The books that Martin Luther took out of the bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter jesusismyrock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
porkpie,

Dunno why you think it is such a problem when the church lived with it for centuries.

The books of the OT were determined by the palestinian Jews and accepted by christians. The books of the NT were accepted by the early churches by consensus based on the Rule of Faith.

The reason why Protestants go by scripture alone is that it is the Word of God and nothing else is except the presence of Christ in our lives. Nothing else from any time carries that title. In addition we do not have the words of Jeus and the apostles from any other source that is reliable. Protestants simply ask why we should accept the words of any person when we have the words of Jesus and the apostles? I have never heard a good answer to that question.

Rob
Peace in Christ Rob. The Jews did not all agree to a defined OT canon but the disciples themselves used the septuagint. They must have thought it to be inspired. And it was the church that set the OT and NT canon based on “tradition” from what was taught by Christ, certainly infallible and profitable for teaching. I’m not trying to be funny, but likewise, Catholics can not relate to bible alone as scripture was canonized by the church for readings at Mass, and not to be used as a compendium of all truth. And I know you’ve heard this before, but the bible doesn’t state what books should be in it nor that is it sufficient apart from tradition. I never heard of a good answer to the points above either. (ok I’m being funny now but serious too). :whacky:
 
Jose,

Lets try to be charitable. I will answer this question however.

Of course Jesus and the apostles never complained about scripture. What is your point? Perhaps it has to do with the Deuterocanicals and I would remind you that the Palestinian OT probably did not have those books and most likely Hebrew speaking Jews would use that. The NT uses the Septuagint because it was Greek speakers writing for Greek speakers. The Palestinian OT was Hebrew. That the Septuagint was utilized to speak to Greeks does not mean that Jesus or the Apostles accepted the Ds as you do. Jerome included them in his Vulagate but only as edifying and not as for doctrine. We have no idea what the apostles thought about that.

Rob
Rob,

Scholars have been wrong, are wrong and will be wrong. Some are right, sometimes right, seldom times right, etc.

You honestly think that if there was something wrong with the Scriptures Jesus and the Apostles were using at the time they would just let it go unnoticed?

On 2 Tim 3:16, Paul talk about ALL Scripture. We have to conclude that he is referring to all the Scriptures he had at the time, which included the Septuagint. A Universal statement like that is impossible to ignore. I can hear a comparison to the “all men have sinned” analogy. Very different, Jesus is God and Man at the same time and therefore unique!

Some very few men brought their concerns and inquiries about the DCs and for a long time they were accepted as Divinely Inspired. While the vast majority of men accepted without making it a big issue.

The problem I see is that you’d rather agree with the few regardless of what the Spirit is doing with the many! I don’t understand how you can do that. If the Church from Pentecost have used the DC books as divinely inspired and now you say that they are not, then you are saying that the Spirit did not help the Church with Scriptures for over 1500 years. That God allowed His One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church to be wrong for 1500 years.

Sorry but I can’t grasp that concept.

Jose
 
Rob,

Scholars have been wrong, are wrong and will be wrong. Some are right, sometimes right, seldom times right, etc.

You honestly think that if there was something wrong with the Scriptures Jesus and the Apostles were using at the time they would just let it go unnoticed?

On 2 Tim 3:16, Paul talk about ALL Scripture. We have to conclude that he is referring to all the Scriptures he had at the time, which included the Septuagint. A Universal statement like that is impossible to ignore. I can hear a comparison to the “all men have sinned” analogy. Very different, Jesus is God and Man at the same time and therefore unique!

Some very few men brought their concerns and inquiries about the DCs and for a long time they were accepted as Divinely Inspired. While the vast majority of men accepted without making it a big issue.

The problem I see is that you’d rather agree with the few regardless of what the Spirit is doing with the many! I don’t understand how you can do that. If the Church from Pentecost have used the DC books as divinely inspired and now you say that they are not, then you are saying that the Spirit did not help the Church with Scriptures for over 1500 years. That God allowed His One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church to be wrong for 1500 years.

Sorry but I can’t grasp that concept.

Jose
Isaiah,

Funny you would complain about what I believe about if the Ds are scripture or not since I have offered no opinion on that issue at all. I have simply discussed the history of those books and why they were not canon of the bible until Trent.

But I think the issue is a bit more complicated than you describe. Jesus and the apostles extoll the Law and the Prophets and do not really address the other books that might be attached to the OT. They saw a difference between which books were more important.
Jesus only quoted the Law and the Propets.

Were the Ds part of the Law and the Prophets? That is an important question and I have not researched it much. Frankly I am not too concerned about the Ds. They do not add much in my opinion and it makes little difference to me if they are out or in scripture.
My concern is that Luther not be accused of tossing them out. He did not.

Rob
 
Isaiah,

Funny you would complain about what I believe about if the Ds are scripture or not since I have offered no opinion on that issue at all. I have simply discussed the history of those books and why they were not canon of the bible until Trent.

But I think the issue is a bit more complicated than you describe. Jesus and the apostles extoll the Law and the Prophets and do not really address the other books that might be attached to the OT. They saw a difference between which books were more important.
Jesus only quoted the Law and the Propets.

Were the Ds part of the Law and the Prophets? That is an important question and I have not researched it much. Frankly I am not too concerned about the Ds. They do not add much in my opinion and it makes little difference to me if they are out or in scripture.
My concern is that Luther not be accused of tossing them out. He did not.

Rob
I thought you brought them up in your response and also they are the books that Luther is accused of taking out. Which I don’t accuse him of and actually defend him on not doing. Opinions are just that, opinions. Further, opinions are subject to the state of mind that you are in at the time of your opinion.

It seems you are as stubborn as I am, so peace to you brother. Our Lord can sure handle with ease the 2 of us and then some! 😃
 
This quote is grossly out of context. Since seeing it posted here on Catholic Answers, I went and looked it up:

Luther: My word is the word of Christ; my mouth is the mouth of Christ

Regards,

James
Luther wrote:
Now every man—whether it be I or another—who speaks the word of Christ may boldly assert that his mouth is the mouth of Christ. I for my part am certain that my word is not mine, but the word of Christ; my mouth therefore must also be the mouth of him whose word it speaks
It sounds to me as if Luther was certain that God was speaking through him. If you read this quote in context, Luther goes on to think of himself as a prophet from God, that his task was to do away with the papacy, the priesthood, monasteries and religious vocations. In my opinion, what makes Luther an effective deceiver is that he speaks with half-truths. A half-truth is a deceptive statement that includes some element of truth, allowing for a rationalized acceptance of false statements. In Mark 13:6 Jesus Himself warns “many shall come in my name, saying, I am he; and they shall deceive many.”
***When he is gone from men’s hearts and so has lost their confidence, he [the pope] is already destroyed. ***But the light of truth hurts him; when we contrast him [the pope] with Christ, and his teaching [the pope’s] with the gospel, that brings him down and utterly destroys him without any effort and exertion on our part. **See what I have done. Have I not, with the mouth alone, without a single stroke of the sword, done more harm to the pope, bishops, priests, and monks **than all the emperors, kings, and princes with all their power ever did before? And why? Because Daniel 8:25] says, “By no human hand shall this king be broken”; and St. Paul says, “He will be destroyed by the mouth of Christ”
I would surmise that it is not the mouth of Christ speaking through Luther but the spirit of the one who seeks to destroy the Church. Luther goes on to say:
Now every man—whether it be I or another—who speaks the word of Christ may boldly assert that his mouth is the mouth of Christ. I for my part am certain that my word is not mine, but the word of Christ; my mouth therefore must also be the mouth of him whose word it speaks . . . Christ himself has already begun an insurrection with his mouth. . .
So Luther was claiming that Christ, through the mouth of Luther, was causing an insurrection in the Church to do away with the false doctrines that the Church was teaching for 1,500 years? Then Luther claims the devil himself feared his coming:
*The devil has for a long time feared the coming of these years; he smelled the pot boiling a long way off. He even issued many prophecies against it, **some of which point to me, *** so I often stand amazed at his great cunning. Often he [the devil] would have liked to kill me. . .
The devil himself issued prophecies about Martin Luther? Where did the devil do this?
Get busy now; spread the holy gospel, and help others spread it; teach, speak, write, and preach that man-made laws are nothing;
Translate: Luther is teaching that the ancient doctrines of the Catholic Church are false, and that people should not believe them. But we know that the devil often masquerades himself as a follower of Christ. Paul clearly warned:"just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray . . .For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received,** or a different gospel from the one you accepted,** you put up with it easily enough. . . such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness." 1 Cor. 11:3-15

Here’s the kicker:
urge people not to enter the priesthood, the monastery, or the convent, and hinder them from so doing; encourage those who have already entered to leave; give no more money for bulls, candles, bells, tablets, and churches; rather tell them that a Christian life consists of faith and love.* Let us do this for two years, and you shall see what will become of pope, bishops, cardinals, priests, monks, nuns, bells, towers, masses, vigils, cowls, hoods, tonsures, monastic rules, statutes, and all the swarming vermin of the papal regime; they will all vanish like smoke.***
Yes indeed, a Christian life consist of faith and love, but without the priesthood we have no valid sacraments; without the sacraments we lose the primary means of sanctifying grace established by Christ through His Church. Without the Sacrifice of the Mass we have no Holy Eucharist. This is how the devil works. He goes after priests so that there is no Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. I can only surmise that Luther’s words are from the spirit of darkness, not the Holy Spirit.

Luther continues:
But if we fail to teach and spread this truth among the people so their hearts will no longer cling to these things, we will still have the pope with us, though we were to start a thousand insurrections against him. Just see what has been accomplished in this one single year, during which we have been preaching and writing this truth!
Again we echo the words of Paul: For such people are . . .masquerading as apostles of Christ. I believe Luther was naive and blinded by his pride, unwittingly becoming an instrument of the devil, accomplishing the task of spreading the “truth” so that the hearts of people would no longer believe the same teachings of the Church which the Early Church Fathers defended against the heretics of their day. But the good news is that Jesus said: And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven;* whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven**, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”*

Luther was ex-communicated from the Church and his legacy is confusion, division and false doctrines. One need not read all of Luther’s references to excrement and farts he hurled in his writings against the pope, the teaching of the Church, and the authority of the Church, to realize that this man was not sent from God. The devil is an expert at deceiving people, thus I hope that poor Martin Luther, whom I believe unwittingly thought he was doing good, somehow by the grace of God made it to Purgatory and is making amends for all the all the false teachings his tongue and pen introduced into the minds of men. Thus we must watch and pray, for we are at war against the forces of deception. The key is to remember that false teachers* masquerade as apostles of Christ.*

"For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places."Ephesians 6:12 found 2
 
Hi, Gabriel Serafin,

Excellent post! 👍

God bless
Luther wrote:It sounds to me as if Luther was certain that God was speaking through him. If you read this quote in context, Luther goes on to think of himself as a prophet from God, that his task was to do away with the papacy, the priesthood, monasteries and religious vocations. In my opinion, what makes Luther an effective deceiver is that he speaks with half-truths. A half-truth is a deceptive statement that includes some element of truth, allowing for a rationalized acceptance of false statements. In Mark 13:6 Jesus Himself warns “many shall come in my name, saying, I am he; and they shall deceive many.”
I would surmise that it is not the mouth of Christ speaking through Luther but the spirit of the one who seeks to destroy the Church. Luther goes on to say:

So Luther was claiming that Christ, through the mouth of Luther, was causing an insurrection in the Church to do away with the false doctrines that the Church was teaching for 1,500 years? Then Luther claims the devil himself feared his coming:

The devil himself issued prophecies about Martin Luther? Where did the devil do this?
Translate: Luther is teaching that the ancient doctrines of the Catholic Church are false, and that people should not believe them. But we know that the devil often masquerades himself as a follower of Christ. Paul clearly warned:"just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray . . .For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received,** or a different gospel from the one you accepted,** you put up with it easily enough. . . such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness." 1 Cor. 11:3-15

Here’s the kicker:

Yes indeed, a Christian life consist of faith and love, but without the priesthood we have no valid sacraments; without the sacraments we lose the primary means of sanctifying grace established by Christ through His Church. Without the Sacrifice of the Mass we have no Holy Eucharist. This is how the devil works. He goes after priests so that there is no Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. I can only surmise that Luther’s words are from the spirit of darkness, not the Holy Spirit.

Luther continues: Again we echo the words of Paul: For such people are . . .masquerading as apostles of Christ. I believe Luther was naive and blinded by his pride, unwittingly becoming an instrument of the devil, accomplishing the task of spreading the “truth” so that the hearts of people would no longer believe the same teachings of the Church which the Early Church Fathers defended against the heretics of their day. But the good news is that Jesus said: And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven;* whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven***, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Luther was ex-communicated from the Church and his legacy is confusion, division and false doctrines. One need not read all of Luther’s references to excrement and farts he hurled in his writings against the pope, the teaching of the Church, and the authority of the Church, to realize that this man was not sent from God. The devil is an expert at deceiving people, thus I hope that poor Martin Luther, whom I believe unwittingly thought he was doing good, somehow by the grace of God made it to Purgatory and is making amends for all the all the false teachings his tongue and pen introduced into the minds of men. Thus we must watch and pray, for we are at war against the forces of deception. The key is to remember that false teachers* masquerade as apostles of Christ.*

"For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places."Ephesians 6:12 found 2
 
Hi, Isaiah,

You make an interesting point - and you labor to split this hair! 😉 Luther did not ‘throw out’ the DC as you say … but, unfortunately, just leaving it right there as though Luther did nothing in this regard is misleading! :eek:

Luther took the books he did not agree with and placed them in the back of his bible under a separate heading. What he did was to disrupt the order of the Canon and then call into question the legitimacy of these writings. It was only much later after Luther’s death that these books were physically removed.

But, I am curious about one thing. Luther was only able to bring into question those seven OT Books - yet he was very much in opposition to at least one NT Book - and that was the Epistle of James (here is a link: veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/James ). Luther is quoted as calling this particular inspired work, ‘…a gospel of straw…’ (here is an interesting Protestant link: bible.ca/ef/topical-luthers-blind-spot.htm ) Do you know why Luther was not able to simply move James’ Epistle to the back of his bible - along with the other works he did not agree with?

God bless
Isaiah,

Funny you would complain about what I believe about if the Ds are scripture or not since I have offered no opinion on that issue at all. I have simply discussed the history of those books and why they were not canon of the bible until Trent.

But I think the issue is a bit more complicated than you describe. Jesus and the apostles extoll the Law and the Prophets and do not really address the other books that might be attached to the OT. They saw a difference between which books were more important.
Jesus only quoted the Law and the Propets.

Were the Ds part of the Law and the Prophets? That is an important question and I have not researched it much. Frankly I am not too concerned about the Ds. They do not add much in my opinion and it makes little difference to me if they are out or in scripture.
My concern is that Luther not be accused of tossing them out. He did not.

Rob
 
I certainly could live on these boards for a while and interact with every question raised. I think it’s probable that if you search my posts here on Catholic Answers, I’ve been involved with this same discussion more than a few times since I joined back in 2004.

My specific wording was “This Melanchthon-myth is simply one of a number of related problems with Roman Catholic perspectives on Luther’s canon views.” There are a number of issues involved. Here would be one of the major problems I find with Roman Catholics jumping all over Luther on this subject: double standards. The following was posted right here on Catholic Answers by me not all that long ago:

I have 2 questions for those of you fixated with Luther’s comments on which books were canonical or not.
  1. In the 16th Century Catholic men like Erasmus, Luther, Cajetan expressed doubts on the canonicty of some of the New Testament books. These men all share one thing in common. They formed their opinions on the canon previous to the dogmatic and binding decisions of the Council of Trent. At the Council of Trent, the question of canonicity was put forth before the Council once and for all, and they issued a dogmatic pronouncement of which books were “canon” for the entire church. Isn’t the liberty that Erasmus, Luther, and Cajetan expressed simply the liberty as allowed by the Roman Catholic Church previous to dogmatic pronouncement? [By the way, if you simply respond by citing earlier councils, I’m going to then ask you if the councils you cite were ecumenical or local, and why the New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the Biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church (at the Council of Trent). Before that time there was some doubt about the canonicity of certain Biblical books, i.e., about their belonging to the canon”].
  1. I would like a Roman Catholic who believes that Trent closed the canon issue once and for all to explain the following riddle. Roman Catholic apologist Gary Michuta states:
If Michuta is correct, isn’t it possible that there exists a book that is canonical, but not currently in the canon? If it is possible that the Bible is missing a book, and this book isn’t simply hypothetical, don’t you think it’s a bit hypocritical to chastise Luther for making a personal opinion on canonicity previous to Trent, while you’re free to speculate on the Book of Esdras, 4 Ezra, and 3 Maccabees previous to the Roman church finally setteling the issue?

James

Addendum
You all do realize there was a group of Roman Catholic scholars at the Council of Trent that argued against including the Deuterocanonicals in the canon?
James,

:rolleyes:

Does all this arguing wear you out? I’m just curious.

I peruse your blog from time to time for entertainment purposes; some of the material is quite amusing.

Best of luck to you. Do try to stop and smell the roses, though. Life is too short to be fighting all the time.

In Christ Our Savior’s Name,

Topaz :highprayer:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top