The New Testament Canons of Martin Luther and of Lutheranism

[benjohnson]

There are no excuses pro or con that you can make that will change the divine elements of the Church that make her infallible.

I don’t think Lutherans would have a problem with your statement - that the divine elements have to be perfect by their very definition.

 

[guanophore]

You could tell me that the LCMS leadership ate babies in the 1920’s and it wouldn’t shake my faith.

That’s pretty scary.

It is scary because

1. The Lutheran denomination is founded upon the principle that the Catholic Church leadership had so far drifted from the true Gospel that it had become the antichrist, so you are basically saying that you are willing to tolerate the same level of corruption that your spiritual forefathers rejected, upon which your communion is founded.
2. Actions are either motivated by sin (the carnal nature) or by commitment to pure doctrine. If your spiritual ancestors ate babies then they had fallen into sin, or they have some very messed up doctrines
3. By making this statement you are asserting that your faith is not based upon the behavior or your leadership, but upon the doctrines of the faith. This renders void any excuse for not being in communion with the successor of Peter, since no amount of bad behavior on the part of bishops will change the teachings of the Church founded by Christ.

 

[guanophore]

How so? I know my church has done rotten things and will continue to do rotten things. Is the answer to become Catholic, but only as long as I don’t see a flaw?

The church herself cannot “do rotten things” because the Church founded by Christ is infallible. Members of the Church do rotten things. You are right that we cannot allow the betrayal of Judas to let us lose trust in the Apostolic faith.

 

[benjohnson]

It is scary because

1. The Lutheran denomination is founded upon the principle that the Catholic Church leadership had so far drifted from the true Gospel that it had become the antichrist, so you are basically saying that you are willing to tolerate the same level of corruption that your spiritual forefathers rejected, upon which your communion is founded.

I wouldn’t tolerate an improper proclamation of the gospel. That my priest is a struggleing sinner, I have no doubt.

1. Actions are either motivated by sin (the carnal nature) or by commitment to pure doctrine. If your spiritual ancestors ate babies then they had fallen into sin, or they have some very messed up doctrines

“Both sinner and saint” we would say. But even a sinner can proclaim the right Gospel.

1. By making this statement you are asserting that your faith is not based upon the behavior or your leadership, but upon the doctrines of the faith. This renders void any excuse for not being in communion with the successor of Peter, since no amount of bad behavior on the part of bishops will change the teachings of the Church founded by Christ.

You’re be entirely correct if we Lutherans didn’t have doctrinal/dogmatic disputes with the Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Our division isn’t over mere corruption or sin, but over the correct proclamation of the Gospel.

 

[guanophore]

I wouldn't tolerate an improper proclamation of the gospel. That my priest is a struggleing sinner, I have no doubt.

So if your pastor takes up the practice of eating infants leftover from the 1920’s, as long as he preaches what you consider a proper gospel, you can tolerate that?

“Both sinner and saint” we would say. But even a sinner can proclaim the right Gospel.

You are shooting your own argument in the foot.

You’re be entirely correct if we Lutherans didn’t have doctrinal/dogmatic disputes with the Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Our division isn’t over mere corruption or sin, but over the correct proclamation of the Gospel.

Yes. I have not forgotten that the definition of the “Gospel” was changed as well as the definition of the Church, the canon, and the creeds during the Reformation.

 

[benjohnson]

So if your pastor takes up the practice of eating infants leftover from the 1920’s, as long as he preaches what you consider a proper gospel, you can tolerate that?

Only if he don’t boil them - they lose their flavor.

If a pastor was engaging in persistent or unrepentant sin - he’d need to repent or be removed. But to flesh out the point (pun intended) - pastors do sin, and we have to separate their own personal sin from the sinless Gospel.

You are shooting your own argument in the foot.

I’m probably walking back a bit of my bombastic screed - but I think the point remains, that we can expect the church to suffer, and it drives home the fact that we have to seek refuge in the Crucified one to save us from ourselves. (apologies to Soren K. for stealing his line)

Yes. I have not forgotten that the definition of the “Gospel” was changed as well as the definition of the Church, the canon, and the creeds during the Reformation.

 

[pablope]

I ight Gospel.

You’re be entirely correct if we Lutherans didn’t have doctrinal/dogmatic disputes with the Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Our division isn’t over mere corruption or sin, but over the correct proclamation of the Gospel.

According to whose interpretation and whose authority? Do you think the Lutheran interpretation is without error?

newadvent.org/cathen/04437a.htm

The monk Luther and many like him began by denouncing abuses. The abuses were serious, no doubt, but from the nature of the case abuses in matters or of matters themselves holy and laudable. Yet so violent did the accusers become that they gradually forgot any good there was connected with the object decried, though the good perhaps in reality far outweighed the evil. Then came attacks upon the persons who maintained or defended the thing impugned, or who failed to make the changes demanded, and they were almost always declared to have virtually or actually betrayed or deserted the Church itself. Finally the reformer, setting himself up as the true standard of orthodoxy, fell to self-exaltation, and at last rebelled and separated from the Church, which he had originally intended to serve.

Is the Lutheran interpretation the true standard of orthodoxy (following after Luther’s standard of orthodoxy)?

 

[JonNC]

Another article on the NT canon in the Lutheran tradition…

ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/preusjaonewtestamentcanon.pdf

…followed by the modern view, which isn’t particularly different.

internetmonk.com/archive/thinking-about-the-canon-a-lutheran-view

Jon

 

[benjohnson]

Finally the reformer, setting himself up as the true standard of orthodoxy, fell to self-exaltation, and at last rebelled and separated from the Church, which he had originally intended to serve.

Here’s what Luther would say about self-exaltation:

“The first thing I ask is that people should not make use of my name, and should not call themselves Lutherans but Christians. What is Luther? The teaching is not mine. Nor was I crucified for anyone . . . . How did I, poor stinking bag of maggots that I am, come to the point where people call the children of Christ by my evil name?”

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

Remember what Moeller’s criticism is: that because of the use of English language Bibles, particularly the KJV, replacing the German Bibles, the historic distinction within the NT canon between Homologoumena and Antilegomena is lost among the laity and clergy. Again, AFAIK, Pieper’s “Christian Dogmatics” is still THE text. And the bottom line from the article is:

First of all, I very much appreciate your posting the Pieper article containing the Walther quote. I have read the Pieper article and I don’t think that it addresses LCMS Pastor Moeller’s concerns. Please allow me to explain in a general way before I proceed to the specifics.

Moeller is criticizing the way in which the LCMS ‘uses’, or approaches Scripture. Pieper (and Walther) are explaining how the LCMS ‘uses’ (or approaches) Scripture. Given that Pieper was and is taught in the LCMS Seminaries, if follows that Moeller was well aware of Pieper and Walther’s explanations of how the LCMS ‘uses’ Scripture. In spite of what I am sure was an excellent understanding of Peiper and Walther, Moeller still has a ‘problem’ with the LCMS ‘use’ of Scripture. With that being said, clearly Moeller’s concerns were not mollified by the quote that you posted. After all, Pieper and Walther cannot address Moellers complaints. Pieper and Walther extol the very theology that Moeller has a problem with. As such, the answer to Moeller has to come from outside of boilerplate LCMS theology.

We need to remember that basically, Moeller contends that Lutheranism doesn’t have a ‘complete doctrine of Scripture’ because it doesn’t really have a well-defined explanation for what Scripture really is. The Lutheran canon of Scripture is not closed, and thus Scripture within Lutheranism is only relatively ‘trustworthy’. As Moeller puts it (again):

**“There is no middle ground of ‘substantial trustworthiness of Scripture’ with an admixture of untrustworthy elements. **Who decides where the trustworthiness ends? **How can tell for sure what is the Christian Gospel, if the Scriptures are actually made up from these kind of untrustworthy books?” ** Moeller

So Jon, rather than Peiper and Walther providing an answer to Moeller’s concerns, they, along with the Lutheran approach to the canon, ARE Moeller’s problem, and quite frankly, to me, LCMS Pastor Moeller makes a lot more compelling an argument than Peiper and Walther.

In that same article it was Pieper that said:
**
“Also the fathers of the Missouri Synod recognized the distinction between the homologoumena and the antilegomena. They did, however, leave it to the individual to form his own views regarding any of the antilegomena, for they were divided in their opinion regarding, e.g. the Apocalypse.” **Francis Pieper, “The Witness of History for Scripture (Homologoumena and Antilegomena).

ISTM that this takes us right back to an earlier discussion about Luther’s teaching on the Right of the Individual to Interpret Scripture. When you add in the Right of the Individual to determine what IS and what is NOT Scripture, or how to ‘use’ or approach Scripture, the recipe for doctrinal disaster becomes even more clear. You simply CANNOT allow individuals to determine what is and what is not Scripture, or what is first and second class Scripture, or what is the homologoumena and what is the antilegomena. It’s no wonder that Lutheranism has fractured into so many dozens of doctrinally competing denominations. The very thing which is supposed to unite it is not clearly defined.

Furthermore, it makes absolutely no sense that doctrine is determined by the Church (Lutheranism) but that Lutheranism:

“leaves it to the individual to form his own views regarding any of the antilegomena” Pieper

The result of that kind of contradiction is:

**“A theology which thus leaves seekers after God and His Truth hanging in mid-air does not have what it takes to give modern man something solid to live and die by.” ** Moeller

It seems to me that Moeller is making a valid criticism, and that the Lutheran approach to Scripture is fraught with problems that other Protestant denominations have avoided by fully accepting the 27 book New Testament.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[JonNC]

It seems to me that Moeller is making a valid criticism, and that the Lutheran approach to Scripture is fraught with problems that other Protestant denominations have avoided by fully accepting the 27 book New Testament.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

I believe you are misunderstanding Moeller. In the linked document, starting at page 18, are three articles by Moeller, beginning with: The Authority of a N.T. canonical book
by Elmer J. Moeller, July 12, 1963, and followed by, How Much Should a Layman Know?
by Elmer J. Moeller

Moeller’s complaint is that the synod is not fully instructing Lutherans in regards to the Lutheran treatment of books in the NT canon, which follows the same path as the treatment of books by the primitive Church.

“They say that it is dangerous to divulge the distinction to the people. This is dangerous only because the didn’t tell them about It from the beginning”
C. F. Walther wrote this note in the margin of the book on Christian doctrine (Baier’s Compendium) which t e use as text during the last six years of his life as professor and president of Concordia Seminary. St. Louis
He referred to the fact that Christians in the early church distinguished those books about which there was no doubt that an Apostle had written or commended then (the Homologoumena or “acknowledged” books from those books about which there was doubt in sections of the Christian world that an Apostle was the author (the Antilegomena or “spoken against” books: Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude, Revelation.
**Walther’s remark puts the finer on a major reason, if not the reason, for Missouri’s doctrinal problems today. our laymen haven’t been told what they ought to have ten told, and many pastors have forgotten. **

The problem isn’t our practice, it is our poor catechesis about the practice.

He is further opposing what he calls “moderate” forces who wish to redefine how we use scripture by claiming that Luther’s understanding of the distinction between the Homologoumena and the Antilegomena amounts to using using the Historical-Critical Method.

Once placed in context it can be seen that Moeller’s complaint is not against the historic Lutheran practice of distinction within the canon between Homologoumena and the Antilegomena, but instead the ignoring of that distinction.

www.wlsessays.net/files/BartlingLuther.rtf

Jon

 

[pablope]

Here’s what Luther would say about self-exaltation:

“The first thing I ask is that people should not make use of my name, and should not call themselves Lutherans but Christians. What is Luther? The teaching is not mine. Nor was I crucified for anyone . . . . How did I, poor stinking bag of maggots that I am, come to the point where people call the children of Christ by my evil name?”

But I was not asking about Self exaltation, which I did not even stress…Luther taught or wrote many things…which he seems to not have personally followed…but back to my question:

You stated…

You’re be entirely correct if we Lutherans didn’t have doctrinal/dogmatic disputes with the Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Our division isn’t over mere corruption or sin, but over the correct proclamation of the Gospel.

My question is about the correct proclamation of the Gospel:

What is the standard by which you will measure the correct proclamation of the Gospel?

According to whose interpretation and whose authority? Do you think the Lutheran interpretation is without error?

Is the Lutheran interpretation the true standard of orthodoxy (following after Luther’s standard of orthodoxy)?

 

[guanophore]

It seems to me that Moeller is making a valid criticism, and that the Lutheran approach to Scripture is fraught with problems that other Protestant denominations have avoided by fully accepting the 27 book New Testament.

I think you lost me here. If Protestants “fullly accepted” the NT they would be Catholic!

In addition, not sorting the NT books into categories does not in any way diminsh their propensity to create doctrines from them that depart from the Apostolic faith.

It seems to me that, despite the fluidity of the canon, Lutherans are much closer to Catholicism than all the non-denoms put together. Especially the more traditional they are.

I think the fracturing of Lutheranism is more due to the impact of Modernism, just as it is for Catholics.

 

[JonNC]

I think you lost me here. If Protestants “fullly accepted” the NT they would be Catholic!

In addition, not sorting the NT books into categories does not in any way diminsh their propensity to create doctrines from them that depart from the Apostolic faith.

It seems to me that, despite the fluidity of the canon, Lutherans are much closer to Catholicism than all the non-denoms put together. Especially the more traditional they are.

I think the fracturing of Lutheranism is more due to the impact of Modernism, just as it is for Catholics.

The thing is, Guan, that Lutherans do fully accept the NT canon. Hebrews is canonical. Revelation is canonical. But we also recognize the practice of the primitive Church, that not all books are attested. Some are disputed, particularly then.

Regarding the idea of a "fluid canon, again, going back to the Pieper article:

Some have argued that since there are antilegomena, we cannot determine exactly the extent of the canon and hence cannot know exactly what is the principium cognoscendi and norma of the Christian doctrine, but such have got their accounts mixed. We know that the Church of the New Testament possesses a fixed and firm canon, with no uncertainty attaching to it. For when Christ asks us (John 8:31-32; 17:20; and Eph.2:20) to continue in His and His Apostles’ doctrine, He presupposes the continued existence and possession of this doctrinal basis.

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. **We are convinced that Rome and certain sectarians misuse the Epistle of James when they make it the protector of their doctrine of work-righteousness. We must simply keep in mind that James is speaking of faith not insofar as it justifies before God, but insofar as we are, according to God’s will and ordinance, to evidence our faith to men, which can be done only by works. James is addressing not so much the new man as the old man in the Christian. And the Apocalypse does not contain an inkling of that chiliasm with which old and modern chiliasts have disturbed and plagued the Church. …

It isn’t that the canon is “fluid”. It isn’t. We would not accept any of the books that were rejected in the ancient Church, and were therefore not brought forward to us.

Jon

 

[benjohnson]

According to whose interpretation and whose authority? Do you think the Lutheran interpretation is without error?

Is the Lutheran interpretation the true standard of orthodoxy (following after Luther’s standard of orthodoxy)?

I’m not sure I’ve given the question of error much thought - I would however say that Gospel as proclaimed by the Lutheran church is sufficient for salvation, and I would certainly say the same about the Catholic church.

The only meaningful gripe that Lutherans have with Catholics is that the Catholic church (again… in our opinion) has introduced a few stumbling blocks many of which have been fixed) - the remaining ones are (in my opinion) mainly the dogmas surrounding the papal office, the immaculate conception, and the assumption, with the primary one being the most difficult. Our understandings of Justification are still a bit different, but I don’t think the Catholic position is damaging to faith and may work better for some people.

 

[guanophore]

The thing is, Guan, that Lutherans do fully accept the NT canon. Hebrews is canonical. Revelation is canonical. But we also recognize the practice of the primitive Church, that not all books are attested. Some are disputed, particularly then.

Regarding the idea of a "fluid canon, again, going back to the Pieper article:

It isn’t that the canon is “fluid”. It isn’t. We would not accept any of the books that were rejected in the ancient Church, and were therefore not brought forward to us.

Jon

From the point of view of the Orthodox and Catholics, the dispute was resolved in 381. Luther’s refusal to accept the ancient decree of the Church is just another way of rejecting the authority appointed by Christ. The odd thing is, it is not doctrinal! So far as I know, there is nothing in these books, unlike the Deuterocanonicals, that has influenced any doctrine that would be of concern to a Lutheran,

Thank you for that correction on the “fluid”. I think I went too far down Topper’s rabbit trail.

 

[Porknpie]

The only meaningful gripe that Lutherans have with Catholics is that the Catholic church (again… in our opinion) has introduced a few stumbling blocks many of which have been fixed) - the remaining ones are (in my opinion) mainly the dogmas surrounding the papal office, the immaculate conception, and the assumption, with the primary one being the most difficult. Our understandings of Justification are still a bit different, but I don’t think the Catholic position is damaging to faith and may work better for some people.

Ben, on the Immaculate Conception, how do you reconcile your view verses what the ECF’s wrote? Their words reflect the apostolic faith. St. Hippolytus below.

“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.” Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).

Curious, do Luther’s words below describe her as being Immaculately conceived? His scriptural description of her being “Full of Grace” and thus being entirely without sin is very, very Catholic.

She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin- something exceedingly great. For God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil.
(Personal {“Little”} Prayer Book, 1522)

On the Assumption, interesting that no one one and no place in history has ever claimed to have her body. This is remarkable given the known resting places of all the apostles and the many saints through history.

 

[benjohnson]

Ben, on the Immaculate Conception, how do you reconcile your view verses what the ECF’s wrote? Their words reflect the apostolic faith. St. Hippolytus below.

Lutherans do believe and confess the Immaculate Conception, we just don’t think that our salvation depends on dogmatically stating it.

“It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin”

• Martin Luther’s Sermon “On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God,” 1527.

 

[benjohnson]

On the Assumption, interesting that no one one and no place in history has ever claimed to have her body. This is remarkable given the known resting places of all the apostles and the many saints through history.

Lutherans will vary on believing in the assumption or dormition and hold that they are pious beliefs.

Luther preached on the Assumption:

There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know. And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith…It is enough to know that she lives in Christ.

 

[JonNC]

From the point of view of the Orthodox and Catholics, the dispute was resolved in 381. Luther’s refusal to accept the ancient decree of the Church is just another way of rejecting the authority appointed by Christ. The odd thing is, it is not doctrinal! So far as I know, there is nothing in these books, unlike the Deuterocanonicals, that has influenced any doctrine that would be of concern to a Lutheran,

I agree, and so do Walther and Pieper (not that I fit their category ). The distinction is there, but even if it weren’t, there is nothing that would change doctrine. And whether or not the canon was set in 381, Catholics had the privilege until Trent to dispute the NT Antilegomena. This is the point that is made in the Pastor Roebbelen case. The synod considers the 27 book NT as canonical, but just as the case was with the Catholic Church, before Trent, individuals have the privilege to dispute certain books. IT doesn’t change the fact that the synod considers them canonical.

Thank you for that correction on the “fluid”. I think I went too far down Topper’s rabbit trail.

From the outside, it can look like fluidity. No dogmatic or confessional designation of a canon, etc. And individual privilege to dispute. But the fact is we accept as canonical what the history of the Church has given us regarding the NT canon.

Jon