The New Testament Canons of Martin Luther and of Lutheranism

[Porknpie]

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.

I forgot about this quote on the Assumption. More than a little bit of Tradition here coming through.

 

[benjohnson]

I forgot about this quote on the Assumption. More than a little bit of Tradition here coming through.

 

[steido01]

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.

Well, if we’re picking nits, some Lutherans will hold that Mary was not sinless - at least not until Christ [literally] lived within her. It was, after all, at Jesus’ conception and not at her own that the angel announced her to be “full of Grace.” But your point is solid - one’s Mariology belongs in the realm of adiaphora. Pious belief cannot be made a point of doctrine because Mary is not our Redeemer - even she, like every other human in history, need the Savior.

 

[benjohnson]

Well, if we’re picking nits, some Lutherans will hold that Mary was not sinless - at least not until Christ [literally] lived within her. It was, after all, at Jesus’ conception and not at her own that the angel announced her to be “full of Grace.” But your point is solid - one’s Mariology belongs in the realm of adiaphora. Pious belief cannot be made a point of doctrine because Mary is not our Redeemer - even she, like every other human in history, need the Savior.

You’re quite correct. Mary understood he own need with “And my spirit has rejoiced in God, my Saviour.”

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

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.

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

OK. So if Moeller (in 1974) represents the ‘old guard’ and is complaining about the people who are drifting from “orthodox Lutheranism”, by ignoring the distinction between the homo and the anti, then where would you say that we (you really) stand today?

Also, are you inferring that the that the ‘correct distinction’ between the homo and the anti is now not being taught to LCMS seminarians and laypeople?

What is it do you think that has caused this ‘problem’ with the drifting away from the ‘orthodox teaching’ on the canon?

Furthermore, if the problem is ‘poor catechesis’ rather than practice, then what is it, specifically and exactly that is the solution to the problem? In other words, is there a way that Lutheranism can be ‘saved’ and the old teaching re-established?

As we have ‘discussed’, I think that Luther, and thus Lutheranism, was wrong to place James in a category from which doctrines are not determined. The justification for this ‘placement’ was (and is), at least in part, the questioning of the “Apostleship” of James.

So here’s big question: In your mind, was James written by an Apostle or not?

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[pablope]

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.

Jon

I think it should be noted what is meant by “canonical” between AD381 and our times today.

If I remember correctly…“canonical” meant approved to be read during the Liturgy in those times…and this is the nature of the dispute…whether it should or fitting to be read during the Liturgy, not that it was “inspired”. And certainly, “canonical” means entirely different nowadays.

 

[pablope]

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.

So you are making a judgement then of what is sufficient?

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.

 

[seanman611]

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?

I have to take issue with this statement. Luther did go about his grievances calmly and humbly, especially in the beginning. He only asked that if he is wrong that he be shown by scripture and then he would recant. Instead of the Holy Mother Church acting like a Mother and kindly address and discuss his grievances, they demanded he recant because Mother Church says so and that is all the explanation that they felt they owed Luther…recant because we say so or face certain death. Does this seem like a great way to address Luther’s grievances, especially when many in the CC sympathized with many of his grievances?

 

[spina1953]

I have to take issue with this statement. Luther did go about his grievances calmly and humbly, especially in the beginning. He only asked that if he is wrong that he be shown by scripture and then he would recant. Instead of the Holy Mother Church acting like a Mother and kindly address and discuss his grievances, they demanded he recant because Mother Church says so and that is all the explanation that they felt they owed Luther…recant because we say so or face certain death. Does this seem like a great way to address Luther’s grievances, especially when many in the CC sympathized with many of his grievances?

Hi seanman611: I think you miss the point I was making. Luther was not calm and was very much vindictive towards the CC. He would not recant anything and thought himself above everyone else. My though was had Luther been calm and listened to what the CC was saying about his teachings instead of proclaiming his teaching as superior to that of the CC. There were reforms that were needed but that had nothing to do with what the CC taught. Luther decided that what the CC was teaching was wrong and needed his understanding in order to put it right again.

Reforms were needed but Luther needed to work with the CC not go against it and the authority of the CC. Luther refused to let anyone question his teachings and doctrines, iow’s he was right and everyone else wrong. For Luther it was his way or the highway, nothing less. I said if Luther had been calm and instead tried working with the CC instead of insulting everyone in the CC and the CC itself in order to press his theology onto everyone, maybe there might have been different outcome.

 

[benjohnson]

So you are making a judgement then of what is sufficient?

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12455896]

OK. So if Moeller (in 1974) represents the ‘old guard’ and is complaining about the people who are drifting from “orthodox Lutheranism”, by ignoring the distinction between the homo and the anti, then where would you say that we (you really) stand today?

I generally stand with Pieper. Within the NT canon of 27 books, there are books that are Homologoumena and books that are Antilegomena.

Also, are you inferring that the that the ‘correct distinction’ between the homo and the anti is now not being taught to LCMS seminarians and laypeople?

I think the laity has not been well catechized regarding the history of the scripture, though I believe that is beginning to change, evidenced by the publishing of the Apocrypha with Lutheran Notes.

What is it do you think that has caused this ‘problem’ with the drifting away from the ‘orthodox teaching’ on the canon?

Some sources say that it was the move to English Bibles, away from the German, that has had a strong influence. Additionally, American Lutherans are, frankly and sadly, influenced by other protestant groups, particularly the Reformed.

Furthermore, if the problem is ‘poor catechesis’ rather than practice, then what is it, specifically and exactly that is the solution to the problem? In other words, is there a way that Lutheranism can be ‘saved’ and the old teaching re-established?

Remember that Moeller is writing forty years ago, in the shadow of the Seminex controversy. Better catechesis, in this case, particularly adult education, will help.

As we have ‘discussed’, I think that Luther, and thus Lutheranism, was wrong to place James in a category from which doctrines are not determined. The justification for this ‘placement’ was (and is), at least in part, the questioning of the “Apostleship” of James.

Luther and Lutheranism, yes, but certainly not solely. The Lutheran view reflects the ancient Church, takes into account the views of Origen and Eusebius and the like.

So here’s big question: In your mind, was James written by an Apostle or not?

James the Less is the common answer, AFAIK. I have no reason to doubt modern scholars.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I think it should be noted what is meant by “canonical” between AD381 and our times today.

If I remember correctly…“canonical” meant approved to be read during the Liturgy in those times…and this is the nature of the dispute…whether it should or fitting to be read during the Liturgy, not that it was “inspired”. And certainly, “canonical” means entirely different nowadays.

I agree. I am perfectly comfortable considering the DC’s as canonical via that definition.

Jon

 

[seanman611]

Hi seanman611: I think you miss the point I was making. Luther was not calm and was very much vindictive towards the CC.

Not in the beginning and Luther actually thought that the Papacy and the Church in Rome were unaware of the abuses going on in their name. Luther thought the Church would find no fault in him and would agree with his grievances. That said, when they decided it would be better if Luther was dead, then yeah, he got vindictive and felt betrayed by the Church. I’m not an apologist for Martin Luther, but we must be fair and try to see this through his POV as well. Fact is, Luther was very careful in the beginning.

He would not recant anything and thought himself above everyone else. My though was had Luther been calm and listened to what the CC was saying about his teachings instead of proclaiming his teaching as superior to that of the CC. There were reforms that were needed but that had nothing to do with what the CC taught. Luther decided that what the CC was teaching was wrong and needed his understanding in order to put it right again.

He was a trained Catholic monk and university professor. His job was to study theology. He felt that the CC lost its way and he sought to reform the Church from within. I also don’t believe that Sola fide was some new doctrine invented by Luther. One can read many of the early church fathers and come away believing that they believed in justification by faith alone.

Reforms were needed but Luther needed to work with the CC not go against it and the authority of the CC.

How do you go about working with someone who wants you dead and has no interest in theological debate?

Luther refused to let anyone question his teachings and doctrines, iow’s he was right and everyone else wrong. For Luther it was his way or the highway, nothing less.

And the CC didn’t think that it was their way or the highway either? There was a lot of emotion and pride on both sides.

I said if Luther had been calm and instead tried working with the CC instead of insulting everyone in the CC and the CC itself in order to press his theology onto everyone, maybe there might have been different outcome.

If the CC had actually listened to Luther and debated him, maybe the outcome would have been much different. Like I said, how do you present a case for reform when the party you are presenting to wants none of it and wants you dead? Furthermore, name one CC theologian (living during that time) that could’ve held a candle to Luther.

 

[guanophore]

I have to take issue with this statement. Luther did go about his grievances calmly and humbly, especially in the beginning. He only asked that if he is wrong that he be shown by scripture and then he would recant. Instead of the Holy Mother Church acting like a Mother and kindly address and discuss his grievances, they demanded he recant because Mother Church says so and that is all the explanation that they felt they owed Luther…recant because we say so or face certain death. Does this seem like a great way to address Luther’s grievances, especially when many in the CC sympathized with many of his grievances?

Perhaps you don’t know very much about Luther’s polemics?

I refer you to this very interesting thread where you may become better acquainted with some of his writings and attitudes.

Luther had already rejected the Catholic faith by the time he nailed his 95 theses to the door. The demand that he be shown “in the Scriptures” is evidence that he had rejected Sacred Tradition and the authority of the Church. All of his writings that followed just continued to confirm these rejections.

Luther was directed to stop publishing and teaching/preaching and he was unwilling to comply. I am sure, with his compulsion to continue these activities, it must have seemed like a death sentence to him, but it was not.

 

[guanophore]

Reforms were needed but Luther needed to work with the CC not go against it and the authority of the CC. Luther refused to let anyone question his teachings and doctrines, iow’s he was right and everyone else wrong. For Luther it was his way or the highway, nothing less. I said if Luther had been calm and instead tried working with the CC instead of insulting everyone in the CC and the CC itself in order to press his theology onto everyone, maybe there might have been different outcome.

Men are always in need of reform, but the Teachings of Christ, infallibly preserved in the Church, never needed to be reformed.

There is another issue that pertains to this thread topic.

One of Luther’s main complaints was the doctrine of justification. By refusing to accept certain books of the canon as a basis for doctrine, he had already undermined what he was asking for, which is to 'be convinced by the Scriptures". Since the CC draws doctrine from all of the Scripture, the scriptures used would not have met his criteria anyway.

 

[spina1953]

Men are always in need of reform, but the Teachings of Christ, infallibly preserved in the Church, never needed to be reformed.

There is another issue that pertains to this thread topic.

One of Luther’s main complaints was the doctrine of justification. By refusing to accept certain books of the canon as a basis for doctrine, he had already undermined what he was asking for, which is to 'be convinced by the Scriptures". Since the CC draws doctrine from all of the Scripture, the scriptures used would not have met his criteria anyway.

Hi Guanophore: Oh I have to agree with you. Once Luther was convinced that what he thought was correct doctrine he was not going to turn back but the truth is as you said it is all of Scripture not just verse or two or one book over another.

 

[guanophore]

The gospel tells me what it sufficient. You are certainly free to chose other criteria.

It appears that there are as many different understandings of the Gospel as there are belly buttons.

The Apostles taught us that the Gospel message is to include “all”, which is why Catholics are required to reject these modern minimalist approaches to “salvation” that are based on one verse, or a handful of verses.

I don’t think Lutherans have put any new stumbling blocks to salvation by making new dogmas that must be adhered to for salvation.

The problem is that it is not up to us to decide what belongs to salvation, but up to God. We are obligated to embrace ALL that He did and taught, and are not at liberty to excise any parts of it to make it consistent with what we define as “essentials”.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

I generally stand with Pieper. Within the NT canon of 27 books, there are books that are Homologoumena and books that are Antilegomena. Luther and Lutheranism, yes, but certainly not solely. The Lutheran view reflects the ancient Church, takes into account the views of Origen and Eusebius and the like.

This is where we disagree Jon. You claim that the Homo and the Anti (H/A) reflect the views of the ancient Church, or possibly that of Origin and Eusebius (and the like). That sounds fine when stated in such a general manner, but when you look into what the ancient Church believed about the NT canon, you simply cannot justify the Lutheran group of Anti-NT books of (James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelations).

I would suggest that the primary reason that the Lutheran Anti contains those specific 4 books is because those are the exact four books that Luther ‘questioned’ and, disagreed with.

You refer us to Origen and Eusebius? According to Protestant Scholar F. F. Bruce:

“Origen (185-254) mentions the four Gospels, the Acts, the thirteen Paulines, 1 Peter, 1 John and Revelation as acknowledged by all; **he says that Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, James and Jude, with the ‘Epistle of Barnabas,’ the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and the ‘Gospel according to the Hebrews,’ were disputed by some. ****Eusebius (c. 265-340) **mentions as generally acknowledged all the books of our New Testament **except James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, which were disputed by some, but recognized by the majority.” **Bruce, “The Canon of the New Testament” from Chapter 3 in The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (5th edition; Leicester: Intervarsity Press, 1959).

Here we see both Origen and Eusebius both disputed 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John. If Lutheranism, (or Luther for that matter) were really all that concerned with the opinions of these two early Christians, they would have included 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John into their Anti. In fact, when you look at all of the various NT canons prior to that of the early Church, prior to that of Athanasius, you find that these books were ‘more disputed’ than James. There is no father or combination of fathers which result in a list of those 4 specific books. That Lutheranism justifies its’ placement of those four specific books into the Anti, only very generally on the basis of the early Church, is proof that there really wasn’t any specific criteria used, at least none that anyone wants to admit to today. If you know of any information that specifically indicates differently I would appreciate you posting it.

Bruce continues on:

“Athanasius in 367 lays down the twenty-seven books of our New Testament as alone canonical; shortly afterwards Jerome and Augustine followed his example in the West. The process farther east took a little longer; it was not until c. 508 that 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude and Revelation were included in a version of the Syriac Bible in addition to the other twenty two books.”

If Luther and Lutheranism were really trying to follow some sort of early Church consensus, James would have been included in the Homo before 2 Peter and 2 and 3 John. But then those books didn’t refute the doctrine that was so crucial to Luther, Salvation by Faith Alone.

Furthermore, Luther wasn’t really following the lead of the ancient Church. Honestly, nobody in the early Church made the kinds of disrespectful comments about NT books as did Luther. Furthermore, Luther made it very clear that part of his “problem” with James is that it disagreed with his ‘version’ of Salvation. Not one early Church Father disputed the canonicity of James on the basis of their teaching on Salvation. From what I can tell, Luther was the first to do so, and as the first, was SETTING precedent rather than following it.

James the Less is the common answer, AFAIK. I have no reason to doubt modern scholars.

That is the virtually unanimous consensus, that James was written by the James the Lesser, the Apostle. As such, the issue of authenticity has been resolved, with Luther and Lutheranism being wrong in placing James in the Anti, the books from which doctrine is not determined. Given that James WAS written by an Apostle, it SHOULD be used by Lutheranism for the determination of doctrine. The same can be said of Jude and Revelations. Hebrews is in a somewhat different category in terms of this particular respect.

The fact is that Luther’s ‘judgment’ and disrespect for James especially is based on the fact that James refuted Luther’s opinion about Salvation. Luther’s calling on the questioning of the ancient Church to justify not using James for doctrine simply does not agree with the evidence. Luther’s “problem” with James being about Salvation is very well documented, as we will see.

Luther should never have disputed James, Jude and Revelations on the basis of their not being written by Apostles. Thus the Lutheran H/A is faulty, which means that the basis for Lutheran doctrine, a NT which contains only 23 books which can be used for determining doctrine, is faulty.

Obviously Jon, there is a great deal at stake here for Lutheranism. I look forward to your comments.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[guanophore]

Not in the beginning and Luther actually thought that the Papacy and the Church in Rome were unaware of the abuses going on in their name.

Where did you get this idea? Can you provide a source? If he thought this, why do you think he did not go to his bishop?

Luther thought the Church would find no fault in him and would agree with his grievances.

Where did you get this idea?

Who was it that Luther expected to represent “the Church” that would find no fault in him?

Was that person supposed to know who they were, and show up to read the Church door?

That said, when they decided it would be better if Luther was dead, then yeah, he got vindictive and felt betrayed by the Church.

When do you imagine that this occurred? How did Luther find out that “the Church” wanted him dead?

Do you think that vindictive is a response that demonstrates the fruit of the Spirit?

I'm not an apologist for Martin Luther, but we must be fair and try to see this through his POV as well. Fact is, Luther was very careful in the beginning.

I would be happy to read any documentation you can provide on this.

He was a trained Catholic monk and university professor.

And an ordained priest. He had an obligation to be obedient, and to submit to his overseer.

His job was to study theology. He felt that the CC lost its way and he sought to reform the Church from within.

His job was to provide Word and Sacrament to the flock. He also had teaching duties at the university.

You make a good point that he believed the CC had lost it’s way. He believed this long before he posted his Theses.

I also don’t believe that Sola fide was some new doctrine invented by Luther. One can read many of the early church fathers and come away believing that they believed in justification by faith alone.

I disagree, but that is a discussion for another thread. Do you want to open it, or shall I?

How do you go about working with someone who wants you dead and has no interest in theological debate?

Well, let’s see. I think there was someone who was the son of Mary and Joseph (or so it was supposed) who went about working with people who wanted him dead…did He get vindictive?

And the CC didn’t think that it was their way or the highway either? There was a lot of emotion and pride on both sides.

Indeed there was a lot of emotion and pride on both sides. I think that is the point being made. If Luther had been more conciliatory, things would have gone differenty.

The Church is not at liberty to abandon the deposit of faith that has been given to us.

If the CC had actually listened to Luther and debated him, maybe the outcome would have been much different.

I think you have a lot to learn about the events around Luther.

Like I said, how do you present a case for reform when the party you are presenting to wants none of it and wants you dead?

I look forward to the evidence.

Furthermore, name one CC theologian (living during that time) that could’ve held a candle to Luther.

There were many, in fact, those who did debate him were better educated. That was not Luther’s faulth, he made the best of the opportunities that were available to him.

But I will grant you this, there was no theologian that could match his vituperous terpitude.

 

[benjohnson]

The problem is that it is not up to us to decide what belongs to salvation, but up to God. We are obligated to embrace ALL that He did and taught, and are not at liberty to excise any parts of it to make it consistent with what we define as “essentials”.

Agreed!

I certainly hope and pray that Lutherans receive the full measure of God’s Law and Gospel in all it’s forms.