the sole authority of the faith.

Not exactly. We do not believe that it is the sole authority of the faith, but that it is the supreme authority to which all other authorities must defer.

Both claims are actually false

Straw men usually are.

This is why Sola Scriptura is false…it denies Scripture it’s absolutely necessary authentic, consistent and inerrant interpretation of the teachings of Jesus Christ that are contained within it. End of story.

Not even remotely what sola scriptura teaches.

 

[kcmekim]

So Luther could explain what he believed, his theology.
I agree, it’s odd that he would have these creeds and confessions.

Why? Even the Bible says that we have creeds.

Why not give everyone a bible and leave it at that?

Because that would be Unbiblical.

 

[cazayoux]

Some clarification of Sola Scriptura is in order…

it is not a proclamation that the Bible is all we need. It is a proclamation that the Bible is the sole authority of the faith.

Both claims are actually false, but the latter is Luther’s belief, not the former.

That’s why Luther and other reformers did not do away with creating creeds and catechisms, nor did they deny the importance of tradition…they indeed believed all of these things to be of value for believers…with one caveat…they all had to first agree with Scripture…which is ok on the surface, but once you look at it closely, it falls flat…

The problem with all this is that it is backwards, and therefore faulty, because it eradicates an essential principle…that scripture itself needs something outside of it to authenticate it and correctly interpret it. In Luther’s world, the buck stopped at Scripture, but that left a gaping hole in determining which scriptural interpretation was the authentic one…something that Luther could not provide once he denied Rome it’s authority. Hence, there was not, and to this day has not been, nor will there ever be, a single genuine infallible interpretation of Sacred Scripture in the post-Reformist Protestant Christian world. This is why Sola Scriptura is false…it denies Scripture it’s absolutely necessary authentic, consistent and inerrant interpretation of the teachings of Jesus Christ that are contained within it. End of story.

Very well and clearly stated.
This IS the crux of the issue.
“as long as it agrees with scripture” just doesn’t work without an official interpreter of scripture.

michel

 

[cazayoux]

Why? Even the Bible says that we have creeds.
Because that would be Unbiblical.

I agree … I was being facetious.
Luther did not believe that every individual had the right to interpret the bible.
Luther thought people needed to agree with HIS interpretation of the bible.
He did not afford others (Zwingli) the freedom of interpretation that Luther claimed for himself while standing in front of the Catholic bishops.

michel