Sola Scriptura again

[Good_Fella]

**

I’m not really sure that Lutherans qualify as representative protestants, nor modern Roman Catholics as representative of the early “fathers” who did not own the seven sacraments.. .

1. Baptism

“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them.”
Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]

2. Reconciliation / Penance

“For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of penance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ.”
Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Philadelphians 3 [A.D. 110]

“For where there is division and wrath, God does not dwell. To all them that repent, the Lord grants forgiveness, if they turn in penitence to the unity of God, and to communion with the bishop.”
Ibid., 8

**3. Holy Eucharist / the Real Presence **

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.”
Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]

“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood.?”
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]

4. Confirmation

“The bishop, imposing his hand on them, shall make an invocation, saying, ‘O Lord God, who made them worthy of the remission of sins through the Holy Spirit’s washing unto rebirth, send into them your grace so that they may serve you according to your will, for there is glory to you, to the Father and the Son with the Holy Spirit, in the holy Church, both now and through the ages of ages. Amen.’ Then, pouring the consecrated oil into his hand and imposing it on the head of the baptized, he shall say, ‘I anoint you with holy oil in the Lord, the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit.’ Signing them on the forehead, he shall kiss them and say, ‘The Lord be with you.’ He that has been signed shall say, ‘And with your spirit.’ Thus shall he do to each.”
Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition 21–22 [A.D. 215]

5. Holy Matrimony

“In regard to chastity, Jesus has this to say: ‘If anyone look with lust at a woman, he has already before God committed adultery in his heart.’ And, ‘Whoever marries a woman who has been divorced from another husband, commits adultery.’ According to our Teacher, just as they are sinners who contract a second marriage, even though it be in accord with human law, so also are they sinners who look with lustful desire at a woman. He repudiates not only one who actually commits adultery, but even one who wishes to do so; for not only our actions are manifest to God, but even our thoughts."
Justin Martyr, First Apology 15 [A.D. 151]

6. Holy Orders

“Indeed, when you submit to the bishop as you would to Jesus Christ, it is clear to me that you are living not in the manner of men but as Jesus Christ, who died for us, that through faith in his death you might escape dying. It is necessary, therefore—and such is your practice that you do nothing without the bishop, and that you be subject also to the presbytery, as to the apostles of Jesus Christ our hope, in whom we shall be found, if we live in him. It is necessary also that the deacons, the dispensers of the mysteries [sacraments] of Jesus Christ, be in every way pleasing to all men. For they are not the deacons of food and drink, but servants of the Church of God. They must therefore guard against blame as against fire."
Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Trallians 2:1–3 [A.D. 110]

7. Anointing of the Sick

“The priests of Judaism had power to cleanse the body from leprosy—or rather, not to cleanse it at all, but to declare a person as having been cleansed. . . . Our priests have received the power not of treating with the leprosy of the body, but with spiritual uncleanness; not of declaring cleansed, but of actually cleansing. . . . Priests accomplish this not only by teaching and admonishing, but also by the help of prayer. Not only at the time of our regeneration [in baptism], but even afterward, they have the authority to forgive sins: ‘Is there anyone among you sick? Let him call in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and the Lord shall raise him up, and if he has committed sins, he shall be forgiven’.”
John Chrysostom, On the Priesthood 3:6:190ff [A.D. 387]

**The Apostolic Tradition **

“That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?”
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:4:1 [A.D. 189]

cf. www.churchfathers.org

PAX
:heaven:

 

[steido01]

I believe I did do this and furthermore others (non Catholic) have alluded to it.

You did not address the Lutheran understanding of Sola Scriptura. You attacked the “protestant” view, which you mistakenly presume to be the same as the Straw Man you’ve built. If that truly was the view we Lutherans had, I’d join you in your argument.

But rather than having me defend myself let us agree with the Lutheran postion on what sola scriptura really means that the Bible is the final authority on matters of doctrine.

First, which Bible will we use? Rome’s, at 73 books? Martin Luther’s, at 74 books? or the Ethiopian Orthodox, at 81 books? Holy Scripture is the final, and sole, rule and norm. What that means is not what you (nor protestants who have co-opted our terminology) seem to think it means.

Now having done that please show me where the Bible says we are to worship God on Sunday? The Bible says that Saturday is the Sabbath not Sunday. So why do Lutherans worship on Sunday??? I know why Catholics do so. But we don’t claim that the authority to change the worship to Sunday is scripturally based. That is only one of the contradictions to the Lutheran concept of sola scriptura.

Whoa, now. I don’t know of a single Lutheran who considers Sunday worship to be doctrine; in fact, our Confessions state the opposite. Please don’t put words in our mouths. It happens that Lutherans typically set aside that day for the Divine Service, but it is within our Christian freedom to do so. From the Augsburg Confession, Article XXVIII:

Of this kind is the observance of the Lord’s Day, Easter, Pentecost, and like holy-days and rites. For those who judge that by the authority of the Church the observance of the Lord’s Day instead of the Sabbath-day was ordained as a thing necessary, do greatly err. Scripture has abrogated the Sabbath-day; for it teaches that, since the Gospel has been revealed, all the ceremonies of Moses can be omitted. And yet, because it was necessary to appoint a certain day, that the people might know when they ought to come together, it appears that the Church designated the Lord’s Day for this purpose; and this day seems to have been chosen all the more for this additional reason, that men might have an example of Christian liberty, and might know that the keeping neither of the Sabbath nor of any other day is necessary.

There are monstrous disputations concerning the changing of the law, the ceremonies of the new law, the changing of the Sabbath-day, which all have sprung from the false belief that there must needs be in the Church a service like to the Levitical, and that Christ had given commission to the Apostles and bishops to devise new ceremonies as necessary to salvation. These errors crept into the Church when the righteousness of faith was not taught clearly enough. Some dispute that the keeping of the Lord’s Day is not indeed of divine right, but in a manner so. They prescribe concerning holy-days, how far it is lawful to work. What elseare such disputations than snares of consciences? For although they endeavor to modify the traditions, yet the mitigation can never be perceived as long as the opinion remains that they are necessary, which must needs remain where the righteousness of faith and Christian liberty are not known.

Care to try again?

But I raised other issues dealing with the scriptural basis for sola scriptura… I mentioned the fact that it was men who decided** what the contents of scripture (the Canon) was to be**. Sola scriptura says these men had no such authority yet their product does. How can they give what they do not have? There are other scriptural issues with sola scriptura also. But these three will suffice for the present.

But while we are at it let’s cover thetypical protestant answer…

And you’ve noted a fine argument against the “typical protestant.” But, again, Lutherans are not typical protestants in this regard. We don’t subscribe to the typical Protestant belief in “an inerrant Protestant canon of 66 books based on their self-evident, internal witness to their own divine inspiration,” nor do we subscribe to the Roman belief “that the infallible Church inerrantly defined the canon, and that it is accepted only on that authority.” Friend, you didn’t really read my link, did you? We can’t really converse unless you do. As Edwin noted, using the “Protestant” straw man to combat Lutheranism is a bogus argument.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Was Luther ever at a point where he did not need “fixing”

Was his Church free from all corruption at any point in time?

Did he ever abuse his self appointed office in his new church?

… same questions for all of the resulting splits after him…

All folks and denominations need fixing.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Not doctrinally, after all that is unscriptural. The Church will always have problems. Jesus said that the forces of hell would not prevail against the church. But he did not say that the forces of hell would not try. In every century the church has been under attack both from outside by persecution and inside by heresy. This is a church of sinners yearning to be saints. We are not a church of saints, at least not yet.

In any event the so called “reformation” was really a rebellion. Luther reformed nothing. Luther changed doctrine and by doing so he, in effect, called the Holy Spirit which scripture says was to lead the church into all truth, a liar. The real church reformation occurred at Trent.

I disagree. I think Luther is my hero because he reformed he church back to the scriptures. He and subsequent Lutheran reformers jettisoned the false doctrine that was keeping people from the truth of the gospel and focusing on the cross.

 

[Good_Fella]

I disagree. I think Luther is my hero because he reformed he church back to the scriptures.

How does one man reform the Church by opposing the ecclesial authority and starting his own separate church? And where do we find evidence in the Scriptures that he has the ability and divine mandate to do so? I’m afraid that what Luther managed to accomplish contradicts the Scriptures and the Apostolic Tradition of the Church since earliest time. The truth is that the Church is one visible body with an ecclesial hierarchy, and Jesus wills that we obey the episcopal authority he has put in place through the Apostles. By substituting this teaching and ruling authority for Scripture, nothing but doctrinal chaos could result. Instead of reform, we have division and a disunity of faith. It’s evident why Jesus commissioned his apostles to establish one visible Church on earth and appoint able men to succeed them in the divine office proper.

He and subsequent Lutheran reformers jettisoned the false doctrine that was keeping people from the truth of the gospel and focusing on the cross.

Luther took a step too far when he presumed to have the divine authority to formulate his own doctrines based on fallible private judgements and rejected traditional Church dogmas which he replaced with his own. His notion of sola Christo, derived from his erroneous idea of justification by faith alone, was a grotesque exaggeration of the traditional teachings of the Church which contradicted not only the Gospel message but also the faithful testimonies of the Church Fathers.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[spina1953]

How does one man reform the Church by opposing the ecclesial authority and starting his own separate church? And where do we find evidence in the Scriptures that he has the ability and divine mandate to do so? I’m afraid that what Luther managed to accomplish contradicts the Scriptures and the Apostolic Tradition of the Church since earliest time. The truth is that the Church is one visible body with an ecclesial hierarchy, and Jesus wills that we obey the episcopal authority he has put in place through the Apostles. By substituting this teaching and ruling authority for Scripture, nothing but doctrinal chaos could result. Instead of reform, we have division and a disunity of faith. It’s evident why Jesus commissioned his apostles to establish one visible Church on earth and appoint able men to succeed them in the divine office proper.

Luther took a step too far when he presumed to have the divine authority to formulate his own doctrines based on fallible private judgements and rejected traditional Church dogmas which he replaced with his own. His notion of sola Christo, derived from his erroneous idea of justification by faith alone, was a grotesque exaggeration of the traditional teachings of the Church which contradicted not only the Gospel message but also the faithful testimonies of the Church Fathers.

PAX
:heaven:

Hi Good Fella: I could not agree with you more and you have hit the nail on the head, although I do think tthere will be those who will of course disagree with your post.

 

[ezeekl]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ezeekl
But rather than having me defend myself let us agree with the Lutheran postion on what sola scriptura really means that the Bible is the final authority on matters of doctrine.

First, which Bible will we use? Rome’s, at 73 books? Martin Luther’s, at 74 books? or the Ethiopian Orthodox, at 81 books? Holy Scripture is the final, and sole, rule and norm. What that means is not what you (nor protestants who have co-opted our terminology) seem to think it means.

You dwell on sola scriptura as it applies to Lutherans. But others who were inspired by Luther have adopted their own versions. Frankly it matters not to me. The point is that whatever form of sola scriptura you select the same problem exists. That problem is that it is not scriptural. Now why don’t we start at the beginning and prove that sola scriptura is scripturally correct. I have already pointed out some of the evidence against it. You, however, have ignored it. Why is that?

Whoa, now. I don’t know of a single Lutheran who considers Sunday worship to be doctrine; in fact, our Confessions state the opposite. Please don’t put words in our mouths. It happens that Lutherans typically set aside that day for the Divine Service, but it is within our Christian freedom to do so. From the Augsburg Confession, Article XXVII:

Quote:
"Of this kind is the observance of the Lord’s Day, Easter, Pentecost, and like holy-days and rites. For those who judge that by the authority of the Church the observance of the Lord’s Day instead of the Sabbath-day was ordained as a thing necessary, do greatly err. Scripture has abrogated the Sabbath-day; for it teaches that, since the Gospel has been revealed, all the ceremonies of Moses can be omitted. And yet, because it was necessary to appoint a certain day, that the people might know when they ought to come together, it appears that the Church designated the Lord’s Day for this purpose; and this day seems to have been chosen all the more for this additional reason, that men might have an example of Christian liberty, and might know that the keeping neither of the Sabbath nor of any other day is necessary.

There are monstrous disputations concerning the changing of the law, the ceremonies of the new law, the changing of the Sabbath-day, which all have sprung from the false belief that there must needs be in the Church a service like to the Levitical, and that Christ had given commission to the Apostles and bishops to devise new ceremonies as necessary to salvation. These errors crept into the Church when the righteousness of faith was not taught clearly enough. Some dispute that the keeping of the Lord’s Day is not indeed of divine right, but in a manner so. They prescribe concerning holy-days, how far it is lawful to work. What elseare such disputations than snares of consciences? For although they endeavor to modify the traditions, yet the mitigation can never be perceived as long as the opinion remains that they are necessary, which must needs remain where the righteousness of faith and Christian liberty are not known."

Care to try again?

I went to the Augsburg Confession Article XXVII hbut did not find what you quoted. Instead I found this:

“Article XXVII: Of Monastic Vows”

It starts with:

“What is taught on our part concerning Monastic Vows…”

Maybe you shoiuld try again. I will gladly discuss this with you but by the same token let us not put the cart before the horse. It is incumbent on you to prove that sola scriptura, whether it be the Lutheran version or any other one, is scripturally based. As I stated before, I gave scriptural evidence that it was not. I did not quote Church authority I quoted scripture. I have, in the past, asked this repeatedly of other sola scripturists and no one has been willing to prove sola scriptura. Maybe it is not possible. The words of St. Paul are very clear on it. The ball is in your court on this one.

And you’ve noted a fine argument against the “typical protestant.” But, again, Lutherans are not typical protestants in this regard. We don’t subscribe to the typical Protestant belief in “an inerrant Protestant canon of 66 books based on their self-evident, internal witness to their own divine inspiration,” nor do we subscribe to the Roman belief “that the infallible Church inerrantly defined the canon, and that it is accepted only on that authority.” Friend, you didn’t really read my link, did you? We can’t really converse unless you do. As Edwin noted, using the “Protestant” straw man to combat Lutheranism is a bogus argument.

Actually I did read it and, I must admit, was amused. Quite frankly I find what you call, *"… the typical Protestant belief in “an inerrant protestant canon of 66 books based on their self-evident, internal witness to their own divine inspiration,” * to be a more logical belief than the Lutheran one. The Lutheran one seems to be quite vague which is not an attribute one would normally want to ascribe to something that you are going to use as the basis for your doctrine. It also leaves unanswered the question which the “typical Protestant belief” and the Catholic Church’s position answers. That question is who decides what is contained in the canon? The “typical protestant belief” says basically that scripture is self authenicating while the Catholic Church maintains it is a Church established with the authority to bind and loose. The Lutheran answer to this question is basically nonexistant.

 

[steido01]

You dwell on sola scriptura as it applies to Lutherans.

What would you expect from a Lutheran? Should I defend a belief that is not mine? I am thankful that you do acknowledge that the Lutheran understanding of the practice is significantly different from the doctrine(s) of the same label that have been adopted by various ecclessial bodies.

But others who were inspired by Luther have adopted their own versions. Frankly it matters not to me.

Me either; they’re not Lutheran and have chosen not to follow Lutheran teaching on what Sola Scriptura actually is. I am no more responsible for their gown-up decisions than you, as a Roman Catholic, are for mine.

The point is that whatever form of sola scriptura you select the same problem exists. That problem is that it is not scriptural. Now why don’t we start at the beginning and prove that sola scriptura is scripturally correct. I have already pointed out some of the evidence against it. You, however, have ignored it. Why is that?

I responded to your accusations. I ignored nothing.

I went to the Augsburg Confession Article XXVII hbut did not find what you quoted. Instead I found this:

I meant Article XXVIII, not XXVII. No matter, the section I quoted was correct and addressed your point. You claimed (mistakenly) that worship on Sunday is doctrine to Lutherans; I showed you, using authoritative Lutheran sources, that you do not understand Lutheranism in this regard. So, try again.

It is incumbent on you to prove that sola scriptura, whether it be the Lutheran version or any other one, is scripturally based. As I stated before, I gave scriptural evidence that it was not. I did not quote Church authority I quoted scripture. I have, in the past, asked this repeatedly of other sola scripturists and no one has been willing to prove sola scriptura. Maybe it is not possible. The words of St. Paul are very clear on it. The ball is in your court on this one.

It’s not incumbent on me to “prove” anything. Sola Scriptura is a practice of the Lutheran church, not a doctrine. Sure, I could fall into the silly “typical Protestant” trap and simply proof-text for a slew of bible verses, but that wouldn’t be a correct practice of Sola Scriptura. Do understand the distinction I’m making here?

Actually I did read it and, I must admit, was amused. Quite frankly I find what you call, *"… the typical Protestant belief in “an inerrant protestant canon of 66 books based on their self-evident, internal witness to their own divine inspiration,” * to be a more logical belief than the Lutheran one. The Lutheran one seems to be quite vague which is not an attribute one would normally want to ascribe to something that you are going to use as the basis for your doctrine. It also leaves unanswered the question which the “typical Protestant belief” and the Catholic Church’s position answers.

If you phrase the question in such a narrow way, then those are the only two possible sides. Rarely are things so black and white. Perhaps Lutherans are just a little more open to the study of history and tradition than either of the other groups.

That question is who decides what is contained in the canon?

Sounds, to me, like a job for the Holy Spirit through His many means. Voting the question away and damning anyone who disagrees doesn’t seem like a very Spirit-guided conclusion.

The “typical protestant belief” says basically that scripture is self authenicating while the Catholic Church maintains it is a Church established with the authority to bind and loose.

Those would certainly be two possible answers to the particular question you ask. Neither is the Lutheran approach.

The Lutheran answer to this question is basically nonexistant.

No. Here is where we’re having a bit of disconnect. Just because Lutherans don’t define a canon [to anathematize those who disagree] doesn’t mean we can’t identify Scripture where it exists. A non-Lutheran once described the Lutheran understanding of Sola Scriptura as “a sort of science,” which focuses on the Gospels and stems out from there. So if you have the patience to learn about another person’s beliefs (instead of relying on polemics to advance old arguments), I’d encourage you to re-read the article I posted but this time with the understanding that Lutherans aren’t looking for a “table of contents,” so to speak, but rather the simple pursuit of Truth. Even if you disagree, like many great minds have and do, I hope you’ll see that the Lutheran view is not logically incoherent, as you paint it to be.

 

[ezeekl]

.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ezeekl
The point is that whatever form of sola scriptura you select the same problem exists. That problem is that it is not scriptural. Now why don’t we start at the beginning and prove that sola scriptura is scripturally correct. I have already pointed out some of the evidence against it. You, however, have ignored it. Why is that?

I responded to your accusations. I ignored nothing.

Not really. I am specifically referring to post #18, I don’t see your response to the last part of that post. I will copy and paste it for you here:

"…But I raised other issues dealing with the scriptural basis for sola scriptura. I mentioned Paul’s exhortation to the Thessalonians. I mentioned the Council of Jerusalem where the Apostles, claiming inspiration of the Holy Spirit, decided they could dispense with what scripture said and make new doctrine. I mentioned the fact that it was men who decided what the contents of scripture (the Canon) was to be. Sola scriptura says these men had no such authority yet their product does. How can they give what they do not have? There are other scriptural issues with sola scriptura also. But these three will suffice for the present.

But while we are at it let’s cover the typical protestant answer. That is found in 2 Timothy 3:16:

“2 Timothy 3:16,17 - All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

Notice what this passage really says and what it doesn’t say. It says that scripture equips a person for good works. In addition it says that scripture is profitable (to be used) for teaching, etc. But what it doesn’t say is that scripture ALONE is to be used for doctrine. If that is what Paul intended then Paul contradicts what He told Timothy in 2 Timothy 3:14,15:

“But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.”

Notice here Paul exhorts Timothy to continue in what Timothy learned and believed because Timothy knew from who he learned it from. That who was Paul not scripture. In verse 15 Paul then adds that the scripture Timothy was acquainted with in his childhood was able to instruct him for salvation. But these scriptures that Timothy was acquainted with was the Old Testament not the New Testament. Paul here is telling Timothy the very same exact thing he told the Thessalonians and that was to hold onto the Written Tradition (scripture) as well as the Oral Tradition (Apostolic Tradition). Those words penned by Paul 2,000 years ago were valid then just as they were valid in the 16th century and today as well. Sola scriptura contradicts Paul and thus contradicts scripture."

Continued next post

 

[ezeekl]

Continuing

It’s not incumbent on me to “prove” anything. Sola Scriptura is a practice of the Lutheran church, not a doctrine. Sure, I could fall into the silly “typical Protestant” trap and simply proof-text for a slew of bible verses, but that wouldn’t be a correct practice of Sola Scriptura. Do understand the distinction I’m making here?

A practice huh? Okay, if it makes you feel better, then show me the scriptural basis for this "practice. Somehow there exists a very real fundamental problem in Lutheranism in which we have a “practice” that says that scripture is the final authority for doctrine and therefore all of our doctrine must pass the scripture test but the “practice” itself is not subject to the same test [not to mention that it does not pass the test]. In the Lutheran scenario a “practice” is of lower authority than doctrine but it is a “practice” that determines doctrine. Authority does not flow from lower to higher no more than water flows uphill.

If you phrase the question in such a narrow way, then those are the only two possible sides. Rarely are things so black and white. Perhaps Lutherans are just a little more open to the study of history and tradition than either of the other groups.

I don’t think so. If they were totally open to both history and tradition they would not be Lutherans but Catholics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ezeekl
That question is who decides what is contained in the canon?

Sounds, to me, like a job for the Holy Spirit through His many means. Voting the question away and damning anyone who disagrees doesn’t seem like a very Spirit-guided conclusion.

How do you know? That Council [Trent] that defined the Canon verified the Bible as it existed from its very beginning with the Vulgate of Jerome. The Holy Spirit has acted through the votes of councils before where heretics have been condemned. In fact Lutherans accept some of these councils [and their decrees]. Nicea comes readily to mind here. Sort of arbitrary, don’t you think’ to accept only those councils you agree with but deny the others when they don’t.

No. Here is where we’re having a bit of disconnect. Just because Lutherans don’t define a canon [to anathematize those who disagree] doesn’t mean we can’t identify Scripture where it exists. A non-Lutheran once described the Lutheran understanding of Sola Scriptura as “a sort of science,” which focuses on the Gospels and stems out from there. So if you have the patience to learn about another person’s beliefs (instead of relying on polemics to advance old arguments), I’d encourage you to re-read the article I posted but this time with the understanding that Lutherans aren’t looking for a “table of contents,” so to speak, but rather the simple pursuit of Truth. Even if you disagree, like many great minds have and do, I hope you’ll see that the Lutheran view is not logically incoherent, as you paint it to be.

Oh it is logically incoherent alright. You see, here is the real disconnect. You say that Lutherans don’t define a canon. If that is true, how can they then say what does not belong in the canon? Isn’t that a form of definition? You take an accepted canon and you cut out parts of it and leave the rest. You in effect have a created a new definition of the canon. Here, I am referring to the seven so called deuterocanonical books of the OT. These books were in the Septuagint which was adopted as the christian OT as well as Jerome’s Vulgate and every Bible up until Luther. Luther expunged them because they stood in contradiction to his beliefs. Oh, I know there have been any number of “reasons” expressed as to why he did so but none of them hold up. But Luther also wanted to expunge part of the NT also. The letter of James was one and I think the letter to the Hebews was another. There were a few others I think.

 

[steido01]

I’m not sure how many times I can explain the same thing. Perhaps sometime in the future you’ll be able to come back to this thread with a better understanding. The question, as you are phrasing it, incorrectly posits only two possible viewpoints - I’ve tried to explain that the dualism here is unnecessary. Other posters on this forum, with whom I disagree on a great many things, have also attempted to explain this to you. Your line of questioning is fine against “typical protestants,” but Lutherans don’t believe what your “typical protestants” believe. That’s why you’re not receiving a satisfactory answer. You’re channeling the lawyer who asks, “When did you stop beating your wife?”

Oh it is logically incoherent alright. You see, here is the real disconnect. You say that Lutherans don’t define a canon. ** If that is true, how can they then say what does not belong in the canon?** Isn’t that a form of definition? You take an accepted canon and you cut out parts of it and leave the rest. You in effect have a created a new definition of the canon.

We don’t, per se; that’s something that your communion and the “typical protestants” do. To Lutherans, it is the church, in general and through its teaching authority, who accepts what is unquestionably Scripture. Those books that are questionable are simply afforded a lesser authority - your communion does this also, even if you will not admit it: the four Gospels hold more weight in determining Christian doctrine than, say, the Revelation of John, for example. Why is this? Because the Gospels preach Christ Crucified more clearly and plainly. If you’d have read or understood the article I posted, you would know this. That’s why some Lutherans have 66-book bibles, others have 73 or 74. From the article:

1. 
   *]It is the apostolic witness to Jesus that tells us who he is as opposed to secret oral traditions of gnostic communities (thus we accept the four canonical Gospels, and not spurious gnostic texts).
   *]“Scripture” is whatever Jesus pointed to as authoritative (which according to the Gospel records is apostolic teaching and the Old Testament).

1. 
   

   Now the fact is you have to begin somewhere. So this is where Lutheranism begins, and if you look at the records we have, this is where many in the early Church began as well. The problem is that these two rules don’t immediately define a list of books, but push us to revisit which books are in fact part of this confession. After all, what did Jesus mean by “Scripture?” Which NT books are actually apostolic? Thus the canon is for us primarily a historical question rather than a doctrinal question. But when you look at the early history of the Church, while some NT books are universally attested as apostolic testimony to the Gospel, some, such as Revelation, James, and Philemon, were heavily disputed. There is little evidence that Palestinian Jews in Jesus’ day would have understood the Old Testament Apocrypha to be included when Jesus referred to “Scripture,” and acceptance of these books as divinely inspired by later Christians was hardly universal, even in the century before the Reformation. An authoritative, absolutely reliable, Scripture requires an authoritative, absolutely reliable table of contents, but there is no easy way around the historical question. Rome answers by asserting that the Holy Spirit guided the Council of Trent to vote correctly on the truth, and Protestants tend to look for earlier, divinely guided events leading to canonization.

   The Lutheran approach to this problem is surprising in that we don’t seek to establish such a table of contents. We hold that the lack of definitive historical evidence cannot simply be eliminated by properly consecrated people getting together and taking a Spirit-guided vote, and so there ultimately isn’t anything we can do about it. In other words, no amount of voting, liturgical development, or theological reflection can answer for us whether Hebrews was written by an apostle or at least a close associate. The evidence just isn’t there.

   So what’s our answer? Well, go back to that word, “canon.” “Canon” means “rule.” So the point of a canon isn’t to just have some final Table of Contents on which to draw up a dogma and so that we can excommunicate everyone who refuses to stop asking the historical questions, it’s to have a rule of faith for settling doctrinal disputes and the like. Thus the Lutheran approach to the canon is to have a rule of interpretation essentially defined by the certainty to which we can establish a book’s origin:

   1. 
      *]A dogma must be established by the universally attested books (homolegomena).
      *]Dogma may be corroborated by the contested books (antilegomena), and they may be read for historical background, advice, and other edifying purposes, but no dogma can be established from the antilegomena alone, nor can the antilegomena be pitted against the homolegomena.

1. 1. 
      
      Continued…

 

[steido01]

Continued…

An example of the application of this is that Lutherans will never make some particular interpretation of Revelation a church-defining issue. Yes, we preach from it, write commentaries in it, and read it in our lectionaries, but because the early church witness to the origin of this book is divided, our confessional principles on eschatology are ultimately drawn from the Gospels and Epistles. This principle also leaves the door open to textual criticism, which is why we have no trouble with including the longer ending of Mark in our Bibles or the story of the adulterous woman. Textual criticism is always a problem for people who insist on an inerrant canon of divinely inspired texts. Does your inspired canon of inspired texts include the longer ending of Mark or not?

The conservative principle fuels the Lutheran belief that the entirety of the Gospel is repeated again and again throughout Scripture. While some readers, both Protestant and Catholic, may feel that the conservative principle eliminates their ability to proof-text their favorite doctrines, I challenge you to question yourself along the following lines:

Do I really believe that an essential truth of the Christian faith was only ever referred to by one person in the entirety of the Biblical witness? Do I really believe that a whole multitude of biblical writers were so ineffective and communicating the essential truths of the faith, despite many of them overtly setting out to do this, that only only one writer in one book ever managed to nail it on this issue?

Finally, I would ask the following rhetorical questions: Is not the conservative principle truly the most “catholic” in that it listens to the entirety of the early Church when dealing with the canon rather than trying to vote the first three centuries out of existence, forbids nothing traditionally used by Christians in teaching and worship, and seeks to avoid unnecessarily dividing the Church? Is it not the most “protestant” in that it upholds Scripture as the source and norm of faith and scrupulously avoids establishing binding dogmas upon things that may in fact not be Scripture at all? In my opinion, it is those things and more. I think it is the most manifestly reasonable and unobjectionable approach to Scripture, yet few churches in the world seem to think so.

Here, I am referring to the seven so called deuterocanonical books of the OT. These books were in the Septuagint which was adopted as the christian OT as well as Jerome’s Vulgate and every Bible up until Luther. ** Luther expunged them because they stood in contradiction to his beliefs.** Oh, I know there have been any number of “reasons” expressed as to why he did so but none of them hold up. But Luther also wanted to expunge part of the NT also. The letter of James was one and I think the letter to the Hebews was another. There were a few others I think.

That’s simply false. Luther’s bible had 74 books. Seventy-four. Count them. That’s one more than your bible.

 

[SteveVH]

That’s simply false. Luther’s bible had 74 books. Seventy-four. Count them. That’s one more than your bible.

But that is misleading. Certainly, Luther’s view of the deuterocanonical books led to the conclusion that they were so insignificant that the publishers decided they could leave them out completely without anyone complaining. While Luther did not personally remove them, his leadership on the issue resulted in their removal.

 

[JonNC]

You say that Lutherans don’t define a canon. If that is true, how can they then say what does not belong in the canon? Isn’t that a form of definition? You take an accepted canon and you cut out parts of it and leave the rest. You in effect have a created a new definition of the canon.

Canon simply means rule. Our understanding of the canon is that there are essentially, historically, some books that were universally attested, some books that were disputes, and some that were reject. One can even describe the canon, as Cardinal Cajetan does, as an inclusion of those books used for teaching, liturgically, etc. We, indeed use the DC’s in that way. Nothing, however, is cut out or left out.

Here, I am referring to the seven so called deuterocanonical books of the OT. These books were in the Septuagint which was adopted as the christian OT as well as Jerome’s Vulgate and every Bible up until Luther.

You are aware that not all of the Septuagint is accepted by the Catholic Church. I, as a Lutheran, consider the DC’s as part of the OT.

Luther expunged them because they stood in contradiction to his beliefs. Oh, I know there have been any number of “reasons” expressed as to why he did so but none of them hold up.

the one that doesn’t “hold up”, is this one, unless one can name a specific doctrine or teaching from each one of the seven DC books that stood in contradiction to Luther’s beliefs.

But Luther also wanted to expunge part of the NT also. The letter of James was one and I think the letter to the Hebews was another. There were a few others I think.

Simply not the case. Luther explains his considerations of the Antilegomena in his prefaces.

Jon

 

[steido01]

But that is misleading. Certainly, Luther’s view of the deuterocanonical books led to the conclusion that they were so insignificant that the publishers decided they could leave them out completely without anyone complaining. While Luther did not personally remove them, his leadership on the issue resulted in their removal.

Why are we flaying a little German monk for decisions made by Anglicans 300+ years after Luther’s death? Conflating separate events and retroactively attributing it to the same cause seems rather… misleading.

It’s only “typical protestant” bibles in America that have removed the DC books. Lutherans in Europe never removed the books at all, and Lutherans in America have always used them in their liturgies, hymns and some lectionaries - even if they are printed separately (largely due to that sad, “don’t-appear-too-Catholic” sentiment peculiar to America).

Luther’s view hardly demoted the DCs. If he truly thought them “insignificant,” he’d have recommended their removal, like Jerome, Erasmus and Cardinal Cajetan did. Before Trent (which was after Luther’s death), any Catholic could question the DCs. It is still this way in the Lutheran church.

 

[SteveVH]

Why are we flaying a little German monk for decisions made by Anglicans 300+ years after Luther’s death? Conflating separate events and retroactively attributing it to the same cause seems rather… misleading.

Because this “little German monk” was not just some “little German Monk”. Through his example he played a large part in the division we find in Christianity today.

 

[JonNC]

But that is misleading. Certainly, Luther’s view of the deuterocanonical books led to the conclusion that they were so insignificant that the publishers decided they could leave them out completely without anyone complaining. While Luther did not personally remove them, his leadership on the issue resulted in their removal.

Hi Steve,
This is confusing to me. Luther never said they were insignificant. In fact he said the opposite, that they were good to read and know. Some examples:
From the preface to 1 Macc:
This is another book not to be found in the Hebrew Bible. Yet its words and speech adhere to the same style as the other books of sacred Scripture.* This book would not have been unworthy of a place among them, because it is very necessary and helpful for an understanding of chapter 11 of the prophet Daniel. *For the fulfilment of Daniel’s prophecy in that chapter, about the abomination and misfortune which was going to befall the people of Israel, is here described—namely, Antiochus Epiphanes—and in much the same way that Daniel [11:29–35] speaks of it: a little help and great persecution by the Gentiles and by false Jews, which is what took place at the time of the Maccabees. This is why the book is good for us Christians to read and to know.

From the preface to Sirach:
This is a useful book for the ordinary man. The author concentrates all his effort on helping a citizen or housefather to be Godfearing, devout, and wise; and on showing what the relationship of such a man should be to God, the Word of God, priests, parents, wife, children, his own body, his servants, possessions, neighbors, friends, enemies, government, and anyone else. So one might well call this a book on home discipline or on the virtues of a pious householder. This indeed is the proper “spiritual discipline,” and should be recognized as such.

Luther’s preface to Judith can be found here: vivacatholic.wordpress.com/2009/07/05/luther-and-the-book-of-judith/

Had those who wrote English Bibles followed Luther’s leadership (The 1611 KJV actually did), they would have kept the DC’s in their Bibles.

Jon

 

[SteveVH]

Hi Steve,
This is confusing to me. Luther never said they were insignificant. In fact he said the opposite, that they were good to read and know. Some examples:

There is a difference between recognizing that something is good to read and know and acknowledging it as the inspired word of God. To set these writings apart from the rest of Sacred Scripture is to place them in a different category.

 

[JonNC]

There is a difference between recognizing that something is good to read and know and acknowledging it as the inspired word of God. To set these writings apart from the rest of Sacred Scripture is to place them in a different category.

Well, there were numerous others before Luther that took that leadership role, then.
And there were contemporaries of Luther who took that POV to Trent. None were Luther allies.

Jon

 

[edkw55]

I think I’ll let the LCMS folks do most of the talking and I’ll just listen and learn. I don’t think it’s possible to explain to the Roman Catholics here how I, an Evangelical, could possibly say something as absurd as “I am in full union with One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church established by Jesus Christ”. I am 59 and once upon a time long long ago I was a member of LCMS (my membership card probably expired eons ago I’d reckon). Back then I didn’t understand the church’s teaching very well but I’ll get busy on that problem pronto. Anyway, I’ll sit back, listen, learn, and let you LCMS folks do the talking.

Ed