The New Testament Canons of Martin Luther and of Lutheranism

[guanophore]

In reading history of the reformation and the writings of Martin Luther, there is no doubt that Luther rejected all authority but his own in regards to Scripture and doctrine, in that his doctrines were the only ones to be accepted. Luther according to his own words said that his teachings and doctrines were not to be questioned, which implies authority. His having a doctorate form the university in theology also in his thinking gave him the authority and the right to decide doctrines and what was to be taught.

While I can’t deny that Luther did seem at times to be overfull of himself, he certainly did recognize authority other than himself. He accepted the early Church councils and the vast majority of Sacred Tradition, which is why Lutherans are so close to Catholics today.
It was the Catholic Church that trained Luther, and ordained him, and assigned him teaching responsibilities. These assignments did not come from his degree, but from his Holy Orders.

Even after Exsurge Domine, when his faculties were removed, he still believed that he was authorized by the Scriptures, not by virtue of his degree.

There is also no doubt that Luther influenced a great many people to his cause, thereby causing a revolt against the CC.

Let us strive to avoid another Luther bashing tangent and try to stay on topic. Luther was not alone in his assessment on the Deuterocanonicals. Unlike Jerome, he did not yield to the authority of the Church on the matter, and it has affected all Christians after the Reformation.

To say that Luther did not have authority or did not claim authority seems a little far fetched since, people listened to him and went along with him and why would they do that if they did not think he had some sort of authority and Luther used the authority he claimed from his being a doctorate of theology to imposes his beliefs as to his theology on to others. There are those of course that say he never claimed authority, but history say otherwise.

Certainly Luther did claim authority, as evidenced by the quote you given on his “will” for things to be “so”. But to say that he coudl in any way “impose” his beliefs about theology on others is not accurate. He did not have any temporal authority or ability to enforce his will onto others in any way. On the contrary, he had to go into hiding after the Diet of Worms and only a few people knew where he was.

I think what you are trying to say is that he had tremendous influence, which is certainly true. His polemical style, and the political and economic times in which he lived, wrote, and preached made his small pebbles into a great avalanche.

Yet the fact that he did not have authority over Lutheranism, or the rest of the reformation is evidenced by the very Confessions of the Lutheran faith, which disregard many of his writings and ideas.

 

[JonNC]

In reading history of the reformation and the writings of Martin Luther, there is no doubt that Luther rejected all authority but his own in regards to Scripture and doctrine, in that his doctrines were the only ones to be accepted. Luther according to his own words said that his teachings and doctrines were not to be questioned, which implies authority. His having a doctorate form the university in theology also in his thinking gave him the authority and the right to decide doctrines and what was to be taught.

There is also no doubt that Luther influenced a great many people to his cause, thereby causing a revolt against the CC. Luther wrote far more than anyone else in promoting his teachings and doctrines during the Reformation. When the CC refused to agree with his teachings and doctrines he went off into a rage and a tangent  with all who opposed him, his teachings and his doctrines. Why all? Because the CC would not accept his teachings and doctrines. While there certainly abuses by those within the CC, Luther went far beyond that and questioned all of the teachings and doctrines of the CC and the authority of the CC to do so.

They may have been Luther’s opinions but they had weight and influenced many people, whether or not they really understood his teachings and doctrines and the CC teachings and doctrines. Luther used propaganda in order to influence, promote and promulgate his teachings and doctrines over that of what the CC taught. Luther was recognized as a authority among those who agreed with him and what he taught and was teaching. To say that Luther did not have authority or did not claim authority seems a little far fetched since, people listened to him and went along with him and why would they do that if they did not think he had some sort of authority and Luther used the authority he claimed from his being a doctorate of theology to imposes his beliefs as to his theology on to others. There are those of course that say he never claimed authority, but history say otherwise.

There is a significant difference between authoritative and influential. Luther was very influential.

Jon

 

[JustaServant]

Jon, I am not trying to make a federal case out of this and I am not going to belabor it.

Not to interfere Top, but do keep in mind Jon is one of the best non-Catholic posters on the board. I doubt he used a quote from the anti-Catholic blog in question, unless it was inadvertent.
Otherwise I have no idea what you guys are talking about.

 

[spina1953]

You have to admit, the thread topic does seem to lend itself to going down that road yet again.

Hi Gaunophore: I certainly hope that that is not the case as I really do not want to go down that road again.

 

[spina1953]

While I can’t deny that Luther did seem at times to be overfull of himself, he certainly did recognize authority other than himself. He accepted the early Church councils and the vast majority of Sacred Tradition, which is why Lutherans are so close to Catholics today.
It was the Catholic Church that trained Luther, and ordained him, and assigned him teaching responsibilities. These assignments did not come from his degree, but from his Holy Orders.

Even after Exsurge Domine, when his faculties were removed, he still believed that he was authorized by the Scriptures, not by virtue of his degree.

Let us strive to avoid another Luther bashing tangent and try to stay on topic. Luther was not alone in his assessment on the Deuterocanonicals. Unlike Jerome, he did not yield to the authority of the Church on the matter, and it has affected all Christians after the Reformation.

Certainly Luther did claim authority, as evidenced by the quote you given on his “will” for things to be “so”. But to say that he coudl in any way “impose” his beliefs about theology on others is not accurate. He did not have any temporal authority or ability to enforce his will onto others in any way. On the contrary, he had to go into hiding after the Diet of Worms and only a few people knew where he was.

I think what you are trying to say is that he had tremendous influence, which is certainly true. His polemical style, and the political and economic times in which he lived, wrote, and preached made his small pebbles into a great avalanche.

Yet the fact that he did not have authority over Lutheranism, or the rest of the reformation is evidenced by the very Confessions of the Lutheran faith, which disregard many of his writings and ideas.

Hi Gaunophore: You have made good points, which on reflection I can understand your point of view and it does made sense. It seems to me from reading so much on Luther as well as his writings that in many ways claimed an authority to do what he did. That being said, I also think that he had a great influence on those who accepted his premise on theology and doctrines. I agree that over time while he was not the only reformer to take up the cause, he did manage to sway others. It is true that in the end many of Luther’s ideas as found in his many writings were not included in the Lutheran Confessions, yet, his influence is still felt. For me I am only looking at the history of the man and his times. What gets me is that Luther saw abuses which he had every right to address but when it came to challenging the CC authority to interpret Scripture and determine doctrines different from what had been accepted he went to far in my opinion; which all of what I have written is just that my opinion.

 

[spina1953]

There is a significant difference between authoritative and influential. Luther was very influential.

Jon

Hi Jon: I have to agree with your statement about authority and influence. Luther certainly have a great influence on people. In many ways though through his many writings Luther in a sense did in fact claimed a authority. I often wonder had Luther not been so vindictive towards the CC and instead had gone about it in a much calmer manor, what reforms needed may have taken root quicker than it did and with maybe better results all around?

 

[TertiumQuid]

Jon, I am not trying to make a federal case out of this and I am not going to belabor it. The Pelikan quote in question is as follows:

“Within the received canon Luther made sharp distinctions, to the point of constructing a private miniature canon. But he **was realistic enough in his theology to know that one had to operate with the canon as given by tradition. That realism provided the framework within which he could say and do the things he did in relation to the canon without involving himself in a hopeless set of contradictions.” **Jaroslav Pelikan, Luther The Expositor (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959), 87-88.

You posted the part in red, which portrays a relatively positive view of Luther. The part that you didn’t include, the part in blue, makes Luther look much worse, at least to those people who believe that ‘constructing a private miniature canon’ is something that Christians should not do.

The red portion of the quote without the blue gives people the wrong impression about Pelikan’s whole statement, with that impression being of course, much more positive (about Luther) than the whole quote.

If this quote was really taken from an “anti-Catholic blog” (as you assert) I would first investigate why that “anti-Catholic blog” used the quote in the first place. The quote was used to demonstrate that during the 16th century there was on-going discussion as to the canonicity of particular books (Erasmus, Cajetan). When Luther was involved with canon criticism, he (like Erasmus and Cajetan) were not sifting through pseudepigrapha or Gnostic writings and recreating the entire canon. Rather, they interacted with the tradition they inherited and subject it to the scholarship available to them during their time period. They had information avaialble to them like the writings of Eusebius. When Pelikan is then quoted, the point is that Luther wasn’t recreating the entire canon, but was working with the tradition available to him-a canon tradition not dogmatically defined till some time after Luther made his canon comments.

I find it interesting that without having Pelikan’s book, Topper17 is able to navigate conclusions about Pelikan’s words and appears to have certainly that the secondary source for the quote cited Pelikan accurately. In other words: one should use caution with words when they do not have the context. Can this “anti-Catholic blog” be trusted to cite Luther accurately? It appears Topper17 thinks so.

As someone who owns this book, I find it telling that when Pelikan mentions a “constructing a private miniature canon” this is passing comment rather than a major point. Rather, the context of Pelikan’s comments are involved with Luther’s understanding of tradition and what were the confines that Luther worked within.

 

[Son_of_Niall]

If this quote was really taken from an “anti-Catholic blog” (as you assert) I would first investigate why that “anti-Catholic blog” used the quote in the first place. The quote was used to demonstrate that during the 16th century there was on-going discussion as to the canonicity of particular books (Erasmus, Cajetan). When Luther was involved with canon criticism, he (like Erasmus and Cajetan) were not sifting through pseudepigrapha or Gnostic writings and recreating the entire canon. Rather, they interacted with the tradition they inherited and subject it to the scholarship available to them during their time period. They had information avaialble to them like the writings of Eusebius. When Pelikan is then quoted, the point is that Luther wasn’t recreating the entire canon, but was working with the tradition available to him-a canon tradition not dogmatically defined till some time after Luther made his canon comments.

I find it interesting that without having Pelikan’s book, Topper17 is able to navigate conclusions about Pelikan’s words and appears to have certainly that the secondary source for the quote cited Pelikan accurately. In other words: one should use caution with words when they do not have the context. Can this “anti-Catholic blog” be trusted to cite Luther accurately? It appears Topper17 thinks so.

As someone who owns this book, I find it telling that when Pelikan mentions a “constructing a private miniature canon” this is passing comment rather than a major point. Rather, the context of Pelikan’s comments are involved with Luther’s understanding of tradition and what were the confines that Luther worked within.

It’s a big internet and I am sure both Jon and Topper are quite capable of finding quotes and sources for their debate that doesn’t include your precious “blog”. Their debate here might get intense, but never uncharitable.
I would hope Lutherans find your “Blog” just as offensive as Catholics. If you used here the kind of language you use there, you would have been banned a long time ago. But the fact that you create one persona here and another there is very telling as to your credibility.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Spina,

It sure sounds to me that Martin Luther a University degree, a doctorate that he had the authority to interpret and decide what Scripture was and was not. It was Luther alone who decided as to what he considered to be canon and what books in Scripture are or were canon and which ones were not. While Luther did not remove the books per say, he did put them into a appendix, with his own comments as to their value in relationship to the rest of Scripture.

Martin Luther by his words left no doubt that he had the authority to do as he did. In reality he gave himself that authority basing it on that fact that he held a doctorate from the university, which he believed gave him that authority, and that authority was not to be questioned by anyone, period. In effect the CC authority that he so violently contested and disputed he gave to himself.

I think you are right on the money here. Luther believed he had a tremendous amount of authority, in fact even the authority to judge whole books of the Bible. Where did he get this authority? Some will tell you that he got it from Scripture, from his authority to interpret Scripture. And yet, he felt it within his authority to decide what was canonical and what was not. Circular reasoning at its most obvious.

In fact, Luther made some astonishing claims about his personal authority. The following quotes are from Dave Armstrong’s “Martin Luther, Catholic Critical Analysis and Praise”:

“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)

“In order to get things started, I call myself an ecclesiastic by the grace of God in defiance of you and the devil, although you call me a heretic with an abundance of slander. And even if I called myself an evangelist by the grace of God, I would still be more confident of proving it than that any one of you could prove his episcopal title or name.** I am certain that Christ himself, who is the master of my teaching, gives me this title and regards me as one.** Moreover, he will be my witness on the Last Day that it is not my pure gospel but his.” (Against the Spiritual Estate of the Pope and the Bishops Falsely So-Called, July 1522; LW, Vol. 39: Church and Ministry I; translated by Eric W. and Ruth C. Gritsch, and appears on pp. 239-299; this citation is from pp. 247-248)

**“Therefore, I now let you know that from now on I shall no longer do you the honor of allowing you – or even an angel from heaven – to judge my teaching or to examine it. ……I shall not have it judged by any man, not even by any angel. For since I am certain of it, I shall be your judge and even the angels’ judge through this teaching (as St. Paul says ) so that whoever does not accept my teaching may not be saved – for it is God’s and not mine. Therefore, my judgment is also not mine but God’s.” (Ibid., 248-249)

“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.” (Ibid., from: O’Connor, 15)

[Dave Armstrong:]  We often hear complaints from Protestant apologists and other partisans about the excessive, intolerably “autocratic” authority of the papacy, yet papal proclamations are not even in the same universe as these above, from the founder of Protestantism. Martin Luther didn't need trifles as insignificant as the decree of an ecumenical council to justify himself. He simply assumed his prophetic call and proceeded on, undaunted by precedent and Church authority alike, if it went against his “judgment,” which, of course, also was “God’s” and not his own.

These quotes from Luther are all of a piece: they all indicate that he considered himself some sort of infallible, unquestionable theological / spiritual guide or authority. Lots of people claim this, of course. Why should Martin Luther have been regarded any differently from any other self-proclaimed prophets or oracles of God? I think this is a perfectly legitimate and highly important question that Protestants would do well to ponder.” Dave Armstrong, “Martin Luther, Catholic Critical Analysis and Praise”

Topper: As the name implies, Dave’s book contains both “Critical Analysis”, about 2/3rds of the book, and “Praise”, about 1/3rd of the book. It is very well balanced and is an excellent read. I would consider it a ‘must have’ for anyone interested in Luther.

The quotes above demonstrate the authority that Luther proclaimed for himself. It cannot be said that he didn’t claim for himself a huge level of authority.

Amazingly, Luther believed that the salvation of others depended on their agreement with him. Compared to that, his harsh and incorrect judgments on the canon were child’s play.

God Bless You Spina, Topper**

 

[JustaServant]

If this quote was really taken from an “anti-Catholic blog” (as you assert) I would first investigate why that “anti-Catholic blog” used the quote in the first place.

Don’t flatter yourself.

 

[spina1953]

When it comes to Scripture and Martin Luther, it seems that while Luther preached and taught a doctrine of Sola Scriptura, in reality it appears more a prima Luther. So much of Luther’s writings strongly suggest that he viewed his opinions and not Scripture as the primary authority.

 This can be plainly seen by his comment on Roman's 3:28 where he added the word alone to the verse. To justify this adding the word alone to the verse in Roman's he says: You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word alone is not in the text of Paul... say right out to him. Dr. Martin Luther will have it so... I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word alone is not in the Latin or Greek text." ( Stoddard J. Rebuilding a Lost Faith, 1922,pp101-102)

 Not only does Luther state that it will be so but orders it to be so, which in my mind implies authority, implying also that  his opinion is great or has greater weight than Scripture and the writer of Roman's. Luther thought Paul the greatest of Scripture writers but, apparently not enough insofar as if that were really true he would never have added the word alone to Paul's writing and would have left it as it was. Luther added the word alone in order to promote a new doctrine of Sola Scriptura in which one is justified by faith alone, which totally misinterprets and causes a misunderstanding of what Paul was saying and referring to in Roman's.

 Luther thumbed his nose at the Pope, the CC when they did not accept his doctrines and teachings lock, stock and barrel.  if Luther had had his way, some 18 books of Scripture would have been tossed out and done away with, but calmer heads prevailed as the main reason Luther choose instead to put them into an appendix with glosses to explain that while they are good to read they are not fit to make doctrine.

 There will always be those who will defend Luther no matter what or try and explain away what Luther did. But in the end one can't change history. It is what it is.

 

[Topper17]

Hi JaS,

Not to interfere Top, but do keep in mind Jon is one of the best non-Catholic posters on the board. I doubt he used a quote from the anti-Catholic blog in question, unless it was inadvertent.
Otherwise I have no idea what you guys are talking about.

As I mentioned yesterday, I was not going to bring this side issue up again, but I think you deserve a response.

Have you noticed that there has been no denial that that Pelikan quote was taken from that anti-Catholic blog? There will be no such denial.

God Bless You JaS, Topper

We now return you to your regular programming…

 

[JonNC]

Not to interfere Top, but do keep in mind Jon is one of the best non-Catholic posters on the board. I doubt he used a quote from the anti-Catholic blog in question, unless it was inadvertent.
Otherwise I have no idea what you guys are talking about.

Hi Just,
Thanks for the kind words.

In post #26, I quoted a portion of Luther’s preface on the Book of Judith. I found that quote posted on a Catholic website, which I have linked. I, indeed, found the Jaroslav Pelikan quote on James Swan’s website. In neither case did I post any quotes from the website owner, but only the words of the people I intended to quote. And, in both cases, I found the quote via a search engine search.

In short, it wasn’t the website owner’s opinion that I was after, but the germane quote I was looking for for my post. So, in neither case, is the website of any particular relevance, unless one is trying to score polemical points.

I don’t think any reasonable person, Lutheran, Catholic, or otherwise, would consider Jaroslav Pelikan, a noted and respected Church historian, as anti-Catholic, even though he was Lutheran turned Orthodox. So I can’t imagine why quoting him would be seen as a problem.

As for James Swan, just like Dave Armstrong, I find their work to be informative and helpful. They are both knowledgeable and well-read. In both cases, there are things I agree with, and things I disagree with (not surprisingly, since neither are Lutheran). In both cases, I am very appreciative of their efforts.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

When it comes to Scripture and Martin Luther, it seems that while Luther preached and taught a doctrine of Sola Scriptura, in reality it appears more a prima Luther. So much of Luther’s writings strongly suggest that he viewed his opinions and not Scripture as the primary authority.

 This can be plainly seen by his comment on Roman's 3:28 where he added the word alone to the verse. To justify this adding the word alone to the verse in Roman's he says: You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word alone is not in the text of Paul... say right out to him. Dr. Martin Luther will have it so... I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word alone is not in the Latin or Greek text." ( Stoddard J. Rebuilding a Lost Faith, 1922,pp101-102)

 Not only does Luther state that it will be so but orders it to be so, which in my mind implies authority, implying also that  his opinion is great or has greater weight than Scripture and the writer of Roman's. Luther thought Paul the greatest of Scripture writers but, apparently not enough insofar as if that were really true he would never have added the word alone to Paul's writing and would have left it as it was. Luther added the word alone in order to promote a new doctrine of Sola Scriptura in which one is justified by faith alone, which totally misinterprets and causes a misunderstanding of what Paul was saying and referring to in Roman's.

 Luther thumbed his nose at the Pope, the CC when they did not accept his doctrines and teachings lock, stock and barrel. ** if Luther had had his way, some 18 books of Scripture would have been tossed out and done away with, but calmer heads prevailed as the main reason Luther choose instead to put them into an appendix with glosses to explain that while they are good to read they are not fit to make doctrine.**

 There will always be those who will defend Luther no matter what or try and explain away what Luther did. But in the end one can't change history. It is what it is.

On the bolded, why do you think he, with help, saw to it that 74 books were translated and included in the 1534 Die Bibel?

I guess I’d like to know who the “cooler heads” belonged to. On the one hand, you tell me Luther thought he had full authority on his own, then you tell me “cooler heads” prevailed upon him to include them.

Jon

 

[spina1953]

On the bolded, why do you think he, with help, saw to it that 74 books were translated and included in the 1534 Die Bibel?

I guess I’d like to know who the “cooler heads” belonged to. On the one hand, you tell me Luther thought he had full authority on his own, then you tell me “cooler heads” prevailed upon him to include them.

Jon

It was just my understanding of what Luther wanted to do. One reason as to why he had help in translated is due to Luther not being as fluent in Latin and Greek As for cooler heads I read that many of his ardent followers felt that if Luther were to toss out some of the books of Scripture he would lose all that he gained and most of the masses would have rioted. At least that was my understanding of the situation. I will look for those who had the calmer heads.

 

[JonNC]

=spina1953;12444338]It was just my understanding of what Luther wanted to do

Do you have a source? You see, I don’t believe that was ever his intention. I don’t think it was ever his intention to even exclude James.

As for cooler heads I read that many of his ardent followers felt that if Luther were to toss out some of the books of Scripture he would lose all that he gained and most of the masses would have rioted.

I thought that didn’t matter. The claim has been that Luther had authority. Why would he have cared one way or the other?
Again, I don’t think Luther ever had intentions to throw books out.

At least that was my understanding of the situation. I will look for those who had the calmer heads.

That shouldn’t be hard. There were lots of reformers that had cooler heads than Luther.
My point is where, other than some of his more hyperbolic rants, did Luther say he wanted to exclude them from his translation?

Jon

 

[spina1953]

The source is Luther’s own words. Just because others advised Luther not to toss all the books of Scripture that Luther did not believe to be scripture does not mean that Luther did not have authority. Many people with authority listen to advise from those they respect.

True there were many reformers with cooler heads, many of them disagreed with Luther like Calvin and Zwingli for example but I was referring to those inside Luther's sphere of influence not outside it.

I do not remember saying that Luther wanted to exclude books in his translation, as he put them into an appendix. I was referring to his opinionated thoughts that those books were not scriptural and should be tossed out.

Some of the cooler heads were Philip Melanchthon, Luther's right hand man who helped Luther translate as Luther was not very good scholar of Hebrew and Greek, along with Bugenhagen, Cruciger, Jutus Jonas, and Aurogallus who also helped Luther translate the OT as well as the NT.

You might read An Open Letter on translating by Martin Luther 1530 to get some idea of Luther’s thinking on it.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Why would he translate, include, write a preface for, and say it is worthy of a spot in the canon and is good for us to read, regarding a book that is opposed to his “new doctrines”?

The reason that I chose this topic of Luther/Lutheranism and the NT canon is because I think that the validity and credibility of Lutheranism is revealed in the issue. After all, we know that Lutheranism has copied Luther’s antilegomena, and that Luther placed Jude, James, and Revelation into his (and thus Lutheranism’s) antilegomena because, in part, he didn’t think they had been written by an Apostle. Given his faulty judgment, he (and thus Lutheranism) did not, and will not use these books to determine doctrine.

Luther was wrong about those 3 books. They WERE written by Apostles, which means that Luther was WRONG to place them in his (and thus Lutheranism’s) antilegomena. Luther SHOULD have used those books to determine doctrine. Likewise, Lutheranism SHOULD have been using these books to determine doctrine, but has NOT now for almost 500 years. How can we presume that Lutheran doctrine and teachings are “Scriptural”, meaning that they are the teachings of Christ and the Apostles, when the Scripture from which those doctrines were developed were not based on ALL of the NT canon, but only 23 of the 27 authentic books?.

LCMS Pastor Moeller makes points very similar to this and his points are so damaging to Lutheranism that nobody has even attempted to refute his statements. For that matter, nobody has even acknowledged that they have been posted. That’s telling.

As I have stated before, I am happy to have readers here read my posts and those of the people who disagree, and determine for themselves which arguments are the more compelling. There are a lot of ‘watchers’ here – people who are searching for the Truth and have come to Catholic Answers because they are serious about possibly finding that Truth in the Catholic Church. What are these people supposed to think if nobody feels confident enough in their position to even bother posting arguments in regards to things like the Moeller quotes?

As for your specific questions, I would suggest that Luther translated, included, wrote a preface for, etc, etc,because he knew that he had to. How much credibility do you think Luther would have had if he had not included James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelations in his ‘translation’? He included them because to not do so would have revealed how radical he really was. It would have caused him to lose much of the popular support that he enjoyed. Luther had no choice, but he wanted to make sure that people would place less credence on those books whose doctrines did not personally suit him. The main issue is that Luther ‘judged’ the NT books on the basis of how well they fit in with his radical doctrinal beliefs, especially Salvation by Faith Alone.

The great Lutheran Theologian Paul Althaus doesn’t have a problem connecting Luther’s disrespectful comments about those 4 books to his disagreement with their doctrinal teachings.

“This is the true test of all books, when we see whether or not they preach Christ. For all the Scriptures show us Christ (Rom. 3:21) and St. Paul will know nothing but Christ (I Cor. 2:2). Whatever does not teach Christ is certainly not apostolic even though St. Peter or St. Paul teaches it…Luther was so certain of this, as well as of the interpretation of Scripture, that he did not think of himself as approaching the canon with an arbitrary and autonomously chosen criterion but with the standard which Scripture itself offers in it’s on-going central proclamation (“St. Paul and all the evangelists”).** Luther obtained this standard from nowhere else than the Scripture. To that extent it is the Scripture itself that criticizes the canon.**” Althaus, “The Theology of Martin Luther:, Pg. 83

In fact, Scripture as interpreted by Luther is what criticizes the canon. Of course, Luther’s definition of ‘preaching Christ’ was preaching Salvation By Faith Alone (SBFA). Althaus comments that Luther “was so certain of this, as well as of the interpretation of Scripture” of course meaning His Personal Interpretation of Scripture, that he did not see himself as applying a “personalized” approach to the canon. Is he saying that Luther did not even understand how radically He approached the Scriptures? Of course this thread points to and questions the astonishing level of “authority” that Luther Presumed that God had “given” Him. It could be said that Luther didn’t think that he was “approaching the canon with an arbitrary and autonomously chosen criteria”, but that misses the point. Luther didn’t think he was wrong about the authorship of those three books, but he most definitely was.

Althaus and many others have much more to say on the subject.

Luther’s faulty judgment has resulted in modern Lutheranism having a faulty approach to the 27 books of the New Testament.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon,

The reason that I chose this topic of Luther/Lutheranism and the NT canon is because I think that the validity and credibility of Lutheranism is revealed in the issue. After all, we know that Lutheranism has copied Luther’s antilegomena, and that Luther placed Jude, James, and Revelation into his (and thus Lutheranism’s) antilegomena because, in part, he didn’t think they had been written by an Apostle. Given his faulty judgment, he (and thus Lutheranism) did not, and will not use these books to determine doctrine.

Luther was wrong about those 3 books. They WERE written by Apostles, which means that Luther was WRONG to place them in his (and thus Lutheranism’s) antilegomena. Luther SHOULD have used those books to determine doctrine. Likewise, Lutheranism SHOULD have been using these books to determine doctrine, but has NOT now for almost 500 years. How can we presume that Lutheran doctrine and teachings are “Scriptural”, meaning that they are the teachings of Christ and the Apostles, when the Scripture from which those doctrines were developed were not based on ALL of the NT canon, but only 23 of the 27 authentic books?.

LCMS Pastor Moeller makes points very similar to this and his points are so damaging to Lutheranism that nobody has even attempted to refute his statements. For that matter, nobody has even acknowledged that they have been posted. That’s telling.

As I have stated before, I am happy to have readers here read my posts and those of the people who disagree, and determine for themselves which arguments are the more compelling. There are a lot of ‘watchers’ here – people who are searching for the Truth and have come to Catholic Answers because they are serious about possibly finding that Truth in the Catholic Church. What are these people supposed to think if nobody feels confident enough in their position to even bother posting arguments in regards to things like the Moeller quotes?

As for your specific questions, I would suggest that Luther translated, included, wrote a preface for, etc, etc,because he knew that he had to. How much credibility do you think Luther would have had if he had not included James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelations in his ‘translation’? He included them because to not do so would have revealed how radical he really was. It would have caused him to lose much of the popular support that he enjoyed. Luther had no choice, but he wanted to make sure that people would place less credence on those books whose doctrines did not personally suit him. The main issue is that Luther ‘judged’ the NT books on the basis of how well they fit in with his radical doctrinal beliefs, especially Salvation by Faith Alone.

The great Lutheran Theologian Paul Althaus doesn’t have a problem connecting Luther’s disrespectful comments about those 4 books to his disagreement with their doctrinal teachings.

“This is the true test of all books, when we see whether or not they preach Christ. For all the Scriptures show us Christ (Rom. 3:21) and St. Paul will know nothing but Christ (I Cor. 2:2). Whatever does not teach Christ is certainly not apostolic even though St. Peter or St. Paul teaches it…Luther was so certain of this, as well as of the interpretation of Scripture, that he did not think of himself as approaching the canon with an arbitrary and autonomously chosen criterion but with the standard which Scripture itself offers in it’s on-going central proclamation (“St. Paul and all the evangelists”).** Luther obtained this standard from nowhere else than the Scripture. To that extent it is the Scripture itself that criticizes the canon.**” Althaus, “The Theology of Martin Luther:, Pg. 83

In fact, Scripture as interpreted by Luther is what criticizes the canon. Of course, Luther’s definition of ‘preaching Christ’ was preaching Salvation By Faith Alone (SBFA). Althaus comments that Luther “was so certain of this, as well as of the interpretation of Scripture” of course meaning His Personal Interpretation of Scripture, that he did not see himself as applying a “personalized” approach to the canon. Is he saying that Luther did not even understand how radically He approached the Scriptures? Of course this thread points to and questions the astonishing level of “authority” that Luther Presumed that God had “given” Him. It could be said that Luther didn’t think that he was “approaching the canon with an arbitrary and autonomously chosen criteria”, but that misses the point. Luther didn’t think he was wrong about the authorship of those three books, but he most definitely was.

Althaus and many others have much more to say on the subject.

Luther’s faulty judgment has resulted in modern Lutheranism having a faulty approach to the 27 books of the New Testament.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

So, did you pose your question at Wittenburg Trail?

Jon

 

[Topper17]

So, did you pose your question at Wittenburg Trail?

Jon

Actually Jon, with all due respect, this is a very serious matter and I would think that you would be very interested to learn what groundbreaking change in approach to Scripture it was that was undertaken by the LCMS less than 100 years ago. I would think that it would be an important enough question for you to research it and then answer it here. You could ask your Lutheran Pastor and get back to us with the answer. If I were a member of the LCMS and learned about this ‘thing’ that happened in the 20’s, I would be all over it, pestering my LCMS Pastor for a complete explanation. Given that you are LCMS, I don’t understand your reluctance to do so to find the truth about the matter.

For the record, I do not know what this ‘thing’ was (and is I suppose) and I am very interested to find out about it. Why should I go to some other forum and ask a question that I should be able to get an answer here from LCMS posters? I don’t have unlimited time to devote to these kinds of things and would prefer not to dilute my efforts here. Your approach to this issue sounds very much to me like ‘go ask your question elsewhere’.

If you don’t think that a that the LCMS making groundbreaking change in the approach to Scripture is interesting enough for you to research and report here, then just say so. I ask you because if I remember correctly, it is you who is an elder in your local LCMS congregation. I would think that your LCMS resources are far better than mine.

I have posted the comments that LCMS Pastor Moeller made about the problems associated with the Lutheran approach to the canon. Have you read those comments? What are your thoughts? Do you agree with what he said or do you disagree?

As I have said, one of the things I really appreciate about Lutherans is that they** really** care about doctrine. I very much identify with that belief that God’s Absolute Truth is crucial for us to know. We might disagree on what that Truth is, but at least most of the Lutherans I have met over the years agree on the importance of doctrine/dogma. Yet this extremely important issue seems to be unimportant to you. I am more than a little puzzled Jon.

As Always Jon, With Respect, May God Continue to Bless You, Topper