The New Testament Canons of Martin Luther and of Lutheranism

[JonNC]

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

So, I was right that you already had your mind made up, that it wasn’t really a question?

Jon

 

[benjohnson]

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.

Tim,

The LCMS is a church of beggars - they were forced to leave their home country to keep their faith. The alternative was to be killed.

I don’t thick the LCMS makes any clams other than it’s American easily history is nothing short of a disaster - their Bishop swindled them, they didn’t speak the language, they were incredibly poor, and early on their theology was both excellent and a mess at the same time.

I imagine their views of the bible suffered during this time, and probably reeked of church politics, scandal, and other ills. Frankly, you’d be hard pressed to find an LCMS member that would be surprised at whatever you could find, nor would you find one that would care one bit that their church is a mess.

For we preach Christ, and him Crucified - and we’ve long known that the Church suffers in this world under the sun.

 

[TertiumQuid]

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.

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.

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.

That shouldn’t be hard. There were lots of reformers that had cooler heads than Luther.

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.

There were no people advising to Luther not remove books from the Bible but rather place them in an index. There are variations on this myth.

Most often, the myth is that Melanchthon stopped Luther from removing books from the New Testament. The funny part about this is usually Melanchthon is seen as this meek and mild scholar who cowered in Luther’s shadow. In regard to the canon though, Melanchthon was somehow able to control Luther. Recently I came across someone asserting Luther threw books out of the Bible and after his death church elders put them back in.

That the collective “calmer heads” of Melancthon, Bugenhagen, Cruciger, Jonas, and Aurogallus prevailed on Luther to put 18 books in an appendix is a new variation on this myth. If there is any documentation of this, even someone just saying it in a book somewhere or on a website, I’d certainly like to see it.

 

[Stilldreamn]

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’.

This “thing” of which you speak is well-known and obvious. This “thing” led to a major fracturing of the LCMS which culminated in the “Seminex” walk-out - you may recall that EvangelCatholic spoke of this a number of times.

It contributed to the dissolution of the Synodical Conference which had united the LCMS, WELS, ELS and other confessional Lutheran synods.

There has been a lot written of it, even here on CAF I am sure. The historical-critical methodology of Biblical exegesis has been treated by Pope Benedict when he was a Cardinal as well. This is that “thing” of which you speak. It is much more than counting books.

 

[guanophore]

This “thing” of which you speak is well-known and obvious. This “thing” led to a major fracturing of the LCMS which culminated in the “Seminex” walk-out - you may recall that EvangelCatholic spoke of this a number of times.

It contributed to the dissolution of the Synodical Conference which had united the LCMS, WELS, ELS and other confessional Lutheran synods.

There has been a lot written of it, even here on CAF I am sure. The historical-critical methodology of Biblical exegesis has been treated by Pope Benedict when he was a Cardinal as well. This is that “thing” of which you speak. It is much more than counting books.

I am not sure this is what he was talking about. I thought he was referreing to something that happened in 1920?

 

[pablope]

The
Most often, the myth is that Melanchthon stopped Luther from removing books from the New Testament. The funny part about this is usually Melanchthon is seen as this meek and mild scholar who cowered in Luther’s shadow

In regard to the canon though, Melanchthon was somehow able to control Luther. R

e it.

In what sense/way? And what was the result of Melanchton able to control Luther?

 

[JonNC]

I am not sure this is what he was talking about. I thought he was referreing to something that happened in 1920?

That’s what I thought, also, though I think the Seminex controversy is related, as the more liberal participants in that event thought to use Luther’s writings to allow for a more relaxed interpretation of scripture, using the historical-critical methodology.

The use of the Antilegomena in the LCMS, and in the years following the Reformation, is spelled out by Francis Pieper. AFAIK, his work “Christian Dogmatics” is still THE text for LCMS seminarians. In the link, one finds rather succinctly stated the Lutheran understanding and use of the Antilegomena.

angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.pieperwitness.html

That Pieper sites Walther, who in turn invokes Chemnitz, seems to lay to rest any dramatic change in their usage, and even if there is, as the article states:

In this connection the question has been asked whether the distinction between the homologoumena and the antilegomena has any “sweeping dogmatical significance.” We for our part answer No, assuming that the meaning is that he who regards and treats the antilegomena as canonical thereby obtains more and other doctrines. On the one hand we observe the distinction made by the ancient Church between the writings of the New Testament; on the other hand we are convinced that the antilegomena, even when taken by themselves, neither contain false doctrine nor yet a doctrine which goes beyond the doctrine contained in the books that have the unanimous testimony of the ecclesia primitiva.

Jon

 

[steido01]

I am not sure this is what he was talking about. I thought he was referreing to something that happened in 1920?

Stilldreamn is correct. The general influx of historical-critical “methodology” began at that time – it wasn’t as though some singular, grand, sweeping, dramatic, theology-shifting event took place in the 1920’s, as Topper seems keen to paint it (while simultaneously stating he has no idea what happened:shrug. See my first post. The phenomena of the historical-critical method and often-justified reactions to it infected just about every denomination, including Roman Catholicism.

In the Roman Catholic Church, it eventually led to a Left-led “reclaiming” of certain aspects of Tradition and the Faith in order to focus on the earthly welfare of others (in effect, a semi-abandonment of Truth for the world). Or as then Cardinal Ratzinger explained, “Faith itself is not a component of this [Historical-Critical] method. Nor is God a factor to be dealt with in historical events.” That leaves the door open to all sorts of modern “reinterpretations” favoring things like women’s ordination or odd social Christologies, since the focus has shifted away from Christ and toward Man’s temporal welfare [read: whatever makes Man feel good]. Gutierrez and his Liberation Theology are probably the most successful and widely-known products of that line of thinking. Liberation Theology goes so far as to state that God holds, and has always held, a “preferential option” for the poor, even at the expense of others (so much for 2 Cor. 5:15, eh?). Here’s the book, if you’d like to read about it. Of course, just as within the LCMS, there was a Traditionalist Catholic reaction that saw the danger of that sort of thing; the Faithful response was spearheaded by some brilliant theologians, for which Christendom ought to be thankful.

Stilldreamn already explained what happened in American Lutheranism. The difference is that the LCMS purged it entirely (and at great cost), while it remains alive in other ecclesial bodies.

 

[JonNC]

In what sense/way? And what was the result of Melanchton able to control Luther?

Not speaking for James, but I think he used this in contrast to the previous assertion.
Melanchthon is meek and mild, in the face of Luther’s strong willed arrogance… Melanchthon influences Luther not to remove books.

Jon

 

[TertiumQuid]

Not speaking for James, but I think he used this in contrast to the previous assertion.Melanchthon is meek and mild, in the face of Luther’s strong willed arrogance… Melanchthon influences Luther not to remove books.
Jon

Yes, thanks.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Martin Luther not only cast out certain books of Scripture, but mutilated some that were left. For example, not pleased with St. Paul’s doctrine “we are justified by faith,” Luther added the word alone to make the sentence read; “We are justified by faith alone.” his explanation of this insertion is found in his own words, “I know very well that the word alone is not in the Latin and Greek texts; but Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough.”

The quote being used is from Luther’s Open Letter on Translating (1530). The first section of the treatise is actually fairly angry and sarcastic. Luther is fed up with his critics. His anger was fueled against them for an ironic reason- they rallied against his translation, while at the same time utilizing it for their own new translations. After he vents for a bit, and says things like “I know very well that the word alone is not in the Latin and Greek texts; but Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough,” he actually goes on to give a detailed and exegetical explanation of why he uses the word “alone” in Romans 3:28.

The context of this Open Letter is easily found online for anyone to verify this.

 

[benjohnson]

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.

I don’t think any Catholic or Lutheran scholar would find James’s research and arguments offensive - James is forthright in his viewpoint, principled in going to original sources, and generally lets the reader understand where he’s coming from.

He’s said some stupid things - but, frankly, we all do. Polemics do sneak in from time to time - but they’re obvious. And he’s prolific in his writing, so there’s plenty there to try to tie him up and paint him as a sinner.

From a Lutheran standpoint, we would say some of his conclusions are incorrect - but his documents are full of facts and information, so that we can derive much from them as he carefully distills a lot of history.

Frankly, I think the accusation of different ‘personas’ goes too far - that James conducts himself to CAF standards here is to be appreciated.

 

[guanophore]

This “thing” of which you speak is well-known and obvious. This “thing” led to a major fracturing of the LCMS which culminated in the “Seminex” walk-out -

I never studied this event until this thread.

I have to admit, it sounds like the things that people do when they see things differently. It also speaks to what happens when there is no centralized authority. Jesus did not set up His church as a democracy.

Despite what abuses there have been of the papal office, one must admit that centralized authority is one way to resolve such differences of opinion.

 

[Stilldreamn]

I never studied this event until this thread.

I have to admit, it sounds like the things that people do when they see things differently. It also speaks to what happens when there is no centralized authority. Jesus did not set up His church as a democracy.

Despite what abuses there have been of the papal office, one must admit that centralized authority is one way to resolve such differences of opinion.

I find centralized authority to be an attractive idea, to be honest. Assuming he agrees with my conservative, orthodox, catholic understanding of doctrine.

 

[steido01]

I find centralized authority to be an attractive idea, to be honest. Assuming he agrees with my conservative, orthodox, catholic understanding of doctrine.

Well, of course! Mussolini did make the trains run on time, after all.

In seriousness, it’s clear that Christ did not leave a democracy. But I don’t think He demanded that His Church roll over for a single (potential) tyrant, either. But that’s already got several good threads…

 

[guanophore]

I find centralized authority to be an attractive idea, to be honest. Assuming he agrees with my conservative, orthodox, catholic understanding of doctrine.

Otherwise, what benefit would there be for a visible sign of unity on earth?

 

[guanophore]

Well, of course! Mussolini did make the trains run on time, after all.

In seriousness, it’s clear that Christ did not leave a democracy. But I don’t think He demanded that His Church roll over for a single (potential) tyrant, either. But that’s already got several good threads…

Does Pope Frances strike you as a “single tyrant” after the manner of Mussolin? :bigyikes:

 

[Stilldreamn]

Does Pope Frances strike you as a “single tyrant” after the manner of Mussolin? :bigyikes:

Oh my goodness, no!

I look at the fractious Bishops and American religious that are putting forth ideas that stretch or even roll over doctrinal bounds - and Pope Francis’ calm and measured response - and try and imagine how he would have handled Luther 500 years ago.

All of the Popes within my memory (I’m 58) have been so remarkable - I have a difficult time imagining things differently.

 

[steido01]

Does Pope Frances strike you as a “single tyrant” after the manner of Mussolin? :bigyikes:

Of course not. I think my posts, even in this thread, have noted how appreciative I am of the contributions made by modern popes for the betterment of the church catholic. If you can’t tell, I’m particularly fond of B16.

That does not mean I necessarily condone the system in which they function.

 

[benjohnson]

Despite what abuses there have been of the papal office, one must admit that centralized authority is one way to resolve such differences of opinion.

Sure, and even most Lutherans would say that the papal office has a lot of authority because it currently rightly proclaims the Gospel in almost every respect. In my church, we have a copy of Humanae Vitae posted if that gives you an indication.

The trouble comes when we have to deal with a potential Leo X.