The New Testament Canons of Martin Luther and of Lutheranism

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12458180]
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.

No doubt Luther’s view plays a part. That shouldn’t surprise anyone. It could be argued that, even if not complete, our taking into account the opinions of the Fathers is greater than that of Trent’s.

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.

You are the one making the charge here, Tim. I suggest you need to provide proof that when Lutheran theologians speak of the ancient Church in this matter, that they are being intentionally dishonest.
Either way, this paragraph in this post is precisely why I initially said I would not discuss this (or any other) issue with you. With weight of evidence from your posts is that you are not really interested in the topic in the first place, that your mind was already made up.

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.

I have provided lots of links, and the view of the James is included. I suggest you seek them out.

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.

Again, check the links I’ve provided.

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.

Check the link I provided from Pieper. It speaks to the issue of how the Antilegomena does not dispute the doctrine of the Homologoumena.

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.

Yes, as I suspected from the start. This thread is much more about your obvious and extreme dislike against Luther, than the initial article from Moeller.

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

That you don’t like Luther plays no role for Lutheranism at all.

Jon

 

[spina1953]

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 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.

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

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.

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.

Hi seanman 611: Actually, The CC was very much aware that there were abuses going on in the Church. There were those who were trying to reform these abuses while others were not doing anything about the abuses. The CC did not sought to kill Luther and granted him safe conduct to Rome to present his doctrines and teachings for examination, which he refused.

Luther was indeed a monk and a theologian but he was not the best trained theologian as there were far more brilliant theologians than Luther. The CC did not look to see Luther dead, and they did send theologians to see Luther and question his doctrines and teachings and theology, however Luther was not willing to recant insisted that his theology was better and more correct than anyone else’s.

Of course the were emotions on both sides of the issue and used propaganda to make their points. Luther was just better at using propaganda than the CC was. Luther did debate several times and in each he was not willing to concede anything, Theologians like Eck and Cajetin were theologians who questioned debated Luther and examined his writings, teachings and doctrines and determined that there were many questionable points to Luther’s teachings and doctrines he was promoting. I would think that you would have at the very least studied Luther’s writings and the history of the man in order to have a better argument than the one you presented.

 

[seanman611]

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?

He did, he wrote a letter to the Archbishop of Mainz on the abuses of indulgences (which the bishop authorized). The letter is extremely humble and expresses genuine concern.

Here is your source for the letter: fordham.edu/halsall/source/lutherltr-indulgences.asp

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?

Where did I get this idea? Plain old historical fact I guess.

The 95 Theses, which is a pretty conservative document detailing the abuses of indulgences. At this point, Luther isn’t advocating anything truly radical and he even says that indulgences should be preached with caution and he even says let him be anathema who denies the apostolic character of indulgences. He also shows the great respect for the Papacy and his office and his authority. However, Luther is very concerned with the abuses of those who do so in the name of the Church and Pope.

Here is the 95 Theses:

spurgeon.org/~phil/history/95theses.htm

Furthermore, Luther’s work “Concerning Christian Liberty” was dedicated to Pope Leo. The letter shows great respect for the Papacy and Luther expresses hope and confidence that the Pope would find no fault in him.

Here is the letter: bartleby.com/36/6/1.html

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

I didn’t imagine anything, those who questioned the Church during this time period had a way of ending up dead. What do you think would have happened to Luther had he stood trial in Rome?

Firstly, in 1520 Martin Luther was excommunicated by Pope Leo and he demanded that Luther and his followers be arrested and delivered to Rome. In the bull, the Pope defends the practice of burning heretics by fire, so what do you think would have happened to Luther?

christian-history.org/martin-luther.html
spartacus-educational.com/TUDluther.htm

In 1521, The emperor gave order for the arrest of Luther after the Diet of Worms. However, Luther’s allies (Prince Frederick the Wise) got to him first and hid him in a castle.

source: spartacus-educational.com/TUDluther.htm

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

I can’t really fault a man for being angry with those who want him silenced and burned by fire. That said, Luther did indeed have a temper and a way with insults.

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

Already provided above. If those documents don’t show you the care Luther took, nothing will.

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

And his overseers had the obligation to answer his questions and concerns.

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.

Luther stumbled upon old arguments, his idea of faith alone is not new.

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

If you think such a discussion would be useful. I don’t have a definitive view on Luther’s justification by faith alone, but he was certainly not the the first one to believe in the doctrine.

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 Catholic Church is innocent when this measure is applied to them?? LOL! Both sides were proud and vindictive, especially as tension escalated, no doubt about it.

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 same could be said about the RCC.

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

And the Church has an obligation to answer questions and concerns raised by priests that they trained and who teach Catholic theology.

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

I look forward to the evidence.

On the contrary, I think that I showed plenty of evidence and I think you have something to learn about general and accepted history. Nothing I posted here was radical or outside mainstream history.

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.

I disagree, but I will agree he had a way with words.

 

[seanman611]

Hi seanman 611: Actually, The CC was very much aware that there were abuses going on in the Church. There were those who were trying to reform these abuses while others were not doing anything about the abuses. The CC did not sought to kill Luther and granted him safe conduct to Rome to present his doctrines and teachings for examination, which he refused.

Luther was indeed a monk and a theologian but he was not the best trained theologian as there were far more brilliant theologians than Luther. The CC did not look to see Luther dead, and they did send theologians to see Luther and question his doctrines and teachings and theology, however Luther was not willing to recant insisted that his theology was better and more correct than anyone else’s.

Of course the were emotions on both sides of the issue and used propaganda to make their points. Luther was just better at using propaganda than the CC was. Luther did debate several times and in each he was not willing to concede anything, Theologians like Eck and Cajetin were theologians who questioned debated Luther and examined his writings, teachings and doctrines and determined that there were many questionable points to Luther’s teachings and doctrines he was promoting. I would think that you would have at the very least studied Luther’s writings and the history of the man in order to have a better argument than the one you presented.

See my response to guanophore, I think it sufficiently addresses your criticisms with my post.

 

[guanophore]

It could be argued that, even if not complete, our taking into account the opinions of the Fathers is greater than that of Trent's.

I think this is an excellent argument. From the point of view of Trent, and all Catholic scholarship before and after, all opinions were submitted to the authority appointed by Christ. Scholars yielded their opinions to the Magesterium, which is something Luther could not do.

Trent formalized the decisions made in the councils of Hippo, Carthage, and Rome in 382 with regard to the canon, which had been followed since that time.

The setting aside of the authority of the Magesterium has not only affected the content and attitude toward the canon, but also resulted in a resurgence of many other heresies that had already been defeated by the Church and addressed in other councils.

Either way, this paragraph in this post is precisely why I initially said I would not discuss this (or any other) issue with you. With weight of evidence from your posts is that you are not really interested in the topic in the first place, that your mind was already made up.

Yes, but some sort of “foil” or muse is necessary for it to appear that there is a debate, discussion, or dialogue.

Yes, as I suspected from the start. This thread is much more about your obvious and extreme dislike against Luther, than the initial article from Moeller.

The other thread was closed, so a new outlet has become necessary.

 

[spina1953]

See my response to guanophore, I think it sufficiently addresses your criticisms with my post.

Yes, I read your post to Gaunophore, yet, I bet to differ as you have only one side of the argument and there ids is wealth of Luther’s writings much of it very vindictive towards anyone who questioned his theology’s There are other threads on the subjects that have been addressed that you might like to check out. What I see of what your posted is just your interpretation of what you read which is fine but only shows what others interpretations are that does not fully express history as it was.

 

[guanophore]

Thank you for your response and your links Sean.

Where did I get this idea? Plain old historical fact I guess.

Can you provide the historical documents that indicate “the Church” wanted to kill Luther?

Perhaps while you are about it, you could provide some explaining why Luther refused the safe conduct offered him to travel to Rome?

The 95 Theses, which is a pretty conservative document detailing the abuses of indulgences.

I am not sure what “conservative” means in this context, but the ideas he posted were quite radical in his day and age.

I didn’t imagine anything, those who questioned the Church during this time period had a way of ending up dead. What do you think would have happened to Luther had he stood trial in Rome?

The Reformation may have been prevented?

Firstly, in 1520 Martin Luther was excommunicated by Pope Leo

Excommunication is not a death sentence, but a disciplinary step designed to bring the faithful back to orthodoxy. In fact, Luther had excommunicated himself prior to the time a formal document was drafted.

and he demanded that Luther and his followers be arrested and delivered to Rome.

I enjoyed reading your links, but the first one from where you seem to be drawing your “facts” about Luther’s case does not contain any references to the original historical documents. Which bull is it that you think is issuing the death penalty?

In the bull, the Pope defends the practice of burning heretics by fire

Have you read this bull? There is no apologetic offered for this practice whatsoever.

so what do you think would have happened to Luther?

So what are you saying? That no official document was actually issued that issued the death penalty, but we should assume that is what would happen based upon the Pope’s position that it was not against the will of the HS to burn heretics?

In 1521, The emperor gave order for the arrest of Luther after the Diet of Worms. However, Luther’s allies (Prince Frederick the Wise) got to him first and hid him in a castle.

Is it your contention that the Emperor was acting on behalf of the Church? Was the Emperor intending to burn Luther as a heretic?

I can’t really fault a man for being angry with those who want him silenced and burned by fire. That said, Luther did indeed have a temper and a way with insults.

Yes, even looking back through the modern lens, one cannot help but expect that Pope Leo might have been very pleased if Luther had been assasinated. But such speculation is far beyond the scope of the thread. I think the point was that, had Luther been able to model more of the fruits of the HS, things would not have become so adversarial. Frankly his letter to the Bishop of Mainze is dripping of saccharine, and one wonders if it was all for show, given his later writings. Either way, if there ever was an attitude of humility it vanished quickly.

And his overseers had the obligation to answer his questions and concerns.

Definitely.

Luther stumbled upon old arguments, his idea of faith alone is not new. If you think such a discussion would be useful. I don’t have a definitive view on Luther’s justification by faith alone, but he was certainly not the the first one to believe in the doctrine.

I would love to have this discussion on another thread.

I am interested to see who else you think may have embraced this idea.

And the Catholic Church is innocent when this measure is applied to them?? LOL! Both sides were proud and vindictive, especially as tension escalated, no doubt about it.

Yes, which is why you won’t find me defending the attitudes on the Catholic side that contributed to the Reformation. Sin always divides and separates.

And the Church has an obligation to answer questions and concerns raised by priests that they trained and who teach Catholic theology.

Yes, but the accounts of history you are reading seem to omit all efforts to do this. I wonder why that might be?

History iteslf testifies that the Church not only listened to Luther but others who were calling for reform in the council of Trent.
seanman611;12459336:

On the contrary, I think that I showed plenty of evidence and I think you have something to learn about general and accepted history. Nothing I posted here was radical or outside mainstream history.

It is a biased history, but I agree that it is general and accepted, especially by anti-catholics.

I disagree, but I will agree he had a way with words.

Your belief that Luther was the greatest theologian of his day demonstrates the biased perceoption fo history you are reading.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I would love to have this discussion on another thread.

I am interested to see who else you think may have embraced this idea.

I have not seen it before Luther.

However there is a guy who was the 4th Pope that came very close (but no cigar ):

*Chap. XXXII. We are justified not by our own works, but by faith.

Whosoever will candidly consider each particular, will recognise the greatness of the gifts which were given by him. For from him have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister at the altar of God. From him also [was descended] our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh. From him [arose] kings, princes, and rulers of the race of Judah. Nor are his other tribes in small glory, inasmuch as God had promised, “Thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven.” All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Chap. XXXIII. But let us not give up the practice of good works and love. God Himself is an example to us of good works.

What shall we do, then, brethren? Shall we become slothful in well-doing, and cease from the practice of love? God forbid that any such course should be followed by us! But rather let us hasten with all energy and readiness of mind to perform every good work. For the Creator and Lord of all Himself rejoices in His works. For by His infinitely great power He established the heavens, and by His incomprehensible wisdom He adorned them. He also divided the earth from the water which surrounds it, and fixed it upon the immoveable foundation of His own will. The animals also which are upon it He commanded by His own word into existence. So likewise, when He had formed the sea, and the living creatures which are in it, He enclosed them [within their proper bounds] by His own power. Above all, with His holy and undefiled hands He formed man, the most excellent [of His creatures], and truly great through the understanding given him the express likeness of His own image. For thus says God: “Let us make man in Our image, and after Our likeness. So God made man; male and female He created them.”[1] Having thus finished all these things, He approved them, and blessed them, and said, “Increase and multiply.” We see, then, how all righteous men have been adorned with good works, and how the Lord Himself, adorning Himself with His works, rejoiced. Having therefore such an example, let us without delay accede to His will, and let us work the work of righteousness with our whole strength.*

 

[TertiumQuid]

Can you provide the historical documents that indicate “the Church” wanted to kill Luther?

I’m not aware of any actual bull or document in which the magisterium of the 16th century church said that Luther must be killed.

On the other hand, heresy during this time period was a capital offense, and punishable by death. If you read the details about Luther before the Diet of Worms, one of the major concerns of Luther and his supporters was the honoring of the “safe conduct” travel guaranteed to Luther. Fresh in their minds was the same guarantee granted to Jan Hus to appear before the Council of Constance, and then once there it was put forth that “safe conduct” guarantees do not apply to heretics.

Note what Exsurge Domine says:

“Therefore we can, without any further citation or delay, proceed against him to his condemnation and damnation as one whose faith is notoriously suspect and in fact a true heretic with the full severity of each and all of the above penalties and censures. Yet, with the advice of our brothers, imitating the mercy of almighty God who does not wish the death of a sinner but rather that he be converted and live, and forgetting all the injuries inflicted on us and the Apostolic See, we have decided to use all the compassion we are capable of. It is our hope, so far as in us lies, that he will experience a change of heart by taking the road of mildness we have proposed, return, and turn away from his errors. We will receive him kindly as the prodigal son returning to the embrace of the Church.”

 

[JonNC]

=guanophore;12459355]I think this is an excellent argument. From the point of view of Trent, and all Catholic scholarship before and after, all opinions were submitted to the authority appointed by Christ. Scholars yielded their opinions to the Magesterium, which is something Luther could not do.

Even if Luther had had a chance to participate at Trent, or respond to Trent, he probably would not have relented by then. Things had gone too far, animosities were too strong.
I think it is clear that Luther was wrong about James, not only its authorship, but also its important meaning for Christians.

Trent formalized the decisions made in the councils of Hippo, Carthage, and Rome in 382 with regard to the canon, which had been followed since that time.

I think these are vitally important parts of Church history, as well. The difference with these and Trent is two-fold: 1) Christians continued to have the privilege to dispute books, without anathemas, 2) these were not ecumenical councils.

The setting aside of the authority of the Magesterium has not only affected the content and attitude toward the canon, but also resulted in a resurgence of many other heresies that had already been defeated by the Church and addressed in other councils.

I don’t believe one can lay the “heresies” of others at Luther’s feet.

Yes, but some sort of “foil” or muse is necessary for it to appear that there is a debate, discussion, or dialogue.

The other thread was closed, so a new outlet has become necessary.

:sad_yes:

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

No doubt Luther’s view plays a part. That shouldn’t surprise anyone. It could be argued that, even if not complete, our taking into account the opinions of the Fathers is greater than that of Trent’s.

You mentioned Eusebius and Origin and I showed you that neither Luther nor Lutheranism has ‘followed’ either. In fact, you cannot produce a Father or even a combination of specially chosen Fathers which result in the four books of Lutheranism’s Anti, which again is exactly the same as the four books that Luther had a problem with.

You are the one making the charge here, Tim. I suggest you need to provide proof that when Lutheran theologians speak of the ancient Church in this matter, that they are being intentionally dishonest.

Jon – you are putting words in my mouth. The term you have used here, ‘intentional dishonesty’ does not represent anything I have said or even slightly inferred. I am providing a case for my position and I am doing it very specifically. What I am saying is that the supposed connection between any specific Father or combination of Fathers cannot be documented. If you believe otherwise, then please provide that specific connection. What I am saying is that it is very convenient to appeal to the Fathers when in reality, the real connection is to Luther’s incorrect 16th century judgments of the books of the NT. I have made that connection, but not as completely as I will.

Either way, this paragraph in this post is precisely why I initially said I would not discuss this (or any other) issue with you. With weight of evidence from your posts is that you are not really interested in the topic in the first place, that your mind was already made up.

You continue to portray me as having made up my mind, as if the subject of the thread somehow, is me. I continue to tell you that I am willing to change my position, but only if I see something compelling. IF you were to post something substantive I would be happy to review it. You claim that my mind is made up, and so that is why you don’t want to discuss the matter? I would think that refuting my arguments for all to see would be more than enough of a reason for you to deal with the specifics of my arguments.

I have provided lots of links, and the view of the James is included. I suggest you seek them out……Again, check the links I’ve provided.

Jon – I prefer that these discussions be held in full view of everyone on the thread. I doubt if anyone here has gone to your links and read them and as such, they have no idea what your response to my points are. I have read those links, or at least most of them, and I have no idea what their or your response to my points are. IF you have something specific from these various links that is a response to my arguments, then you should post the actual quote and make your argument. Short of that, what are people supposed to think?

As I have said many times, I am happy to have my posts and those of others be judged as to which set are the more compelling.

Check the link I provided from Pieper. It speaks to the issue of how the Antilegomena does not dispute the doctrine of the Homologoumena.

I have read Pieper and do not find a response to my argument. What is it specifically and exactly that you think Pieper says that responds to my charge that Luther and Lutheranism incorrectly chose the Homo and Anti books, and thus are using the NT incorrectly in regards to the determination of doctrine?

My point is that a huge part of Luther’s disagreement with those 4 Anti books is that HE disagreed with the doctrines that they taught. As it turns out he was dead wrong about the authorship of James, Jon, and almost certainly Jude. ISTM that you have admitted as much about James, and certainly would have to admit the same about Revelations.

That being the case then Jon, why in the world has Lutheranism NOT revised their Homo/Anti list to include more than 23 books in the Homo? ISTM to be extremely disrespectful of actual Holy Scripture to continue to place those books which are now agreed to be “Apostolic” into a category from which doctrines are not determined.

Luther was wrong about James and Revelations, and almost certainly also about Jude. Doesn’t it seem that Lutheranism should finally admit Luther’s (and their) error and incorporate those books into the Homo. And wouldn’t it then be appropriate to then determine which doctrines need to be ‘adjusted’ in order to give James, John and (almost certainly Jude) their due as Apostles appointed by Christ and as having the authority to author Holy Scripture which was to be followed by all and not placed into some secondary category?

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[guanophore]

I'm not aware of any actual bull or document in which the magisterium of the 16th century church said that Luther must be killed.

Ok good. I was afraid my studies had a huge gap.

On the other hand, heresy during this time period was a capital offense, and punishable by death. If you read the details about Luther before the Diet of Worms, one of the major concerns of Luther and his supporters was the honoring of the “safe conduct” travel guaranteed to Luther. Fresh in their minds was the same guarantee granted to Jan Hus to appear before the Council of Constance, and then once there it was put forth that “safe conduct” guarantees do not apply to heretics.

Yes.

Note what Exsurge Domine says:

“Therefore we can, without any further citation or delay, proceed against him to his condemnation and damnation as one whose faith is notoriously suspect and in fact a true heretic with the full severity of each and all of the above penalties and censures. Yet, with the advice of our brothers, imitating the mercy of almighty God who does not wish the death of a sinner but rather that he be converted and live, and forgetting all the injuries inflicted on us and the Apostolic See, we have decided to use all the compassion we are capable of. It is our hope, so far as in us lies, that he will experience a change of heart by taking the road of mildness we have proposed, return, and turn away from his errors. We will receive him kindly as the prodigal son returning to the embrace of the Church.”

I have to say, I wonder if this really would have happened. If Luther had recanted, primarily to save his skin (he could not, in good conscience, reject his work - especially that which did not disagree with Catholic doctrine) he may have been removed from Germany and packed off to some distant monastery, or put somewhere he could be under close supervision, since he already demonstrated himself as a dangerous character.

I thought this passage of the Bull was what was being cited but I just wanted to make sure.

 

[guanophore]

I don’t believe one can lay the “heresies” of others at Luther’s feet. Jon

No, and in fact, I was thinking more about the Calvanistic direction in that regard. Luther tried to work with Zwingli and Calvin to preserve the Traditions, but he was not successful. I think it must have been heartbreaking for him to see these departures occurring so quickly, and to realize that a process of separation had occurred that was unstoppable.

 

[benjohnson]

Thank you for your response and your links Sean.

Can you provide the historical documents that indicate “the Church” wanted to kill Luther?

The closest that I know of is the Edict of Worms - it gives an outline on how the princes and the church would punish Luther as a heretic - in addition to confiscating all of Luther’s property and the property of anybody espousing anything similar

Not to state the obvious, but heretics were often burned in those days, so Luther was wise to stay out of the way.

I’ve bolded the relevant parts.

*"…we want him to be apprehended and punished as a notorious heretic, as he deserves, to be brought personally before us, or to be securely guarded until those who have captured him inform us, whereupon we will order the appropriate manner of proceeding against the said Luther. Those who will help in his capture will be rewarded generously for their good work.

As for his accomplices, those who help or favor the said Martin in whatever manner or who show obstinacy in their perversity, not receiving absolution from the pope for the evils they have committed, we will also proceed against them and will take all of their goods and belongings, movable and fixed,

…

We desire that the goods of delinquents that might be confiscated according to this edict be divided, one half going to us and the other half to the accusers and denouncers."*

cresourcei.org/creededictworms.html

 

[guanophore]

The closest that I know of is the Edict of Worms - it gives an outline on how the princes and the church would punish Luther as a heretic - in addition to confiscating all of Luther’s property and the property of anybody espousing anything similar

Not to state the obvious, but heretics were often burned in those days, so Luther was wise to stay out of the way.

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.

Curiously, the edict was enforced against Jacob Probst, prior of the Augustinian monastery in Antwerp, who was the first Luther-supporting cleric to be prosecuted under the terms. In February 1522, Probst was compelled to make public recantation and repudiation of Luther’s teachings. Later that year, additional arrests were made among the Augustinians in Antwerp. Two monks, Johannes van Esschen and Hendrik Voes, refused to recant and so on 1 July 1523, they were burned at the stake in Brussels.

I wonder if these proceedings were not related to property or politics. It hardly seems worth the trouble to go after a few monks?

But the point is therefore well demonstrated, that certainly heretics were burned at the stake, and Luther could expect no different.

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12460333]
You mentioned Eusebius and Origin and I showed you that neither Luther nor Lutheranism has ‘followed’ either. In fact, you cannot produce a Father or even a combination of specially chosen Fathers which result in the four books of Lutheranism’s Anti, which again is exactly the same as the four books that Luther had a problem with.

We have taken them into consideration, just as we have the others who accepted them. That is the definition of “disputed”. Had all of them not accepted them then we would have “rejected”.

Jon – you are putting words in my mouth. The term you have used here, ‘intentional dishonesty’ does not represent anything I have said or even slightly inferred. I am providing a case for my position and I am doing it very specifically. What I am saying is that the supposed connection between any specific Father or combination of Fathers cannot be documented. If you believe otherwise, then please provide that specific connection. What I am saying is that it is very convenient to appeal to the Fathers when in reality, the real connection is to Luther’s incorrect 16th century judgments of the books of the NT. I have made that connection, but not as completely as I will.

It certainly can be inferred, even in the bolded part of your post here. Do you have a source where a Lutheran theologian admits that Lutherans use the ancient Fathers only as a convenience?

You continue to portray me as having made up my mind, as if the subject of the thread somehow, is me I continue to tell you that I am willing to change my position, but only if I see something compelling. IF you were to post something substantive I would be happy to review it. You claim that my mind is made up, and so that is why you don’t want to discuss the matter? I would think that refuting my arguments for all to see would be more than enough of a reason for you to deal with the specifics of my arguments.

I indeed have posted substantive evidence that your take on Moeller was actually incorrect. But in fact, I don’t believe Moeller was the actual subject of the thread, after all. I believe the use of Moeller was a ruse.

Jon –** I prefer that these discussions be held in full view of everyone on the thread.** I doubt if anyone here has gone to your links and read them and as such, they have no idea what your response to my points are. I have read those links, or at least most of them, and I have no idea what their or your response to my points are. IF you have something specific from these various links that is a response to my arguments, then you should post the actual quote and make your argument. Short of that, what are people supposed to think?

This is an interesting stance, Tim, considering that in the opening post, there are quotes from a 40 year old article by an LCMS Lutheran pastor, Pr. Elmer J. Moeller, followed by your “summary” of what he says. In that opening post exists no link to the entire article for readers to corroborate accuracy of your summary. IIRC, a link to that article was not present in the thread until I posted it in post #111. Further, no where in the opening post is Pastor Moeller’s full name provided, and is only ever referred to as “Moeller”, disrespectfully omitting his full name and title.

OTOH, none of the links I supplied require an interested reader to do anything but click on it, so they are indeed open for all to read, including the one missing from the opening post.

continued

 

[JonNC]

I have read Pieper and do not find a response to my argument. What is it specifically and exactly that you think Pieper says that responds to my charge that Luther and Lutheranism incorrectly chose the Homo and Anti books, and thus are using the NT incorrectly in regards to the determination of doctrine?

Exactly my point, that this was not the initial question in the OP. It was about Moeller’s complaint that a change in practice regarding the Antilegomena. That was the question I answered, and the question that has been responded to in numerous posts and links.
I also supplied you with a source that you could have gone to to get your question answered by a Lutheran pastor.
Nevertheless, here is the response from Pieper’s article:

The third question is whether the Church of our day can make those Scriptures, regarding which there was doubt in the Early Church because of the contradiction of some, canonical, catholic, and equal to those of the first order. The Papists not only claim that they can do this, but they actually usurp this authority; they abolish entirely the necessary distinction which the primitive and early Church made between the canonical books and the apocryphal, or ecclesiastical, books. **But the Church very manifestly does not have this authority; else it could for the same reason reject canonical books or canonize spurious books. For this entire matter hinges on the assured testimonies of that Church which existed in the days of the Apostles, which testimonies the Church that immediately followed preserved in trustworthy reports. **… What an insolent audacity it is to decree: Though the primitive and the following early Church had its doubts regarding those books because of the contradiction of many churchmen, … hoc tamen non obstante we decree that these books must be received with the same certainty as of equal authority with those which have been always adjudged genuine. … But why, then, do they not impart this authority to the fables of Aesop or the true stories of Lucian? Not that I would compare those controverted books to the fables of Aesop (for with Cyprian and Jerome I assign them the honorable place which they have always held in the ancient Church), but by an epagwgh eis adunaton [by adducing the impossible] I want to show that the Church has not the power to make of spurious writings genuine ones; of genuine, spurious; of doubtful and uncertain, certain, canonical, and legitimate. …

The bolding is mine, and it answers your question. That is why, even though we accept them as canonical, and read from them, and teach from them, they are still considered “antilegomena”. But even so, when we read from them at divine service, the reader concludes those readings with: “this is the word of the Lord”. They are indeed, the word of the Lord.

Further, regarding the Antilegomena, and whether regarding them as Homologoumena would change alter, or add to doctrine, the answer is no. It even responds to the question of the Epistle of James.

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.

Now, I know that this doesn’t fit with a singularly focused apologia of anti-Luther/anti-Lutheranism, but the answers are clearly there.

In closing, Tim, I suggest you take your question to the “ask a Pastor” portion of Wittenburg Trail, if my answers, and that of Francis Pieper do not meet your needs.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

We have taken them into consideration, just as we have the others who accepted them. That is the definition of “disputed”. Had all of them not accepted them then we would have “rejected”.

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.

It certainly can be inferred, even in the bolded part of your post here. Do you have a source where a Lutheran theologian admits that Lutherans use the ancient Fathers only as a convenience?

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. My charge was specifically:

“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.”

I indeed have posted substantive evidence that your take on Moeller was actually incorrect. But in fact, I don’t believe Moeller was the actual subject of the thread, after all. I believe the use of Moeller was a ruse.

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.

This is an interesting stance, Tim, considering that in the opening post, there are quotes from a 40 year old article by an LCMS Lutheran pastor, Pr. Elmer J. Moeller, followed by your “summary” of what he says. In that opening post exists no link to the entire article for readers to corroborate accuracy of your summary. IIRC, a link to that article was not present in the thread until I posted it in post #111. Further, no where in the opening post is Pastor Moeller’s full name provided, and is only ever referred to as “Moeller”, disrespectfully omitting his full name and title.

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?

OTOH, none of the links I supplied require an interested reader to do anything but click on it, so they are indeed open for all to read, including the one missing from the opening post.

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.

Exactly my point, that this was not the initial question in the OP. It was about Moeller’s complaint that a change in practice regarding the Antilegomena. That was the question I answered, and the question that has been responded to in numerous posts and links.
I also supplied you with a source that you could have gone to to get your question answered by a Lutheran pastor.

Again Jon, if there is an answer to my question I think it should be posted here, where everybody can see it. I say this and actually you have posted your response to one of my charges. In another post you have recently said:

I think it is clear that Luther was wrong about James, not only its authorship, but also its important meaning for Christians.

Jon, I appreciate this honesty. It is very clear that you are right and the same could be said of Luther being wrong about The Book of Revelation by the Apostle John.

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. If that is a mischaracterization then please explain.

As for Pieper’s quote about the church not having the authority to place its judgments over the ancient church – I don’t think that makes any sense at all. As you admit, Luther was wrong about the authorship of James, which by the way Pieper does not admit. Not only does Pieper fail to acknowledge James as being by the Apostle and thus of the highest order of books, his position seems to be that whether James is or is not ‘legimitate’, the judgments of the ancients must be followed, wrong or right.

The fact that a FEW of the ancients (and Luther) were wrong about the authorship of James, DOES NOT require the modern church to repeat that error. And yet, I see absolutely NO willingness on the part of Lutheranism to retract that faulty judgment and place James (and Revelation) into the homologoumena.

**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. **

You personally admit that Luther was wrong. Don’t you think that there should be something ‘official’ from Lutheranism to right this wrong?

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[Topper17]

This is an interesting stance, Tim, considering that in the opening post, there are quotes from a 40 year old article by an LCMS Lutheran pastor, Pr. Elmer J. Moeller, followed by your “summary” of what he says. In that opening post exists no link to the entire article for readers to corroborate accuracy of your summary. IIRC, a link to that article was not present in the thread until I posted it in post #111. Further, no where in the opening post is Pastor Moeller’s full name provided, and is only ever referred to as “Moeller”, disrespectfully omitting his full name and title.

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.

 

[benjohnson]

The vast majority of Catholics have been a blessing to me and my family - and even when they have disagreed with me, I count their questions and arguments as a blessing for expanding my view of Christianity and for showing me even more clearly that God loves even beggars like us Lutherans.

Others have given me a renewed appreciation of the German language.