The New Testament Canons of Martin Luther and of Lutheranism

[TertiumQuid]

Thank you Ben. I think that the Emperor was acting according to the wishes of the Papal nuncio, and of Pope Leo. However I find it difficult to believe that he was so impotent that he could not carry out this edict. I am also not convinced that he was unaware of the plan to sequester Luther. Then, when Luther returned to public life, he still never bothered to pursue the matter. One has to wonder how much of it was for show, to stay on good terms with the Pope.

Off the top of my head (meaning I’d have to go look for sources if pressed) Luther was indeed protected politically. He was though concerned about assassinations. If I recall one such plot rumor was that the papacy had hired the Jews to kill him.

The other thing that comes to mind is that the emperor faced a much bigger problem: The Turks (Islam), so Luther was able to carry on because the empire was busy elsewhere.

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12462368]

Jon, if the Lutheran Antilegomena was really based mostly on the judgments of the Fathers about the NT books, you would now include 2 Peter and 2 & 3 John in the Anti. You don’t because those books were personally accepted by Luther into his personal canon.

Our synod permits us individual privilege to consider the Antilogemena books. I consider them all canon.

I don’t think that the Lutheran Theologians thought of it that way. Even if they did, we should not expect them to admit it, nor should we believe them guilty of this ONLY if they admit it.

Yet twice you made an accusation about it, even using the term, “convenient”. If you have evidence that the Lutheran theologians do not really consider the early Church in the matter, from their own writings, please provide it.

Here’s how it is Jon – it now seems that you are right about Moeller. From his other articles it appears that his complaints were about the direction of things in the LCMS, and that he is NOT part of that movement. Intellectual honestly and apologetic ethics demand that I make this concession. It does not however diminish my position whatsoever. Remember that the name of the thread is “The New Testament Canons of Martin Luther and of Lutheranism” and that is the subject. That the position of one LCMS Pastor has now been correctly identified does not change the subject.

And the question has been answered.

You must be kidding here. Are we so in the weeds here that you are complaining that I did not use Moeller’s first name?

Your thread.

Jon, we have a completely different philosophy about how these discussions should be conducted here at CA. I strongly believe that people should be exposed to the positions of each side and that all should present their arguments and supporting evidence here, out in the open.

Well, Topper, here it is from CAF:

Guidelines on posting articles to Catholic Answer Forums:
Stay on the topic of the forum you are posting in. If you are going to post an article, make sure you are placing it in the correct forum.
Use the original title. When you post an article, be sure to use the original title in the subject of your post. This helps users find the article and lessens the chance of a double post.
Always provide a link to a publicly available news source.
Avoid quoting from copyrighted works. Instead, paraphrase what is said and provide a link. If you do quote, limit your quotes to one to three paragraphs.
Do not post articles that make personal attacks or are in other ways inappropriate for the CA forums.

Emphasis mine
It seems your philosophical difference is with the moderators.

Again Jon, if there is an answer to my question I think it should be posted here, where everybody can see it.

And I have answered it, but if my answer does not suffice, I suggest you seek an authoritative source, such as the one I’ve provided.

You speak of the ‘important meaning for Christians’. I take this as meaning that you don’t believe that James (and maybe Revelation) should be classified in the antilegomena.

I accept all of the 27 NT books as canonical, without equivocation.

**Nothing in any of the sites you have pointed out to me has dealt with Luther and Lutheranism being DEAD WRONG (which you admirably admit) and what should NOW be done to rectify that error. **

Oh, I never said that Lutheranism is wrong. Please don’t put words in my mouth.

This is 100% false Jon. I posted the link to Moeller’s article in post number 38, when I finally finished posting quotes from that article. Maybe you never read it.

BTW, you may refer to me as Topper, the name I wish to be known as here.

Note I said IIRC. Aparently I missed it in post #38, but it is not 100% false that you did not include it in the opening thread. Be that as it may, the fact that you chose not to include it in your OP makes the claim to want openness for all readers seem somewhat inconsistent.

When you first arrived, I recall you signing your post “Tim”. For close to a year, you have not corrected my use of the name. Here forward, it will be Topper.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Our synod permits us individual privilege to consider the Antilogemena books. I consider them all canon.

Yet twice you made an accusation about it, even using the term, “convenient”. If you have evidence that the Lutheran theologians do not really consider the early Church in the matter, from their own writings, please provide it.

And the question has been answered.

Your thread.

Well, Topper, here it is from CAF:

Emphasis mine
It seems your philosophical difference is with the moderators.

And I have answered it, but if my answer does not suffice, I suggest you seek an authoritative source, such as the one I’ve provided.

I accept all of the 27 NT books as canonical, without equivocation.

Oh, I never said that Lutheranism is wrong. Please don’t put words in my mouth.

Note I said IIRC. Aparently I missed it in post #38, but it is not 100% false that you did not include it in the opening thread. Be that as it may, the fact that you chose not to include it in your OP makes the claim to want openness for all readers seem somewhat inconsistent.

When you first arrived, I recall you signing your post “Tim”. For close to a year, you have not corrected my use of the name. Here forward, it will be Topper.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

Our synod permits us individual privilege to consider the Antilogemena books. I consider them all canon.

First of all, I am astonished that Lutheranism permits its individual members the “privilege to consider eh Antilogemena books.” I applaud your decision to consider them all to be canonical. Of course that begs the question as to what ‘canonical’ really means. I would suggest that virtually all Christians would view your statement as meaning that all of those 27 books are equally authoritative and all 27 should be used in the same way including for doctrinal decisions. Could you please clarify if that is your position.

Yet twice you made an accusation about it, even using the term, “convenient”. If you have evidence that the Lutheran theologians do not really consider the early Church in the matter, from their own writings, please provide it.

Jon, I have noticed that modern Lutheranism seems (to me at least) to downplay its historical connection to Martin Luther. It is clear that it was Luther who determined the books of the Anti for Lutheranism. And yet we continue to hear about the judgments of the ancient Church. Lutheran Scholars uniformly point out that 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John were also doubted by the early Church. Normally though, right after that admission the text jumps to how Luther followed the ancient Church and doubted James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation. So – what happened to 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 James? If they too were doubted by the Early Church and the Lutheran anti is based on those early doubts, then how, specifically and exactly, did those three books make it in to the Homo?

And the question has been answered.

Jon, with all due respect, the above question has not only NOT be answered, it has not even been addressed. Furthermore there is absolutely nothing in any of the links you have provided which even attempts to answer the above. If, as I suspect, Lutheranism has no answer to this question, then please just say so and we can move on.

I accept all of the 27 NT books as canonical, without equivocation.

Does that mean that you accept that they all should be used for doctrinal decisions? After all, you have admitted that Luther was wrong about the Apostolic authorship of James (and presumably Revelation), so doesn’t that really mean that Lutheranism is wrong to have placed those two books into the anti?

Oh, I never said that Lutheranism is wrong. Please don’t put words in my mouth.

OK, then don’t continue to contend that my mind is made up when I have repeatedly told you that it is not. If Luther was wrong about the authorship of James, then how in the world could you possibly defend James being in the Lutheran antilegomena where it is not to be used for doctrinal decisions? Shouldn’t the writing of an Actual Apostle be used for Christian doctrine? If not, specifically and exactly why not?

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[Topper17]

I have been commenting on the obvious connection between Luther’s “problems” with certain NT books and their doctrinal content. As it turns out I am not the only one who has noticed this connection. The great Lutheran Theologian Paul Althaus notes that Luther had an issue with James because it did not agree with ‘faith without works’.

“One can formulate Luther’s principal thus: Scripture is always to be interpreted according to the analogy of Scripture. And this is nothing else then the analogy of the gospel.** Christocentric interpretation for Luther thus means gospel-centered interpretation, understood in terms of the gospel of justification by faith alone.” ** Althaus, “The Theology of Martin Luther”, pg. 79

As we have discussed on other threads, Luther had a tremendous need to have absolute assurance of his everlasting salvation. Salvation by Faith Alone achieved that assurance, but it was clearly against the Letter of James. Luther’s solution to this problem was to downgrade James to a category from which doctrine is not determined.

“In the Preface to James in 1522 and still in 1543 Luther speaks of the “really main books. He cannot include the Letter of James among them because James preaches the law instead of the gospel. Luther recognizes that the intention of the epistle was good but James was not equal to his task. He wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without works, but he was unequal to his task. He seeks to bring it about by harping on the law while the apostles bring it about through encouraging people to love”. Althaus, “The Theology of Martin Luther”, pg. 84

Rather than “softening” his position on James specifically, even more than 20 years later, Luther continued to hold his radical opinion of James because it conflicted with his personally developed and VERY radical beliefs on Salvation. In Luther’s mind, what this “James” wrote was NOT up to his own personal “standards” of what Scripture SHOULD say. In fact, Luther believed that his doctrinal opinions were more ‘Scriptural’ than those found in the book known as “James”. However, the actual author happens to have been appointed by Christ as an Apostle, and as the Bishop of Jerusalem, presided over the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15).

**“One may characterize his attitude in this way: The canon itself was, as far as Luther was concerned, a piece of ecclesiastical tradition and therefore subject to criticism on the basis of God’s word. Roman Catholic theology has, up until the present day, frequently condemned Luther’s method of approaching and validating the authority as subjective and arbitrary.” **Ibid, 336

Althaus is entirely correct. As a Catholic, today, on this very day I am criticizing Luther for his “approach” to the Scriptures and specifically to the canon.

If I, as a Catholic, were to state here on this thread that I, personally, question the “Inspirational status” of a book of the NT, claiming that it is inconsistent with My Personal Understanding of what a “proper” NT book should “say”, I would be skewered by Protestants here on CA, and rightfully so. I would be asked, and rightfully so, who in the heck I think I am? But when Luther did it, he “gets a pass”.

In examining Luther’s judgments of the NT, we are confronted with the issue of his authority. In those criticism’s of those NT books, was Luther “doing God’s Word”? Luther directly addresses this as follows:

**“I still know this for certain, that what I teach is not from men but from God (cf. Gal. 1:10). That is, I attribute everything solely to God and nothing at all to men…it is far safer to ascribe too much to God than to men.” “My teaching…let’s God be God and it gives God the glory…therefore it cannot be wrong.” **Althaus, Pg 337

This is an incredible statement. Here we see Luther claiming that his teaching cannot be wrong, and that it is not from men, but from God. Its no wonder that he felt it within his authority to criticize actual books of the NT canon and offer up his opinions as to their value.

How would we view someone today who made that kind of claim?

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12465270]
First of all, I am astonished that Lutheranism permits its individual members the “privilege to consider eh Antilogemena books.”

It shouldn’t be astounding. The account of Walther’s reaction to that Lutheran pastor who did not accept the apostolic nature of Revelation is provided. Further, Cardinal Cajetan’s position on the DC’s is available, as well. The Lutheran position is like that of pre-Trent.

Jon, with all due respect, the above question has not only NOT be answered, it has not even been addressed. Furthermore there is absolutely nothing in any of the links you have provided which even attempts to answer the above. If, as I suspect, Lutheranism has no answer to this question, then please just say so and we can move on.

Topper,
the answers are there, for those who wish to understand them - not agree with them, I wouldn’t expect that of a good Catholic - but understand the process explained in the links. But, again, since they do not satisfy, I suggest you try the link on Wittenburg Trail.

We have, not unexpectedly, reached an impasse on this topic. I have provided a significant amount of information, as well as offered other resources for one to explore. I will leave it to you to explore them.

OK, then don’t continue to contend that my mind is made up when I have repeatedly told you that it is not.

I read your last post.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

It shouldn’t be astounding. The account of Walther’s reaction to that Lutheran pastor who did not accept the apostolic nature of Revelation is provided. Further, Cardinal Cajetan’s position on the DC’s is available, as well. The Lutheran position is like that of pre-Trent.

It is 100% astounding and I would bet that the vast majority of Protestants would agree. In fact, I would bet that far less than half of Lutherans are well catechized enough to know that they are individually ‘privileged’ by their church to make judgments about whether various books of the NT should be used to determine doctrine.

ISTM that it’s no wonder that you don’t consider Luther’s blasphemous remarks about some of the books of the NT to be ‘disrespectful’. This ‘right of the individual’ sounds really good UNTIL you actually look at how it might work in the real world. For example, how old do you have to be before you can exercise this ‘privilege’? How much formal education and Scriptural training is necessary, or can every Lutheran exercise this privilege to determine the “role” of the NT books?

Does this mean that the various Lutheran Seminaries and individual Professors there can teach conflicting beliefs about the ‘value’ of those various Antilegomena books, and decide for themselves which books to teak are to be drawn from for doctrinal decisions? How are disputes among the various communions and various seminaries going to be adjudicated if ALL have that right?

It seems to me that that astounding level of freedom is a direct result and a natural consequence of the astonishing level of freedom that Luther claimed for himself over the canon. After all, one (a Lutheran one) cannot criticize Luther for his ‘approach’ to the Scriptures and specifically to the canon. By Lutheran definition, whatever Luther did was perfectly acceptable, and given that ‘fact’, then it follows that it is perfectly acceptable for other to do it also. Thus we have uneducated laypeople having the authority to decide how they are going to use those 4 books of the NT.

Futhermore, since Lutheranism doesn’t really have a closed canon, there is no real reason for individual Lutherans to ‘chaff’ under some kind of a concept of a ‘fixed canon’ of the NT. In fact, it seems that since the NT canon is not closed, there is nothing to keep a Lutheran from deciding that he is going to place 2 Peter and 2 and 3 John into his personal NT ‘groupings’. In fact, that would be a LOT more in keeping with the judgments of the ancient Church.

This kind of thinking is a direct result of Lutheranism’s following of Luther’s theology. It is also a direct result of Luther’s early theology which gave the individual the right to correctly interpret Scripture. When you pile the right to determine what Scripture IS, with the right to then interpret whatever Scripture is ‘left’, you have a prescription for disaster. That disaster is evidenced by the continued fracturization of modern Lutheranism. There is nothing to hold it together. Not Scripture and not the Confessions. This Achielies Heel was built into Lutheranism (and Protestantism) by none other than Martin Luther.

16th century Catholics understood this problem full well:

“One Catholic practice to which the reformers took particular exception was that of praying for the dead. To the reformers, this practice rested on a non-biblical foundation (the doctrine of purgatory), and encouraged popular superstition and ecclesiastical exploitation.** Their catholic opponents were able to meet this objection, however, by pointing out that the practice of praying for the dead is explicitly mentioned in Scripture, at 2 Maccabees 12:40-46. The reformers, on the other hand, having declared that this book was apocryphal (and hence not part of the Bible), were able to respond that, in their view at least, the practice was not scriptural. This merited the obvious riposte from the Catholic side: that the reformers based on their theology on Scripture, but only after having excluded from the canon of Scripture any works which happened to contradict this theology.” **McGrath, “Reformation Thought”, pg. 151-2

We should notice that McGrath calls the Catholic response an ‘obvious riposte’. The reason that the Catholic response was ‘obvious’ is their response makes so much sense and is so logical. Of course they would make that criticism, because it was so obviously reflected the truth. What I find interesting is that Protestants are still denying that the Reformers based their theology on a version of Scripture which had been ‘cleansed’ of those ‘pesky’ books which refuted their theology, like James and 2 Maccabees. Of course, the Reformers said that that was not so, but I would suggest that it is NOT coincidental that 2 Maccabees speaks of praying for the dead and that James refutes Salvation by Faith Alone.

The Lutheran position on the canon is NOT like pre-Trent whatsoever. I will say though that no Lutheran could ever follow anything by Trent because after all, Trent anathematized Lutheran doctrine. It would appear that the failure of Lutheranism to set a canon is an overreaction to Trent.

Certainly you are not suggesting that individual Christians had the freedom to ‘consider’ various as being of different value at their own discretion. Trent HAD to be rejected and it follows that Hippo, Carthage, Rome, etc. also had to be rejected, as did the proclamation on the canon by Pope Damasus, who of course is considered to be the antichrist by Lutherans.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Again, Thanks for your response

Topper,
the answers are there, for those who wish to understand them - not agree with them, I wouldn’t expect that of a good Catholic - but understand the process explained in the links. But, again, since they do not satisfy, I suggest you try the link on Wittenburg Trail.

You seem to admit that these are important questions, but not apparently important enough for you to answer them. I am becoming more and more convinced that Lutheranism does not have any answers to my questions. Your contention that there are actually answers to these questions and points, and that I should continue looking for them is well – honestly – less than compelling. If you think that there are answers then you should post them here. The fact that nobody does though only reinforces my point. I would suggest if there really were a compelling response from the Lutheran point of view, Lutherans would be happy to post them here where all could see them. Instead, without that response, it becomes more and more clear that Lutheranism has a faulty approach to Scripture.

At this point, I am fine with not getting answers to my questions. I guess I have to be. ZIn reality it is certainly is not my responsibility to search out and formulate a Lutheran defense to my criticisms of Lutheranism.

We have, not unexpectedly, reached an impasse on this topic. I have provided a significant amount of information, as well as offered other resources for one to explore. I will leave it to you to explore them.

I don’t feel that we are at an impasse at all. I have read the links you have provided and very much appreciate your providing them. Again though, as you well know, there is nothing in those articles that speaks to my questions or points. If there were, I think you would quote from them and make your defense of Lutheranism. In fact though, there is a great deal more information to be revealed about Luther and Lutheranism’s approach to the NT canon.

The fact is Jon that Luther assigned to himself a tremendous level of authority. In fact, he not only placed his judgment over various books of the long accepted NT canon, but he actually also presumed that he had the authority to judge Christian Councils.

“But doesn’t the church occupy a special position among all authorities since the Holy Spirit has been promised to it? Luther deals with this question too – we will come to it in the following.

Luther concretized these thoughts about the limits of the church’s authority and its capacity for error by specifically applying them to the councils. A council as such does not possess unconditional spiritual authority any more than the church and its tradition do. The councils have constantly claimed that they assemble in “the name of Christ” and thus that they are not able to err – according to Christ’s promise in Matthew 18:20 (Where two or more are gathered together in my name…”).** Luther points out that the mere claim to have gathered in the name of Christ does not mean that a council really has done so and possesses Christ’s authority. “If they have come together in the name of Christ, they will show that by acting to Christ and not contrary to the Gospel.” ****Thus the content of the council’s decrees will determine whether a council was actually gathered in the name of Christ. “Even though saints are present at the council, even though there are many saints, and even though angels are there, still we do not trust personalities but only God’s word, since even saints can make mistakes. **There is no excuse for saying that a man was a saint and is therefore to believed. Most certainly not; Christ says just the opposite, believe him only if he speaks correctly about me…Luther asserts the same thing when he says that only those have assembled in the Holy Spirit who bring the “analogy of faith” and not their own thoughts.” Pg. 340.

In other words, Luther judged the various Councils on the basis of their agreement (or disagreement) with HIS opinions as to what is or is not the “Gospel”. But then that level of authority is at least entirely consistent with his view that his teaching could not be wrong. If a Council of all of the Church disagreed with him, it was, by his definition, wrong and could be ignored.

In fact, Luther’s judgments on the various books of the NT are simply a piece of the whole. Nothing was beyond his ‘review’ and revisions. Not the canon, not the decisions of Councils, and in fact, not the teachings of the Apostles.

Jon, if you see it differently, then please explain specifically why.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[steido01]

…Pope Damasus, who of course is considered to be the antichrist by Lutherans.

I have tremendous respect for those patient saints among us who can bear to discuss anything with polemicists. Generally, such posts don’t merit a response. But when polemicists make claims that border on slander and present a massive misrepresentation of the “other side’s” actual beliefs, it becomes necessary to demand some accountability. So, Toper, please provide the Lutheran document or even individual Lutheran theologian that claims that Damasus -in his person- was the antichrist? If you’re going to make a claim that bold, you’ll need to back it up. Otherwise, you’re simply wrong – or worse.

I’ve got a feeling you won’t find anything. I’ve got a hunch that you’re misapplying the Treatise in order to make a polemical point. I’ve also got faith in the readers of this board to see your presentation for what it is. Would you care to retract your flagrantly false statements about what Lutherans believe, starting right here?

 

[Topper17]

I have tremendous respect for those patient saints among us who can bear to discuss anything with polemicists. Generally, such posts don’t merit a response. But when polemicists make claims that border on slander and present a massive misrepresentation of the “other side’s” actual beliefs, it becomes necessary to demand some accountability. So, Toper, please provide the Lutheran document or even individual Lutheran theologian that claims that Damasus -in his person- was the antichrist? If you’re going to make a claim that bold, you’ll need to back it up. Otherwise, you’re simply wrong – or worse.

I’ve got a feeling you won’t find anything. I’ve got a hunch that you’re misapplying the Treatise in order to make a polemical point. I’ve also got faith in the readers of this board to see your presentation for what it is. Would you care to retract your flagrantly false statements about what Lutherans believe, starting right here?

 

[JonNC]

16th century Catholics understood this problem full well:

“One Catholic practice to which the reformers took particular exception was that of praying for the dead. To the reformers, this practice rested on a non-biblical foundation (the doctrine of purgatory), and encouraged popular superstition and ecclesiastical exploitation.** Their catholic opponents were able to meet this objection, however, by pointing out that the practice of praying for the dead is explicitly mentioned in Scripture, at 2 Maccabees 12:40-46. The reformers, on the other hand, having declared that this book was apocryphal (and hence not part of the Bible), were able to respond that, in their view at least, the practice was not scriptural. This merited the obvious riposte from the Catholic side: that the reformers based on their theology on Scripture, but only after having excluded from the canon of Scripture any works which happened to contradict this theology.”** McGrath, “Reformation Thought”, pg. 151-2

We should notice that McGrath calls the Catholic response an ‘obvious riposte’. The reason that the Catholic response was ‘obvious’ is their response makes so much sense and is so logical. Of course they would make that criticism, because it was so obviously reflected the truth. What I find interesting is that Protestants are still denying that the Reformers based their theology on a version of Scripture which had been ‘cleansed’ of those ‘pesky’ books which refuted their theology, like James and 2 Maccabees. Of course, the Reformers said that that was not so, but I would suggest that it is NOT coincidental that 2 Maccabees speaks of praying for the dead and that James refutes Salvation by Faith Alone.

From the Lutheran confessions:

Now, as regards the adversaries’ citing the Fathers concerning the offering for the dead, we know that the ancients speak of prayer for the dead, which we do not prohibit;

Lutherans do pray for the dead. The practice is in our funeral rites.

Here’s an example:
“Be mindful, O Lord, of “Name” and all who have fallen asleep in the hope of the resurrection unto eternal life. Shelter them in a place of brightness, a place of verdure, a place of repose, whence all sickness, sorrow, and sighing have fled away, and where the sight of Your countenance rejoices all Your saints from all ages. Grant them Your kingdom and a portion in Your ineffable and eternal blessings, and the enjoyment of Your unending life. For You are the Resurrection and the Life and the Repose of Your departed servants, O Christ, and to You we ascribe glory, together with Your Father, who is from everlasting, and Your all-holy, good, and life-giving Spirit, now and forever.”

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12467695]
You seem to admit that these are important questions, but not apparently important enough for you to answer them.

I have “admitted” nothing. I have stated my position, but more importantly, provided adequate response from people far wiser than me.

I am becoming more and more convinced that Lutheranism does not have any answers to my questions.

Oh, does that mean that you asked the question at Wittenburg Trail, and received no response?

At this point, I am fine with not getting answers to my questions. I guess I have to be. ZIn reality it is certainly is not my responsibility to search out and formulate a Lutheran defense to my criticisms of Lutheranism.

So, its no longer a question, now its a criticism. The thread started as a “question”. Oddly, when I’ve had a question about Catholicism, I’ve sought out answers, sometimes here, sometimes in the CC catechism, sometimes a simple Google search.
Then again, if it really wasn’t a question to begin with…

I don’t feel that we are at an impasse at all.

Well, sorry, Topper, I’m quite done with the “question”.

Jon

 

[benjohnson]

As for me, my CAF experience is 100% better now that I found the ignore feature.

 

[TertiumQuid]

I haven’t been a nuisance or ignored for awhile, so I thought I’d offer the following:

The fact is Jon that Luther assigned to himself a tremendous level of authority. In fact, he not only placed his judgment over various books of the long accepted NT canon, but he actually also presumed that he had the authority to judge Christian Councils.

Topper17 makes the point that Luther thought he had a “tremendous level of authority” and “placed his judgment over various books of the long accepted NT canon” and “he actually also presumed that he had the authority to judge Christian Councils.” What follows next from Topper17 is an un-referenced quote from Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther. So, logically, wouldn’t one would expect Althaus to be making these same points? Before getting to Topper17’s quotes from Althaus, in context Althaus describes Luther’s view as follows:

1. The true opinion of the church can be recognized because it “stands in” and is “based on Scripture” (p. 338), not on anything found outside of Scripture. In this sense, the church cannot err if her opinions depend entirely on Scripture.
2. The church does not have unconditional authority. The Lord predicted it could err (Matt 24:24). Therefore, to establish doctrine, one cannot simply cite church fathers (p. 338-339).
3. Because the church is comprised of sinners, a Christian cannot unconditionally obey the church, but can judge the church or even the angels based on God’s Word. Paul did not simply obey Peter in Galatians 2, but judged him according to the Word of God. (p. 339). The church does not have unconditional authority because it is not exempt from humanity and sin (p. 339-340).

Then comes the quote offered by Topper17:

“But doesn’t the church occupy a special position among all authorities since the Holy Spirit has been promised to it? Luther deals with this question too – we will come to it in the following.

Luther concretized these thoughts about the limits of the church’s authority and its capacity for error by specifically applying them to the councils. A council as such does not possess unconditional spiritual authority any more than the church and its tradition do.

The councils have constantly claimed that they assemble in “the name of Christ” and thus that they are not able to err – according to Christ’s promise in Matthew 18:20 (Where two or more are gathered together in my name…”).** Luther points out that the mere claim to have gathered in the name of Christ does not mean that a council really has done so and possesses Christ’s authority. “If they have come together in the name of Christ, they will show that by acting to Christ and not contrary to the Gospel.” ****Thus the content of the council’s decrees will determine whether a council was actually gathered in the name of Christ. “Even though saints are present at the council, even though there are many saints, and even though angels are there, still we do not trust personalities but only God’s word, since even saints can make mistakes. **There is no excuse for saying that a man was a saint and is therefore to believed. Most certainly not; Christ says just the opposite, believe him only if he speaks correctly about me…

Topper then leaves out,

“This is not a majority decision; rather ‘if I see someone who thinks correctly about Christ I ought to kiss him, throw my arms around his neck, and let all the others who think falsely alone.’ Thus the pure truth of the gospel gives genuine authority to the men of the church who witness to Christ.”

Topper17 continues citing Althaus:

Luther asserts the same thing when he says that only those have assembled in the Holy Spirit who bring the “analogy of faith” and not their own thoughts.” Pg. 340.

So there’s Althaus. Rather than saying Luther thought he had a “tremendous level of authority” and “placed his judgment over various books of the long accepted NT canon” and “he actually also presumed that he had the authority to judge Christian Councils,” Luther states churches and councils do have authority if it solely based on God’s word. Topper17 continues:

In other words, Luther judged the various Councils on the basis of their agreement (or disagreement) with HIS opinions as to what is or is not the “Gospel”. But then that level of authority is at least entirely consistent with his view that his teaching could not be wrong. If a Council of all of the Church disagreed with him, it was, by his definition, wrong and could be ignored.

Althaus has not stated this, Topper17 has, so “in other words” is being misapplied. Luther, according to Althaus is saying that anyone’s opinion must be subjected to the Word of God in order to have authority. As we place this back in its historical context, early on Luther was driven to this position because when he cited Scripture to his opponents, they responded with councils and fathers. Theoretically, if the responses given to Luther could have been proven Biblically and exegetically, Luther, to be consistent, would have to had yielded to Scripture. The responses though to Luther were often, if not almost entirely, diluted with councils and fathers. See for instance, David Bagchi, Luther’s Earliest Opponents: Catholic Controversialists, 1518-1525 (Augsburg Fortress, Publishers, Jun 1, 2007).

 

[pablope]

I have tremendous respect for those patient saints among us who can bear to discuss anything with polemicists. Generally, such posts don’t merit a response. But when polemicists make claims that border on slander and present a massive misrepresentation of the “other side’s” actual beliefs, it becomes necessary to demand some accountability. So, Toper, please provide the Lutheran document or even individual Lutheran theologian that claims that Damasus -in his person- was the antichrist? If you’re going to make a claim that bold, you’ll need to back it up. Otherwise, you’re simply wrong – or worse.

I’ve got a feeling you won’t find anything. I’ve got a hunch that you’re misapplying the Treatise in order to make a polemical point. I’ve also got faith in the readers of this board to see your presentation for what it is. Would you care to retract your flagrantly false statements about what Lutherans believe, starting right here?

Does the labeling the papacy anti-Christ apply to popes prior to the 1500s or so? Or it only applies after 1500?

 

[JonNC]

Does the labeling the papacy anti-Christ apply to popes prior to the 1500s or so? Or it only applies after 1500?

It doesn’t apply to individual popes at all. The confessions are narrow and specific as to these three teachings:

The Roman Pontiff claims for himself [in the first place] that by divine right he is [supreme] above all bishops and pastors [in all Christendom].

2] Secondly, he adds also that by divine right he has both swords, i.e., the authority also of bestowing kingdoms [enthroning and deposing kings, regulating secular dominions etc.].

3] And thirdly, he says that to believe this is necessary for salvation. And for these reasons the Roman bishop calls himself [and boasts that he is] the vicar of Christ on earth.

4] These three articles we hold to be false, godless, tyrannical, and [quite] pernicious to the Church.

#2 is clearly moot. Maybe you know, Pablope, if #3 is still the case.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I have “admitted” nothing. I have stated my position, but more importantly, provided adequate response from people far wiser than me.

Oh, does that mean that you asked the question at Wittenburg Trail, and received no response?

So, its no longer a question, now its a criticism. The thread started as a “question”. Oddly, when I’ve had a question about Catholicism, I’ve sought out answers, sometimes here, sometimes in the CC catechism, sometimes a simple Google search.
Then again, if it really wasn’t a question to begin with…

Well, sorry, Topper, I’m quite done with the “question”.

Jon

Just as a follow up, a link to a page from Dave Armstrong on the issue of Luther and prayers for the dead.
In part;

As for the dead, since Scripture gives us no information on the subject, I regard it as no sin to pray with free devotion in this or some similar fashion: ‘Dear God, if this soul is in a condition accessible to mercy, be thou gracious to it.’ And when this has been done once or twice, let it suffice. For vigils and requiem masses and yearly celebrations of requiems are useless, and merely the devil’s annual fair.

(Luther’s Works, vol. 37, p. 369)

Thanks, Dave.

Jon

 

[pablope]

It doesn’t apply to individual popes at all. The confessions are narrow and specific as to these three teachings:

#2 is clearly moot. Maybe you know, Pablope, if #3 is still the case.

Jon

So the papacy has been anti-Christ since the time of Linus?

The Roman Pontiff claims for himself [in the first place] that by divine right he is [supreme] above all bishops and pastors [in all Christendom].

St. Optatus says the bishop of Rome is unique and he is…*You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra, on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles … that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all [in qua unica Cathedra unitas ab omnibus servaretur], lest the other Apostles might claim each for himself separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra would already be a schismatic and a sinner. Well then, on the one Cathedra, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit.25
*

By your own definition…even Peter is anti-Christ…

3] And thirdly, he says that to believe this is necessary for salvation. And for these reasons the Roman bishop calls himself [and boasts that he is] the vicar of Christ on earth.

Should there be one vicar or several? If not Peter or Rome, then who can speak solely for Christ here on earth? Who do you think will the world pay attention to? Constantinople? The LCMS president?

4] These three articles we hold to be false, godless, tyrannical, and [quite] pernicious to the Church.

Well…aren’t the Lutheran declarations themselves…false, godless, tyrannical, and [quite] pernicious to the Church?

 

[Topper17]

[To TertiumQuid]

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.

Hi S.O.N.

Precisely!

God Bless You Son, Topper

 

[benjohnson]

By your own definition…even Peter is anti-Christ…

I don’t recall Peter claiming both swords, and personal communion with him a requirement for salvation.

Well…aren’t the Lutheran declarations themselves…false, godless, tyrannical, and [quite] pernicious to the Church?

Ask Pope emeritus Benedict XVI though they may have had had some value in 1976:

jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1203403?uid=3739960&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21104473181821

-Ben