Some Protestant s complaint about The Church added 7 books

[Topper17]

“I have said repeatedly: Assail my person if you will, and in any way you will; I do not claim to be an angel. **But I will allow no one to assail my teaching with impunity, since I know that it is not mine, but God’s. For on this depends my neighbor’s salvation and my own, to God’s praise and honor.” ** (Reply to the Answer of the Leipzig Goat, 1521; from PE, Vol. III, 293-294; translated by A. Steimle)

IOW, if you do not believe Luther’s teachings, your salvation is in doubt.

“Against all the sayings of the Fathers, against all the arts and words of angels, men and devils I set the Scriptures and the Gospel . . . Here I stand and here I defy them . . . The Word of God I count above all else and the Divine Majesty supports me;** hence I should not turn a hair were a thousand Augustines against me, and am certain that the true Church adheres with me to God’s Word.” ** (Against Henry VIII, King of England, 1522; in Grisar, Vol. IV, 391 / from Werke [Weimar], Vol X, II, p. 256 ff.)
**
“Whoever teaches differently from what I have taught herein, or condemns me for it, he condemns God, and must be a child of Hell.” ** (Luther’s Own Statements, O’Connor, page 15)

Indeed. His claim to prophecy although delivered TIC…was in fact, a betrayal of his shear arrogance, born of his undeniable narcissism: . IOW: "yeah sure, other aspects of the Bible need divine support…but this is me we’re talkin’ about here…I am your divine source of revelation".

“**God has appointed me for the whole of the German land, and I boldly vouch and declare that when you obey me in this [the founding of Evangelical schools] you are without a doubt obeying not me but Christ, and that, whoever obeys me not, despises, not me, but Christ [Luke xx. 16]. For I know well and am certain of what and whereto I speak and teach.” **Grisar VI, pg. 33

Goya, what would we today think if we heard a young college Professor making these outrageous statements about his own personal (and self appointed) authority?

“His (Luther’s) claim, of course, was only to be authoritative in interpreting scripture; he did not say that he had special revelation. Yet it is still an assertion worth pondering. Mark U. Edwards has suggested that **before 1522 Luther never presented himself as anything other than a doctor of theology expounding scripture. Afterward Luther saw himself increasingly as a prophet raised by God in a special time.” **Richard Marius, Martin Luther, The Christian Between God and Death, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1999, pg 329

“In a curious paradox, this letter (to Melanchthon) revealed some of Luther’s weaknesses against the storm of Catholic attack rising against him. **He himself would be regularily accused of claiming private revelation against the tradition of the church for centuries. Once upon a time, he said, anyone who claimed private revelation had it certified by someone else. **When the child of Samuel heard the voice of God calling him, Eli the priest testified that is was so. Luther placed himself in this line so that the truly godly men of his own time would affirm his divine call. But as Catholics were to point out time and time again, this attitude begged the question. These ancient prophets of the Hebrew Bible also had their prophetic mission validated by “signs,” signa. “Signs” as used in the biblical text, especially in the Fourth Gospel, denotes miracles, and Luther could claim no miracles to confirm his divine mission. Even Erasmus would throw this barb at him. Perhaps the constancy of these attacks moved Luther to the opinion that the word of God came to the church through its appointed ministers, those able to interpret with their own voices the Word for their time. **As Heiko Oberman has observed, Luther never grounded his own authority either in special revelation or in deep mystical experience. He claimed only to be an expositor of Scripture.Yet his reading of scripture at this time involved tortured and allegorical interpertations, and his reasoning had a circular quality that foes were quick to point out and ridicule.” **Marius pg 324

“**In his seventh sermon (after returning to Wittenberg), Luther told his flock that they now had the gospel “clear and bright”, but they were not demonstrating love for each other. If they did not learn to love, God would “send a plague on you, for he will not have his word preached and revealed in vain, and he will not permit anyone to scorn or contemn his Word.” **What would be this “plague” be? His language was vague enough to allow the interpretation that would become standard in mainline Protestantism, that the judgments of God are seen as miraculous only by the real Christians, while to others they appear as part of the endless shifting of the historical process.” Marius pg 333

 

[Topper17]

Concur. I think it’s clear that he had a problem with authority in general–secondary to his narcissism. He couldn’t stomach the idea of ‘assenting’ to authority…or even not being the pope.

I think that Luther had absolutely NO problem with authority, as long as the people in authority agreed with him:
**
“Luther was the obedient servant as long as obedience coincided with his devotion to what he considered the will of God.** **He professed no doubts as to what that might be. **Satan had entered the fold in Wittenberg; Luther felt compelled to drive the evil one away. At the end of this letter, he made a declaration about the relation of the spiritual and secular realms. Fredrick in his role as prince was a lord only of goods and bodies: “Christ is however also the lord of souls, to whom he has sent me and for that reason raised me up; I cannot forsake these souls.” Marius pg 330

It was the people who disagreed with him that he had a problem with.

I think it is interesting that Martin Luther, the monk, priest, Doctor and Professor, found it within his authority to claim that the Pope should renounce his authority. In regards to the Augsburg Confession when Luther was dissatisfied that there might be some sort of compromise (writing to Melenchthon)

“’This talk of compromise……is a scandal to God……I am thoroughly displeased with this negotiating concerning union in doctrine, since it is utterly impossible unless the Pope wishes to take away his power.’ In subsequent letters he declared that no religious settlement was possible as long as the Pope remained and the Mass was unchanged”. Warren H. Carroll, “The Cleaving of Christendom”, pg. 104.

Goya, maybe you know differently, but my understanding is that Lutheranism continues to claim that there can be doctrinal unity IF the Pope renounces his authority. Do you know of anything different?

Yes, it certainly calls Luther’s sincerity into question, in terms of the reverence he pretended to have towards the Word of God/scripture.

Clearly his comments about various NT books show not a reverence towards Holy Scripture, but blasphemy towards the Word of God, and for that matter, Christ’s Apostles.

Again Goya, Sorry for the length. Maybe discussing a more specific topic would be helpful. Do you have any recommendations.

God Bless You Goya, Topper

 

[steve_b]

I thought of a new response. (At lesst I’ve never heard ths)
The response is to act slightly baffled and admit that the Catholic Church did indeed add books. However thats the wrong number. We added not 7 but 27 books.

All kidding aside

The world doesn’t have a valid bible (73 books) without the authority of the Catholic Church.

See Decree of Pope Damasus I, in 382 @ the council of Rome where all the books to be in the bible ( OT & NT ) are listed #726

That’s the same canon we have today. The 1st bible came as a result of Jerome’s, “Vulgate”…

 

[Goya]

Topper17;13050972]…

Goya, maybe you know differently, but my understanding is that Lutheranism continues to claim that there can be doctrinal unity IF the Pope renounces his authority. Do you know of anything different?

No.

First, Lutherans believe and maintain in their Confessions, that the Papacy is the Antichrist.

OF THE ANTICHRIST

As to the Antichrist we teach that the prophecies of the Holy Scriptures concerning the Antichrist, 2 Thess. 2:3-12; 1 John 2:18, have been fulfilled in the Pope of Rome and his dominion. All the features of the Antichrist as drawn in these prophecies, including the most abominable and horrible ones, for example, that the Antichrist “as God sitteth in the temple of God,” 2 Thess. 2:4; that he anathematizes the very heart of the Gospel of Christ, that is, the doctrine of the forgiveness of sins by grace alone, for Christ’s sake alone, through faith alone, without any merit or worthiness in man (Rom. 3:20-28; Gal. 2:16); that he recognizes only those as members of the Christian Church who bow to his authority; and that, like a deluge, he had inundated the whole Church with his antichristian doctrines till God revealed him through the Reformation — these very features are the outstanding characteristics of the Papacy. (Cf. Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 515, Paragraphs 39-41; p. 401, Paragraph 45; M. pp. 336, 258.) Hence we subscribe to the statement of our Confessions that the Pope is "the very Antichrist." (Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 475, Paragraph 10; M., p. 308.)

I don’t believe that the Pope renouncing his authority takes us from ‘the Pope is the Antichrist’, to doctrinal unity. That would be merely a pretensive pre-req., and an intuitively counterproductive one a that, since the Papacy is an indispensable element of unity (as evidenced by the fact that Lutheranism has given rise to 10,000+ ‘protestant’ denominations.

Second, their idea of ‘doctrinal unity’ entails compromise on the central feature of the Faith–the Sacrifice of the Mass. ‘Doctrinal unity’ isn’t worth losing the Mass. IOW:

Mass > unity. Period.

Because Truth > unity.

The bottom line is that they seek ‘unity’ outside of Truth. (and even the Devil’s angels are capable of achieving unity outside of Truth–though apparently protestants can not. ).

Third, imo, it’s all pretense anyway. The underlying motivation of protestantism, the continuing unifying element (all else is negotiable–hence the 10000+ denoms), is in individual pastors’ right to private profits from their faith communities.

They would NEVER back off of that.

 

[Goya]

I think that Luther had absolutely NO problem with authority, as long as the people in authority agreed with him:

Again Goya, Sorry for the length. Maybe discussing a more specific topic would be helpful. Do you have any recommendations.

God Bless You Goya, Topper

How about Luther’s influence on Hitler?

Hitler cited him in* Mein Kemp*f as one of the 3 greatest influences:

But not at all for reasons protestants would like to acknowledge.

Here’s an excerpt from Martin Luther’s essay The Jews and their Lies to give you an idea of just how he influenced Hitler:

*Therefore, dear Christian, be on your guard against such damnable people whom God has permitted to sink into such profound abominations and lies, for all they do and say must be sheer lying, blasphemy, and malice, however fine it may look.

Someone may think that I am saying too much. I am not saying too much, but too little - for I see their writings. They curse us Goyim. In their synagogues and in their prayers they wish us every misfortune. They rob us of our money and goods through their usury, and they play on us every wicked trick they can. . . . No pagan ever acted thus; in fact, no one acts thus except the devil himself, or whomever he possesses, as he has possessed the Jews.

We also know that God is so gracious by nature that he forgives man his sin in every hour in which man sincerely repents and is sorry for it . . . But **there is no remission of sin for these Jews, no prophet to console them with the assurance of such forgiveness, no definite time limit for their punishment, but only interminable wrath and disfavour, devoid of any mercy. **

Accordingly, **it must and dare not be considered a trifling matter but a most serious one to seek counsel against this and to save our souls from the Jews, that is, from the devil **and from eternal death. My advice, as I said earlier, is:

First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss in sulphur and pitch; it would be good if someone could also throw in some hellfire.

Second, that you likewise will shatter and destroy their homes, because they create the same misery there as they do in their schools. For that they should made do under a roof or stable like the Gypsies…

Third, that they be forbidden on pain of death to praise God, to give thanks, to pray, and to teach publicly among us and in our country. They may do this in their own country or wherever they can without our being obliged to hear it or know it.

Fourth, that they be forbidden to utter the name of God within our hearing. For we cannot with a good conscience listen to this or tolerate it, because their blasphemous and accursed mouth and heart call God’s Son “Hebel Vorik,” and thus also call his Father that.
. . . He who hears this name from a Jew must inform the authorities, or else throw sow dung at him when he sees him and chase him away. *

And here is a ‘pamphlet’, on line, that develops the theme:

Martin Luther, Hitler’s Spiritual Ancestor, By Peter F. Wiener

tentmaker.org/books/MartinLuther-HitlersSpiritualAncestor.html#jews

Excerpt:

“Luther proposed in detail how his followers should treat the “damned Jews.” “Never ought a Christian to eat or drink with a Jew”. “On being asked whether it would be right to box the ears of a Jew, Luther replied Certainly. I for one would smack him on the jaw. **Were I able, I would knock him down and stab him in my anger**. **It is lawful, according to both the human and the divine law, to kill a robber; then it is even more permissible to slay a blasphemer**.'” Not a very Christian attitude; but worse is still to come. **If I had to baptise a Jew, I would take him to the bridge of the Elbe, hang a stone round his neck and push him over with the words I baptise thee in the name of Abraham*’” (Detailed references given in Grisar, “Luther”, vol. v, p. 413)

“We ought to take revenge on the Jews and kill them” is his charitable advice. At other times he is in favour of “forcing them to work and treating them with every severity as Moses did in the desert when he slew 3,000 of them."*

btw, worth noting–Hitler ordered the synagogues in Germany to be burned down on Nov. 10, 1938.

Luther’s Birthday.

Disturbing stuff.

 

[rfournier103]

…Nov. 10…

Luther’s Birthday.

My wife is a convert to Catholicism and we chose Tobit 8:4-7 as the Old Testament reading at out wedding Mass in part because it was from the Deuterocanon. We also just loved the reading. Her Pentecostal minister father had likely NEVER read Tobit before…

November 10 is our anniversary.

 

[Goya]

My wife is a convert to Catholicism and we chose Tobit 8:4-7 as the Old Testament reading at out wedding Mass in part because it was from the Deuterocanon. We also just loved the reading. Her Pentecostal minister father had likely NEVER read Tobit before…

November 10 is our anniversary.

Tobit is a beautiful book. As is Wisdom. My wife is protestant, and I always joke with her that the Protestant Bible lacks the ‘wisdom’ of the Catholic Bible. (she never laughs; just rolls her eyes…).

 

[rfournier103]

It was a reading from the book of Wisdom during a Mass we went to that made me realize that the Old Testaments were different. When they said “a reading from the Book of Wisdom”, my wife (then girlfriend) looked at me like; ‘what the heck is that???’ and I was like; ‘what the heck is what?’

We dug out our Bibles that evening and BOTH discovered the 73 vs. 62 argument. We were both WELL into our 30s and never had any idea there was any difference. Sure, different translations and commentary, but we never suspected the canon would be different. I bet at least 90% of all laymen have no clue about the difference, either.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Goya,

Thanks for your response.

Topper17;13050972]…
First, Lutherans believe and maintain in their Confessions, that the Papacy is the Antichrist.

I don’t believe that the Pope renouncing his authority takes us from ‘the Pope is the Antichrist’, to doctrinal unity. That would be merely a pretensive pre-req., and an intuitively counterproductive one a that, since the Papacy is an indispensable element of unity (as evidenced by the fact that Lutheranism has given rise to 10,000+ ‘protestant’ denominations.

Second, their idea of ‘doctrinal unity’ entails compromise on the central feature of the Faith–the Sacrifice of the Mass. ‘Doctrinal unity’ isn’t worth losing the Mass. IOW:

Third, imo, it’s all pretense anyway. The underlying motivation of protestantism, the continuing unifying element (all else is negotiable–hence the 10000+ denoms), is in individual pastors’ right to private profits from their faith communities.

They would NEVER back off of that.

I agree 100%. The whole ‘Pope is the antichrist’ thing is a real problem. They can’t eliminate it from their Confessions because that would be to admit that they are not authoritative. Given the clarity of the text, explaining it away does not work.

As for the mass, the official position, at least of the LCMS, is that doctrinal agreement with Catholics is NOT possible until the Church changes its belief and teachings on the nature of the mass.

Luther and the Mass

by Daniel Preus, (First VP of the LCMS at the time of the writing)

mtio.com/articles/bissar92.htm

“When Luther began to assail the mass as sacrifice, he attacked the same false soteriology that he had first condemned in the indulgence controversy a few years earlier. For Luther, the same principle was involved in both battles," ……………….

**There is nothing in the sacrament of the altar that is not gospel. According to Luther it is the nature of the antichrist to rage against the gospel, and his raging is more than evident in his perversion of the sacrament. **Even those moderately acquainted with Luther’s views know that he considered the pope to be the antichrist. To no small extent, this identification is due to the Roman doctrine of the mass. The pope altered the very nature of the Lord’s Supper. Under antichrist, it is no longer as a sacrament that bestows forgiveness; it is rather a sacrifice and a good work by means of which the antichrist and his followers deceive everybody. To turn the sacrament into a sacrifice is to pervert it utterly; it is to change grace to works and Gospel to law."………….

The doctrine of justification was at the heart of Luther’s conflict with the papacy, and eventually the mass to become central to this conflict…………….
**
Luther’s most strenuous objection was to the concept of mass as sacrifice.** The Roman teaching that in the mass the priest offers a sacrifice and thus appeases God’s anger denies the efficacy of Christ’s atoning work. The papal mass is therefore a persistent, daily attack on the article of justification. It is an unremitting assault on the gospel and on the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement. It completely distorts the nature of Christianity changing it from a religion of grace to one of works……………

Preus article to be continued.

BTW, the entire article is extremely shocking.

 

[Topper17]

Preus continued:’

“They made the sacrament which they should accept from God, namely, the body and blood of Christ, into a sacrifice and have offered it to the selfsame God… Furthermore, they do not regard Christ’s body and blood as a sacrifice of thanksgiving, but as a sacrifice of works in which they do not thank God for His grace, but obtain merits for themselves and others and first and foremost, secure grace. Thus Christ has not won grace for us, but we want to win grace ourselves through our works by offering to God His Son’s body and blood. **This is the true and chief abomination and the basis of all blasphemy in the papacy.

How has Satan achieved this perversion of the sacrament within the papal church?"….**

It is not without justification that a charge of “Roman Catholic” is brought against those who refer to the Lord’s Supper as “the mass.” ……It is ill advised for Lutherans to do so today. Confusion will almost necessarily result unless Rome reforms its doctrine on the mass, which is hardly likely.”

**As Luther viewed it, the one responsible for this weaving together of the mass and the sacrament is none other than Satan himself.

And just as the church of antichrist is a hypocritical and false church, so his mass is an idol and an abomination. For since the false church of antichrist attacks the church of Christ by robbing it of the gospel, the false “sacrament” of antichrist must also deprive the church of her inheritance…. **

The doctrine of the Lord’s Supper was not simply an ancillary issue when considering Luther’s understanding of the nature of Antichrist and the eschatological struggle of the church. ….**Thus the battle between Christ and antichrist rages nowhere more intensely than in the struggle between sacrament and mass when two conflicting soteriologies confront each other, one of grace and one of works.

To remove the mass would be to topple antichrist from his throne. Therefore, said Luther, it is not possible for the papists to yield on the article of the mass. “The papists are well aware that if the mass falls, the papacy will fall with it” **(SA ii ii, 10; Tappert, 294).
**
True Lutherans will never take pleasure in discord. **But neither will they surrender truth that is so clear and necessary for the church. If the Lutheran Church today wishes to hold to the gospel of Christ correctly and faithfully, she cannot afford to ignore actual differences in doctrine, especially when those differences impinge so directly on the gospel itself. The Roman and Lutheran teachings on the Lord’s Supper not only divide us in our understanding of the sacrament of the altar. They represent two differing soteriologies, and no less in our day than in Luther’s. It is difficult to know what long-term effect the Joint Declaration will have on Lutheran and Roman Catholic churches. One thing is sure we have no consensus now on the doctrine of justification, nor will there ever be consensus as long as the Roman mass remains a sacrifice.”

According to the LCMS, there will NEVER be doctrinal unity with the Catholic Church UNLESS we change our teaching on the nature of the mass such that it agrees with theirs.

For the record, the Preus article is extremely shocking and is well worth the read. It very much reflects Luther’s ‘attitude’ towards the Catholic Church.

If you want to know what the LCMS teaches about the Catholic Church, Preus is extremely honest, not at all bashful, and direct reflects Luther’s ‘sentiments’ regarding the Church.

**“Luther always regarded religious negotiations of any kind with Cathlocs as bargaining with the devil.” ** Carroll, “The Cleaving of Christendom”, pg. 176

In the (Confessional) Smalcald Articles Luther wrote the following of the church:

"XII. Of the Church.

**1] We do not concede to them that they are the Church, and [in truth] they are not [the Church]; nor will we listen to those things which, under the name of Church, they enjoin or forbid. **2] For, thank God, [to-day] a child seven years old knows what the Church is, namely, the holy believers and lambs who hear the voice of their Shepherd. For the children pray thus: I believe in one holy [catholic or] Christian Church. 3] This holiness does not consist in albs, tonsures, long gowns, and other of their ceremonies devised by them beyond Holy Scripture, but in the Word of God and true faith.” bookofconcord.org/smalcald.php#church

These are not things which are commonly known, even by the Lutherans who are held to believe them.

God Bless You Goya, Topper

 

[JohnR77]

Thank you to everyone posting on this thread. Very interesting.

My wife is a convert to Catholicism and we chose Tobit 8:4-7 as the Old Testament reading at out wedding Mass in part because it was from the Deuterocanon. We also just loved the reading. Her Pentecostal minister father had likely NEVER read Tobit before…

November 10 is our anniversary.

Cool. Consider the edition from the Douay-Rheims Bible. I think all Catholics should consider it.

defendingthebride.com/bb/tobit2.html

.

 

[Goya]

Hi Goya,

Thanks for your response.

I agree 100%. The whole ‘Pope is the antichrist’ thing is a real problem. They can’t eliminate it from their Confessions because that would be to admit that they are not authoritative. Given the clarity of the text, explaining it away does not work.

As for the mass, the official position, at least of the LCMS, is that doctrinal agreement with Catholics is NOT possible until the Church changes its belief and teachings on the nature of the mass.

Luther and the Mass

by Daniel Preus, (First VP of the LCMS at the time of the writing)

mtio.com/articles/bissar92.htm

…

These are not things which are commonly known, even by the Lutherans who are held to believe them.

God Bless You Goya, Topper

That’s some powerful stuff there Topper.

Truly saddening. Thank you for the further enlightenment.

May Truth prevail, in love and charity, through the Holy Spirit.

 

[steve_b]

It was a reading from the book of Wisdom during a Mass we went to that made me realize that the Old Testaments were different. When they said “a reading from the Book of Wisdom”, my wife (then girlfriend) looked at me like; ‘what the heck is that???’ and I was like; ‘what the heck is what?’

 

[JonNC]

I thought of a new response. (At lesst I’ve never heard ths)
The response is to act slightly baffled and admit that the Catholic Church did indeed add books. However thats the wrong number. We added not 7 but 27 books.

St. Julie,
Since your thread is hopelessly hijacked, I thought I might leave you with some personal thoughts.
From a historical perspective, it is simply and factually incorrect to say that the Catholic Church added 7 books. Those books have always been around, and part of canons of scripture.
I own the Concordia Publishing House version called “The Apocrypha: Lutheran Version with Notes”. One of the reviews said the following:

I recommend this edition of the Apocrypha as a timely and useful addition to The Lutheran Study Bible. The Apocrypha have been considered as a part of the biblical canon for most of the church’s history, and while the Reformers may have had good reasons for thinking differently, they still had a high regard for them. This edition enables both scholars and lay readers to understand why.
–Knut Alfsvåg, ThD
Professor of Systematic Theology
School of Mission and Theology, Stavanger, Norway

While your response is clever , Alfsvag is more convincing, I think.

While I can’t speak for protestants, American Lutherans have done a horrible job educating Lutherans of the importance of the Deuterocanonical books. Hopefully, that will improve.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi Goya,

Thanks for your response.

QUOTE=Goya;13054261]That’s some powerful stuff there Topper.

Truly saddening. Thank you for the further enlightenment.

May Truth prevail, in love and charity, through the Holy Spirit.



It is powerful and saddening stuff. What is surprising, is the depths of the ‘attitude’ demonstrated by Preus against the Church, and this as the ‘number two guy’ in the LCMS at the time, and it was not that long ago.

This particular thread is about the Protestant Canon.

In 1974 LCMS Pastor Elmer J. Moeller wrote an amazingly honest assessment of the practical problems associated with the Lutheran position on the New Testament canon. While not (of course) pinning the responsibility for these problems directly on Luther, he certainly did name Luther as being the genesis of Lutheranism’s concept of the antilegomena.

Excerpts from Moeller’s “Missouri’s Critical Issue” (taken from The Christian News, Oct. 14, 1974) are in black. My comments intersperced within Moeller’s text will be in blue.
**
“In the doctrinal conflict within The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, beneath the charges and counter-charges, beneath the cash of two admittedly district theologies, is there any single issue which can be Isolated as the crucial one?** The writer, a clergyman of The Lutheran Church- Missouri Synod, believes there is, and will attempt to demonstrate it. Furthermore, he believes that the same issue exists for every evangelical, conservative Christian individual, congregation, and church body.

In formalized statements of faith the historical Evangelical Lutheran Church, and the modern Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, have never articulated a complete doctrine of Scripture as set forth in Scripture. This lack has permitted, as will be demonstrated, an incomplete statement with a frequently-occurring erroneous, extra-Scriptural and therefore anti-Scriptural, doctrinal addition. Consequently the Missouri Synod now experiences the tragic division in its midst. “

As I have been stating, I find it very hard to believe that Lutherans have not actually set a canon. According to Moeller, this has led to a ‘tragic division in its (the LCMS) midst’.

“In the New Testament church of the third and fourth centuries certain books were not accepted in some geographical areas as being God’s New Testament Word because here was not unanimous evidence from previous generations that the book had been written by an apostle.

**Hebrews was accepted in the Eastern churches as the product of Paul; it was not considered Paul’s epistle in the West and was not accepted there. John’s Apocalypse was accepted in the West as from the hand of John the Apostle; in the East the author was not so identified and the book was not accepted. The apostolic authorship of James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude was similarly doubted. **

Meanwhile, the Mediterranean world in the fourth century, under the blessing of a Roman government that sponsored Christianity, proved to be a fertile field for the growth of a unified church. The councils and church leaders agreed on canonical” books, in the practice accepting the evidence “for” as outweighing the objections “against” authorship by apostles. The subsequent lists of New Testament books carried Hebrews by Paul, James by James the Less, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John and the Apocalypse by John the Apostle and Evangelist, and Jude by the Apostle Jude.

Moeller to be continued…….

 

[Topper17]

Moeller continued:
**The “disputed” character of these books surfaced at the time of the Reformation. Luther, for instance, placed Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Apocalypse at the end of his New Testament, as books from which one did not draw doctrine. He felt that certain of their teachings could not have come from apostles, since some teachings disagreed, he thought, with what e.g. Paul had written in his undisputed letters. **(The apocryphal books of the Old Testament, the surplus of the Alexandrian canon as compared to the Palestinian canon, were likewise not to be considered canonical. In general, when Lutheran teachings were later delineated, the antilegomena books were not used to establish doctrine in the church. In the Missouri Synod up through the 20’s this same attitude and approach prevailed.”

Moeller mentions 7 books that were doubted by some in the ancient Church. Yet Luther, (and now subsequently Lutheranism) include only four books in the antilegomena, “books from which one did not draw doctrine.”

Why were the other three doubted (2 Peter, 2 & 3 John) not incorporated into the antilegomena by either Luther or the Lutherans?

Furthermore, Moeller indicates that in the 1920’s the LCMS changed its approach to the antilegomena. From what to what? Is the LCMS done changing it approach to what is and what it not Scripture yet? Or are there more changes to come? One would think that after 1900 years, Christianity would sort of ‘settled down’ and quit changing the canon of Scripture and how we are to deem the canonicity of the 27 books that most Christians consider to be the NT. But then, to Lutherans, the NT is only ‘relatively closed’.

“It is interesting to note that the German Bible available to homes in the Missouri Synod in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, the Altenburger Bibel (Concordia Publishing House), contained Luther’s introductions to the New Testament books, giving his views about Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation. The laymen therefore were acquainted with the view of Scriptures which associated inspired New Testament authority with authorship by apostles.”

**This absolutely floored me. **From my reading, I was under the impression that Luther’s disrespectful comments about whole books of the Bible had been eliminated from the Bible shortly after his death (by Christians who actually revered Scripture). It is astonishing that those comments were printed in American Bibles as late as the last century. What in the world were those LCMS leaders thinking?

We constantly hear about how the beliefs of Martin Luther were not all that important in the development of Lutheran Theology, but if his astonishingly disrespectful comments about whole books of the Bible were still being included IN LCMS Bibles as little as 100 years ago, is it any surprise that we see the 1st VP of the LCMS making such statements against the Catholic Church?

Here we learn that Luther believed that those four books were not to be used for establishing doctrine because they disagreed with what HE THOUGHT the rest of NT Scripture (the authoritative “other” 23 books) taught. I think that is incredible. That Martin Luther would take it upon his own personal shoulders to judge whole books of NT Scripture on the basis of whether they agreed with his radical theology is astonishing. Nobody had ever ‘noticed’ Salvation by Faith Alone’ prior to Luther - in spite of course the ‘clarity’ of Scripture. And yet, Luther actually judged what was Scripture and what wasn’t on the basis of whether it taught against SBFA.

God Bless You Goya, Topper

 

[JonNC]

Hebrews was previously mentioned. Here is Luther’s preface to it.

PREFACE TO THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

Hitherto we have had the right certain chief books of the New Testament.

The four following had, in ancient times, a different reputation. In the first place, that this Epistle is not St. Paul’s, nor any other apostle’s is proved by the fact that it says, in Hebrews 2:3, that this doctrine has come to us and remains among us through those who themselves heard it from the Lord. Thus it is clear that he speaks of the apostles as a disciple to whom this doctrine has come from the apostles, perhaps long after them.

For St. Paul, in Galatians 1:1, testifies mightily that he has his Gospel from no man, neither through men, but from God Himself.

Again, there is a hard knot in the fact that in chapters 6 and 10 it flatly denies and forbids to sinners repentance after baptism, and in Hebrews 12:17, it says that Esau sought repentance and did not find it. This seems, as it stands, to be against all the Gospels and St. Paul’s epistles; and although one might make a gloss on it, the words are so clear that I do not know whether that would be sufficient. My opinion is that it is an epistle of many pieces put together, and it does not deal with any one subject in an orderly way.

However that may be, it is a marvelously fine epistle. It discusses Christ’s priesthood masterfully and thoroughly, out of the Scriptures, and interprets the Old Testament finely and richly. Thus it is plain that it is the work of an able and learned man, who was a disciple of the apostles, learned much from them, and was greatly experienced in faith and practiced in the Scriptures. And although, as he himself testifies in Hebrews 6:1, he does not lay the foundation of faith, which is the work of an apostle, nevertheless he does build finely thereon gold, silver, precious stones, as St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 3:12. Therefore we should not be hindered, even though wood, straw or hay be mixed in with them, but accept this fine teaching with all honor; though to be sure, we cannot put it on the same level with the apostolic epistles.

Who wrote it is not known, and will not be known for a while; it makes no difference. We should be satisfied with the doctrine that he bases so constantly on the Scriptures, showing a right fine grasp upon the reading of the Scriptures and the proper way to deal with them.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Luther’s preface on Judith

If one could prove from established and reliable histories that the events in Judith really happened, it would be a noble and fine book, and should properly be in the Bible. Yet it hardly squares with the historical accounts of the Holy Scriptures, especially Jeremiah and Ezra. For these show how Jerusalem and the whole country were destroyed, and were thereafter laboriously rebuilt during the time of the monarchy of the Persians who occupied the land.

Against this the first chapter of Judith claims that King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon was the first one to set about conquering this territory; it creates the impression that these events took place before the captivity of the Jews, and before the rise of the Persian monarchy. Philo, on the contrary, says that they happened after the release and return of the Jews from Babylon under King Ahasuerus, at which time the Jews had rebuilt neither the temple nor Jerusalem, and had no government. Thus as to both time and name, error and doubt are still present, so that I cannot reconcile [the accounts] at all.

Some people think this is not an account of historical events [Geschichte] but rather a beautiful religious fiction [Gedicht] by a holy and ingenious man who wanted to sketch and depict therein the fortunes of the whole Jewish people and the victory God always miraculously granted them over all their enemies. This would be similar to the way Solomon in his Song poetizes and sings of a bride, vet means thereby not some specific person or event but the whole people of Israel. St. John, in his Apocalypse, and Daniel likewise sketch many pictures and beasts; yet these pertain not to specific persons but to the totality of Christian churches and [to the various] empires. And Christ our Lord himself likes to make use of parables and fictions like this in the gospel. He compares the kingdom of heaven to ten maidens [Matt. 25:1–13], or to a merchant and pearls [Matt. 13:45], a baker woman [Matt. 13:33], a grain of mustard seed [Matt. 13:31–32], or to fishermen and nets [Matt. 13:47–49], or to shepherds and sheep [Matt. 18:12–14], and the like.

Such an interpretation strikes my fancy, and I think that the poet deliberately and painstakingly inserted the errors of time and name in order to remind the reader that the book should be taken and understood as that kind of a sacred, religious, composition.

Now the names fit into this sort of an interpretation extraordinarily well. Judith means Judea (that is) the Jewish people. She is a chaste and holy widow; that is, God’s people is always a forsaken widow who is nevertheless chaste and holy, remaining pure and holy in the Word of God and in the true faith, mortifying herself and praying. Holofernes means worldly leader or governor, a heathen, godless, or un-Christian lord or prince—as all enemies of the Jewish people are. Bethulia (a city nobody knows) means a virgin , indicating that at that time the believing and devout Jews were the pure virgin, free from idolatry and unbelief, as described in Isaiah [37:22] and Jeremiah [14:17; 18:13; 31:4], which is also why they remained unconquerable, though they were in distress.

It may even be that in those days they dramatized literature like this, Just as among us the Passion and other sacred stories are performed. In a common presentation or play they conceivably wanted to teach their people and youth to trust God, to be righteous, and to hope in God for all help and comfort, in every need, against all enemies, etc.

Therefore this is a fine, good, holy, useful book, well worth reading by us Christians. For the words spoken by the persons in it should be understood as though they were uttered in the Holy Spirit by a spiritual, holy poet or prophet who, in presenting such persons in his play, preaches to us through them. Next after Judith, therefore , like a song following a play, belongs the Wisdom of Philo *, a work which denounces tyrants and praises the help which God bestows on his people. The song [that follows] may well be called an illustration of this book [of Judith].

Jon

 

[Goya]

It was a reading from the book of Wisdom during a Mass we went to that made me realize that the Old Testaments were different. When they said “a reading from the Book of Wisdom”, my wife (then girlfriend) looked at me like; ‘what the heck is that???’ and I was like; 'what the heck is what?'

We dug out our Bibles that evening and BOTH discovered the 73 vs. 62 argument. We were both WELL into our 30s and never had any idea there was any difference. Sure, different translations and commentary, but we never suspected the canon would be different. I bet at least 90% of all laymen have no clue about the difference, either.

Come to think of it…I think I was in my 30’s as well, when I realized this.

 

[rfournier103]

We dug out our Bibles that evening and BOTH discovered the 73 vs. 62 argument.

ARGH… I AM SO SORRY!!!

It looks like I am ALSO guilty of removing books from the Bible!!!

What I SHOULD have said was 73 vs. 66… uch:uch:uch:uch: