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

[JRKH]

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)
Then Martin Luther determined that The Bible was wrong and changed it by removing books. (I don’t wish to get into other changes like “adding alone”)

Thoughts? corrections?

peace
James

 

[revert_jen]

When I was away from the Church, I heard the phrase “an imperfect collect of perfect books.” I think it was used by conservative Presbyterians, but I did fair bit of church-hopping so it might have been someone else. Anyway, my guess is that Luther thought he was making the collection more perfect.

The “imperfect collection” idea made me uncomfortable at the time, and now that I have thought more about it, I think the phrase is nearly meaningless. I mean, if the Holy Spirit could guide the authors to write only truth, surely He could have guided the people who just had to assemble the books.

But more importantly, the phrase can only really mean that there are other books that should be in the Bible that aren’t. Because otherwise what you have is “an imperfect collection of some perfect books and some other books that aren’t.” But how could the Holy Spirit, who went to the trouble of inspiring an author, just let books be lost? And how can sola scripture be right if you don’t know what God intented Scripture to consist of? When you think about it, adhering only to the Scripture you know, while knowing that there is more scripture that you don’t know about, well it’s pretty problematic.

:twocents: --Jen

 

[DavidFilmer]

First Martin Luther determined that “The Bible is all you need” (Sola Scriptura)
Then Martin Luther determined that The Bible was wrong and changed it by removing books. (I don’t wish to get into other changes like “adding alone”)

But, before either determinations, he decided the Catholic Church has no authority. So why should he (or any protestant) be bound by the Catholic Canon of Scripture? What prevents them from adding to, or removing from, or otherwise changing the Canon of Scripture?

Answer: Nothing. The Bible is all we need (according to ML), but the Bible is whatever we make it out to be, and it means whatever we personally think it means.

It’s a house built upon sand.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Luther was not the pedigree of SS that some modern Christians are. Luther felt that Tradition did not have the same authority as Scripture, but as long as he felt they did not contradict Scripture, they were worth believing in…such as the Immaculate Conception.

Luther’s attempt to alter Scripture was based on his appeal to Jerome, who at one point in his life, challenged the validity of the Deuterocanonical books (although he ultimately submitted to those whose authority it was to discern). Luther felt that the “original” canon was the 66 book Bible…thus to him, he was not altering anything, but restoring it.

 

[WesleyF]

Then Martin Luther determined that The Bible was wrong and changed it by removing books. (I don’t wish to get into other changes like “adding alone”)

I think Luther was foolish. John 16:13 clearly states that the Holy Spirit will guide the church into all truth. It is stupid to assume that for nearly 1500 years the Holy Spirit had not been able to convey to the church as to which books belonged to the Bible and which did not (and especially since he believed Sola Scriptura was true). That’s absurd! That’s idiocy!

 

[PJY86]

Luther didn’t just reject the Deuterocanonicals, but also wanted to reject books of the New Testament like James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelations. But, as was mentioned, this is perfectly consistent with him rejecting the authority that gathered the books together.

revert_jen,
I’ve heard the same idea of the “fallible collection of infallible books” argument from a Presbyterian speaker named R. C. Sproul . It is terribly ad hoc and contrived. Firstly, this would only give people the right to add new books, but never to remove books from the canon. If you did this, you would have to say that one or more books in the collection was fallible. Thus the saying would no longer hold. But the Prebyterians have removed 7 books from the canon as it was defined by the earliest Church councils. Secondly, if you hold that there may be books out there that belong in the canon which aren’t currently in the canon, I find it untenable to hold the doctrine of Scripture alone, as you would necessarily have to admit that your current canon does not contain God’s whole inspired instruction.
In conclusion, it seems that you can only affirm “sola scriptura” if the canon is an infallible collection of infallible books. But for the collection to be infallible, the organizer of the books must have been inspired just as the writers of the separate books were. This means that an extra-biblical authority would have to be granted infallibility by the Holy Spirit for this infallible act. The doctrine of sola scriptura must rest on an extra-scriptural authority; this is a contradiction.

 

[Drawmack]

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)
Then Martin Luther determined that The Bible was wrong and changed it by removing books. (I don’t wish to get into other changes like “adding alone”)

Thoughts? corrections?

peace
James

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.

 

[Drawmack]

But, before either determinations, he decided the Catholic Church has no authority. So why should he (or any protestant) be bound by the Catholic Canon of Scripture? What prevents them from adding to, or removing from, or otherwise changing the Canon of Scripture?

Answer: Nothing. The Bible is all we need (according to ML), but the Bible is whatever we make it out to be, and it means whatever we personally think it means.

It’s a house built upon sand.

It is very apparent that you’ve never read the things Martin Luther wrote. If you’re going to make statements like this you should really read his large and small catechisms first. Just as Catholics consistently tell protestants to read the CCC, shouldn’t Catholics take their own advice?

 

[rpp]

It is very apparent that you’ve never read the things Martin Luther wrote. If you’re going to make statements like this you should really read his large and small catechisms first. Just as Catholics consistently tell protestants to read the CCC, shouldn’t Catholics take their own advice?

You mean read things like it is well and good to pray to the Blessed Virgin Mary? Or where he removed books from the New Testament like the aforementioned Hebrews, James, Titus and Revelation in his first translation into German? Or, after being pressured to put them back in, he altered the text in James which contradicts salvation by faith alone? Or that it did not matter if we sin, that we can commit a hundred murders a day or hundred adulterous acts a day and it does not matter? Are those the things you are referring to?

 

[tukfryer]

I think Luther was foolish. John 16:13 clearly states that the Holy Spirit will guide the church into all truth. It is stupid to assume that for nearly 1500 years the Holy Spirit had not been able to convey to the church as to which books belonged to the Bible and which did not (and especially since he believed Sola Scriptura was true). That’s absurd! That’s idiocy!

It says that the Holy Spirit will guide those that poses it, those that have received it, not a church.
Those born of the Spirit are the church it is stupid to presume that a church by earthly definition is the procurator of salvation, whether it be a man or an institution.
Your interchangeable use of the word church is wrong. Your presumption about this Spirit guiding only the Apostles into truth and teaching is also wrong. Though the CC would like everyone to think that this universal gift to all born again Christians is the exclusive property of the CC.

1 John 2:20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things. 21 I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth.

1 John 2:27 But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will[e] abide in Him.

1 Cor 6:19 Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? 20 For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body[c] and in your spirit, which are God’s.

Eph 1:13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

Eph 4:30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.

Heb 9:11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come,[a] with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. 12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, 14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

2 Tim 4:17 But the Lord stood with me and strengthened me, so that the message might be preached fully through me, and that all the Gentiles might hear.

 

[rpp]

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.


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

 

[Drawmack]

You mean read things like it is well and good to pray to the Blessed Virgin Mary? Or where he removed books from the New Testament like the aforementioned Hebrews, James, Titus and Revelation in his first translation into German? Or, after being pressured to put them back in, he altered the text in James which contradicts salvation by faith alone? Or that it did not matter if we sin, that we can commit a hundred murders a day or hundred adulterous acts a day and it does not matter? Are those the things you are referring to?

Still apparent you haven’t read his catechisms.

 

[Drawmack]

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

Why don’t you try brushing up on a little history before you post things that make it apparent you have no idea what you’re talking about?

 

[SteveGC]

It says that the Holy Spirit will guide those that poses it, those that have received it, not a church.

Not that I disagree that the Spirit is a guide for all who have received Him, but actually, in John 16 here, it says He will guide you. And the you is clearly the apostles…and the apostles were the church, the earliest leaders of it. Of course, it helps to have a clear distinction about what “guide into all truth” really means. I’ll get to that in a sec.

tukfryer:

Those born of the Spirit are the church it is stupid to presume that a church by earthly definition is the procurator of salvation, whether it be a man or an institution.

Seems like you’re making a presumption that the Catholic Church is a man-made institution. This all becomes much more understandable once you recognize the fact that the Catholic Church is the maturation of that very same church of which the apostles themselves were the very first leaders of.

tukfryer:

Your interchangeable use of the word church is wrong.

Not quite. The Church is both visible and invisible. Christ clearly wanted His Church to stand on a hill and be a beacon unto all the world, so they would know where to come to learn of Him.

tukfryer:

Your presumption about this Spirit guiding only the Apostles into truth and teaching is also wrong.

I think the point here is that there are specific concepts of “guiding” that are unique gifts of the Holy Spirit, set aside for unique purposes. The guidance the Spirit gives the Church, specifically the apostolic leadership, is the inerrant and fully protected knowledge of the full teachings of Jesus Christ, clearly given to the apostles alone. No other individual believer receives this gift directly from the Spirit. Individual believers who receive the Spirit are also guided, but this guidance is the application of the received truth in their personal lives, in their lifelong walk with Christ. IOW, the apostles are given the “what”, and all believers are given the “how”. Not that individual believers don’t receive or are not made aware of the “what”, but the distinction here is that it was not given directly to them by the Spirit, it was given by the Church who possessed it, as given Her directly by the Spirit.

tukfryer:

Though the CC would like everyone to think that this universal gift to all born again Christians is the exclusive property of the CC.

Again the guidance of knowledge of the full teachings of Jesus Christ in faith, salvation and morals is NOT a universal gift, in the sense that it is not directly gifted to all persons by the Spirit, rather gifted directly to very limited, specific persons. All others who wish to share in this knowledge must acquire it from those specific persons…and they, and their anointed successors, alone. (not through a personal reading of Scripture, or listening to a self-appointed preacher).

In this light, your referenced scriptural passages bring forth the beauty of this divine reality. The Timothy verse reveals Paul’s capacity to teach all things on account of his ordination from the apostles. This is why today’s Catholic Church retains the authentic, divinely gifted capacity to safeguard and promulgate the fullness of Christ’s teachings, including the dispensation of His sacraments…precisely because the leaders have received authentic anointing - authentic ordination from within the unbroken lineage of apostolic succession since Pentecost.

 

[SteveGC]

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.

This valid historical record of where the two versions of scripture originated is fine…but does not change the fact that Luther DID errantly remove the books from the Bible. He may have thought he was simply restoring the authentic version by removing them, but he was in fact removing them from the divinely inspired, complete and authentic canon.

 

[Drawmack]

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

Nah, next I will claim that Joseph Ratzinger was a Nazi, well a Nazi in training after all he was a member of the Hitler youth. You should be careful what historical events you decide to make fair game.

 

[Drawmack]

This valid historical record of where the two versions of scripture originated is fine…but does not change the fact that Luther DID errantly remove the books from the Bible. He may have thought he was simply restoring the authentic version by removing them, but he was in fact removing them from the divinely inspired, complete and authentic canon.

First, the books of the Old Testament come from Jewish tradition – not Christian tradition. There were two Jewish traditions which recognized different books of Cannon. Luther followed one and the Catholic Church followed another. Thus, Luther did not remove the books he simply followed a different tradition.

Secondly, Luther’s original Bible included that Deuterocanoicls (sp?). It included them in between the Old and New Testaments with a note explaining why.

Third, I will not debate if this was in error or not because we will simply both state our cases ad nausium since it is a matter of opinion and not a matter of fact.

 

[rpp]

Still apparent you haven’t read his catechisms.

Why don’t you try brushing up on a little history before you post things that make it apparent you have no idea what you’re talking about?

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.

 

[rpp]

First, the books of the Old Testament come from Jewish tradition – not Christian tradition. There were two Jewish traditions which recognized different books of Cannon. Luther followed one and the Catholic Church followed another. Thus, Luther did not remove the books he simply followed a different tradition.

Secondly, Luther’s original Bible included that Deuterocanoicls (sp?). It included them in between the Old and New Testaments with a note explaining why.

Third, I will not debate if this was in error or not because we will simply both state our cases ad nausium since it is a matter of opinion and not a matter of fact.

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.

 

[Jolly_Joe]

When Luther made his translation, he didn’t end up doing something new. He ended up following what he believed was the historic faith.

Did he question personally some of the New Testament books, sure, but it should be noted that much of what people says proves he wanted to remove them comes from the prefaces to the books from his translation. Prefaces that really were changed in subsequent translations.

As for the Old Testament and the Apocryphal books he certainly wasn’t an innovator there either. When you take the references he used in his translation, his treatment really was in agreement with them

Those resources include the Vulgate, which his treatment of the books agreed with Jerome. There were two other Latin translations done by a couple of Cardinals with very good things said about them by people like the Popes. One had them in the order that the Vulgate did but pointed them out as not be canonical scripture. The other actually had them in a separate section. There was also the Glossa ordinaria given Luther by his Bishop, and used for hundreds of years as a text which again said the book weren’t authoritative scripture.

As for a resource that he had that said they were authoritative, he didn’t have one. The Septuagint did not say, and Erasmus’s New Testament didn’t say anything about the Apocrypha either, though some of Erasmus’ questioning of the New Testament books likely was in there, I haven’t researched that, in any case Luther was familiar with Erasmus’ doubts about some of the books.

Other contemporary sources also showed agreement. Things like the well respected Complutensian polyglot led by another Cardinal again said the Apocrypha was not authoritative scripture.

I know it’s popular to talk like Luther innovated the whole thing but that’s just not the case. Now one could argue he was wrong in following those whom he followed and granted that Luther’s style of writing doesn’t often make it sound like he was a follower but I don’t know of him ever saying he wanted to start anything new either.

In any case, the treatment of the books did not originate with Luther.

The use of the translation “faith alone” didn’t orginate with Luther either, but I suppose that’s another thread.