The New Testament Canons of Martin Luther and of Lutheranism

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

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

Actually Jon, you did admit something extremely significant. You were only stating an obvious fact that is apparent to everyone but it is important nonetheless. You said:

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

From that admission it follows that:

1. Given that James was written by the Apostle James, Luther should not have placed the book of James on his list of ‘doubted books’.
2. Luther should not have criticized the doctrinal teachings of James and should not have decided that it should not be used for determining doctrine. The same must be said of Lutheranism.
3. Given that Luther, and thus Lutheranism, incorrectly identified the Apostolic nature of James, their respective antilegomenias are in error.
4. Lutheranism, at this point should admit their error about James and officially pronounce it to be of equal authority as their 23 book Homologoumena. Will it or not?
5. Lutheran doctrines should be reviewed and changed as necessary in an effort to correct the mistaken placement of James into the Anti.
6. The above can also be said of Revelations and Jude, with Hebrews falling outside of this argument. As such though, the Lutheran approach to Scripture should include a 26 book Homo (at the very least).
7. Given that Lutheranism is incorrectly using (at least) 3 NT books by not using them to determine doctrine, it is extremely likely that Lutheran doctrines are not really in keeping with either the Scriptures or the Apostles.

Jon, I am sure that you disagree, but I do not know specifically how you would go about refuting the above.

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

For some reason Jon, I don’t have any confidence that I would get straight answers to my questions there (either).

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”.

I am not at all sure what your point is about the word “criticism”. Are you saying that Luther or Lutheranism should NOT be criticized here on CA, which by the way stands for “Catholic Answers”? I have asked legitimate questions and have made clear, well-reasoned, and well-documented criticisms of both Luther and Lutheranism.

Your ‘concern’ about the word criticism reminds me of the article about Ben Affleck that I posted a couple of months ago. As you will remember Affleck was incensed that someone would criticize Islam.

From “Bishops, Bigots, and Ben Affleck”, by William Kilpatrick.

[Bill] “Maher made the point that liberals, if they are to be consistent, must criticize Islam’s illiberal principals. ** [Atheist Sam} Harris said, “We have to be able to criticize bad ideas. And Islam is the mother lode of bad ideas. **

**Affleck did not respond in kind. His remarks were along the lines of “It’s Gross! It’s racist,” and “Jesus! Its an ugly thing to say.” **

**In defense of their criticism of Islam, Maher and Harris produced a number of statistics, including polls showing that a majority of Muslims in various countries supported the harsher aspects of sharia law. **And Affleck and [columnist Nicholas] Kristoff? They produced the race card, the emotion card, and the moral superiority card. They didn’t have any arguments, but they did have feelings and fashionable attitudes. ……

**“What then? By conflating all Muslims with Islamic beliefs, Affleck was, in effect, positing a new civil right – the right not to have your beliefs criticized.” **Kilpatrick

When confronted with facts about Islam (emphasis Topper’s). Affleck tried to shut down the dialogue by playing the ‘that’s racist’ card, by complaining about facts being used to criticize something that very clearly deserves to be criticized.

Is that where we are Jon? Is it ‘politically incorrect’ here to ‘criticize’ Luther or Lutheranism? You will have to admit that I have do not criticize individual Lutherans, but also that I am hardly afforded the same respect in return (with you being an exception).

In regards to Luther and Lutheranism, I have questions AND criticisms. It is not my fault that I seem to have much more to say in defense of my position than do others for theirs. Given the official teachings of Lutheranism and the text of the Lutheran Confessions in regards to the Catholic Church, my questions and criticisms should be completely understandable and expected. Furthermore, I have no intention of ‘detuning’ my arguments simply because those of the other side are weak (or non-existent). My position is that the Luther’s theology if FULL of ‘bad ideas’ and I am perfectly willing to explain specifically and exactly why I hold that position. In addition, I am very happy to let people read my posts and the posts of those who defend Luther and Lutheranism and draw their own conclusions.

With all that in mind, as you know, I have a great deal of respect for Lutherans as individuals, especially the ones that really care about doctrine. However, when I criticize Luther or Lutheranism, people seem to take it VERY personally, and yet those same people seem to be surprised when we Catholics are offended that the pope is considered to be the antichrist. It’s the double standards thing on steroids.

God Bless You Jon, Topper**

 

[Topper17]

Hi 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.

As you know Jon, the issue of praying to the dead is very much a side issue here, and one which is relatively unimportant compared to Luther’s and Lutheranism’s errant use of the NT. The part of the quote that I highlighted in red (to highlight that THIS was the main point), and you ignored, was as follows:

**“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

My point is (reinforced by McGrath), that the reformers “excluded from the canon of Scripture any works which happened to contradict [their] theology”, and THEN proclaimed that their theology was ‘Scriptural’. This charge is most applicable to Martin Luther, and thus to the theology which bears his name. This refers directly to my contention that Luther’s ‘problem’ with James had primarily to do with the Apostle being so obviously against Luther’s radical teaching of Salvation By Faith Alone.

That is the point that you ignored, concentrating on the much less important (and much easier to deal with) matter of praying to the dead.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

BTW, if you would like to read some of Dave Armstrong’s comments about Luther, it can be arranged.

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12470390]Hi Jon,

As you know Jon, the issue of praying to the dead is very much a side issue here, and one which is relatively unimportant compared to Luther’s and Lutheranism’s errant use of the NT. The part of the quote that I highlighted in red (to highlight that THIS was the main point), and you ignored, was as follows:

“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

The beginning portion of the quote you provide from McGrath says:* “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.”
*

A mix of two subjects. There is a dramatic difference between prayer to the dead, and prayer for the dead, and McGrath’s comments, at least what you have quoted, doesn’t speak to what you claim it does. The Lutheran confessions state clearly that we are not opposed prayer for the dead. So, I don’t know how this becomes an “errant” use of the NT.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=pablope;12470057]So the papacy has been anti-Christ since the time of Linus?

Neither in scripture nor in the early councils is universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome expressed

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…

Even this does not speak to the issue.

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?

Where have I said that unity with the entire Church Militant, even centered around the Bishop of Rome, is a bad thing?

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

For me to deny our human sin, that we as a tradition, have said and done things that are opposed to the Christ, and for which we must ask forgiveness, not only from God, but also from our fellow Baptized, would be foolish. “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.”

Jon

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

The topic, not each other.

 

[pablope]

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

Do you have everything that Peter said or did recorded or written down?

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

 

[pablope]

Neither in scripture nor in the early councils is universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome expressed

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1355

he reconciliation was made in the reign of Pope Hormisdas (514-23) when the Eastern Bishops signed the so-called Libellus Hormisdae which contained a clear definition of the Roman primacy in matters of faith. It is an important document recalling the promise of the Lord given to Peter (Matt. 16:18 f.) and declaring that “in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept immaculate” and that in it “persists the total and true strength of the Christian religion.”…On the other hand, Justinian, when sanctioning in his Novel 131,224 the rank of the Patriarchs, expressed very clearly that the Bishop of Constantinople was inferior to the Bishop of Rome. This is important, and contradicts the statements of the mediaeval Greek controversialists who argued that because Rome was called the Old City, and Constantinople the New City, Rome outranked Constantinople only in age and in no other respect. This thesis was also rejected in the twelfth century by the famous Byzantine canonist Zonaras, who bases his rejection on the wording of Justinian’s Novel 131.25…And so it came about that the apostolic idea became a weapon for the defenders of the image cult against the intervention of the Emperors in the doctrinal field. The Pope was exalted by the defenders of image worship as the heir of Peter, the head of the Apostles, and the repository of pure doctrine. The Iconoclastic Council of 754 was condemned by Stephen the Younger in 760, for example, because the Acts had not been approved by the Pope.30

Where have I said that unity with the entire Church Militant, even centered around the Bishop of Rome, is a bad thing?

 

[JonNC]

=pablope;12471266]

But You still refer to the papacy as Anti-Christ…

Before you make this a personal accusation,
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=250002

So it is a Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde kind of view then? A good Christian on one hand…and the anti-Christ when the pope says or does things you do not agree with in exercise of the office of the papacy?

Ok, again, Lutherans do not charge any individual pope as being THE Anti-Christ. This is a false charge, one that is equally as false as the charge by some that Catholics worship Mary.

On the Jekyll and Hyde remark, the Lutheran expression would be at simul iustus et peccator, simultanious saint and sinner. So, yes, and as much as Pope Francis is, I am at least as much a sinner, and more so.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=pablope;12471208]
Anyway…how do you think your Reformation will ever succeed on its own without the big bad Catholic Church and the office you label as the anti-Christ?

Pablope,
Please find a post, any post, from Ben Johnson, where he even remotely refers to the Catholic Church in that way. Ben Johnson is a model of respect on the site.

kbroszko.dominikanie.pl/Bouyer-SpiritFormsProtestantism-ch10.pdf

The question then naturally arose: how could a reform which set out from such principles end in schism, even in heresy? We answered that, in the actual development by the Reformers of these principles, there were inserted at the outset negative elements having no intrinsic connection with them, in fact, in formal contradiction with the Scriptural teaching the Reformation claimed for itself…

ignatiusinsight.com/features/mbrumley_bouyer1_nov04.asp

The fact is the Reformation cannot ever be a success without the Catholic Church, without the Bishop of Rome. The Reformation is intended as such, a reform of the one True Church, of which we are both members.

Jon

 

[TertiumQuid]

Here’s another opportunity to explore what reading in context is all about.

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.

My point is (reinforced by McGrath), that the reformers “excluded from the canon of Scripture any works which happened to contradict [their] theology”, and THEN proclaimed that their theology was ‘Scriptural’. This charge is most applicable to Martin Luther, and thus to the theology which bears his name. This refers directly to my contention that Luther’s ‘problem’ with James had primarily to do with the Apostle being so obviously against Luther’s radical teaching of Salvation By Faith Alone.

Topper17 uses McGrath to prove the following:

1. McGrath says the Catholic response to Luther was ‘obvious’ because it “makes so much sense and is so logical.”
2. McGrath is saying the Reformers deemed certain books non-canonical in order to reject Catholic teaching.

This section of McGrath’s book is available via Google Books. It isn’t pages 151-152.

On page 96, McGrath documents the errors in the Latin Vulgate discovered by the humanists. On page 97, McGrath begins his treatment of Protestantism and the canon. McGrath notes that medieval theologians held Scripture meant= the Latin Vulgate. He then says the Reformers "felt able to call this judgement into question." The Reformers doubts on certain Old Testament books were based first on the fact that some were not found in the Hebrew Bible, but only found “in the Greek and Latin Bibles (such as the Vulgate)”. Then, “some of the reformers allowed the apocryphal works were edifying reading” but “there was general agreement that these works could not be used as the basis of doctrine.” McGrath’s basis for the Reformers then is that the medieval church (and Trent) defined the canon according to the Greek and Latin Bibles while the Reformers defined the Old Testament canon according to the Hebrew Bible. With that basis set up, McGrath then explains the relevance of the dispute.

Then comes the quote as used by Topper17. McGrath isn’t taking one side or the other in this quote. He isn’t saying the Catholic response to Luther was ‘obvious’ because it “makes so much sense and is so logical.” He’s saying that this was the quick and clever reply by the Catholic side. Nor is McGrath conceding the Reformers deemed certain books non-canonical primarily in order to reject Catholic teaching. The entire discussion on pages 97-98 as to the rejection of the apocryphal books was based on criticism of the tradition and errors of the Latin Vulgate.

See the definition of “Vulgate” in McGrath’s book on page 274:

The Latin translation of the Bible, mostly deriving from Jerome, upon which medieval theology was largely based. Strictly speaking, “Vulgate” designates Jerome’s translation of the Old Testament (except the Psalms, which were taken from the Gallican Psalter), the Apocryphal works (except Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and Baruch, which were taken from the Old Latin Version), and all the New Testament. The recognition of its many inaccuracies was of fundamental importance to the Reformation. see pp. 94-95.

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12470366]Hi Jon,

Actually Jon, you did admit something extremely significant. You were only stating an obvious fact that is apparent to everyone but it is important nonetheless. You said:

Originally Posted by JonNC

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

I’ve admitted nothing. I’ve made a statement of what I believe to be the facts, facts that I have never denied.

From that admission it follows that:

1. Given that James was written by the Apostle James, Luther should not have placed the book of James on his list of ‘doubted books’.

Luther didn’t. Eusebius did. And others. I know some may want to blame Luther for everything, out of an anti-Luther/anti-Lutheran apologia, but Eusebius lived a long time before Luther. Luther didn’t make up the term Antilegomena.

1. Luther should not have criticized the doctrinal teachings of James and should not have decided that it should not be used for determining doctrine. The same must be said of Lutheranism.

Luther had every right to criticize what he saw as the misuse of James at the time. You see, I recognize the fact that Luther lived in a different time than we do, something that is lost on some apologists on both times, who wish to fan the flames of division.

1. Given that Luther, and thus Lutheranism, incorrectly identified the Apostolic nature of James, their respective antilegomenias are in error.

Read Pieper.

1. Lutheranism, at this point should admit their error about James and officially pronounce it to be of equal authority as their 23 book Homologoumena. Will it or not?

Read Pieper.

1. Lutheran doctrines should be reviewed and changed as necessary in an effort to correct the mistaken placement of James into the Anti.

Read Pieper.

1. The above can also be said of Revelations and Jude, with Hebrews falling outside of this argument. As such though, the Lutheran approach to Scripture should include a 26 book Homo (at the very least).

May I suggest that Lutherans will not look at your suggestion as anything worth considering.

1. Given that Lutheranism is incorrectly using (at least) 3 NT books by not using them to determine doctrine, it is extremely likely that Lutheran doctrines are not really in keeping with either the Scriptures or the Apostles.

Read Pieper.

For some reason Jon, I don’t have any confidence that I would get straight answers to my questions there (either).

Perhaps it is the attitude with which the “questions” are presented.

I am not at all sure what your point is about the word “criticism”. Are you saying that Luther or Lutheranism should NOT be criticized here on CA, which by the way stands for “Catholic Answers”? I have asked legitimate questions and have made clear, well-reasoned, and well-documented criticisms of both Luther and Lutheranism.

Such nonsense. You know better than that. Luther and Lutheranism is often criticized here at CAF, by people who do it with charity and respect.

Your ‘concern’ about the word criticism reminds me of the article about Ben Affleck that I posted a couple of months ago. As you will remember Affleck was incensed that someone would criticize Islam.

From “Bishops, Bigots, and Ben Affleck”, by William Kilpatrick.

[Bill] “Maher made the point that liberals, if they are to be consistent, must criticize Islam’s illiberal principals. ** [Atheist Sam} Harris said, “We have to be able to criticize bad ideas. And Islam is the mother lode of bad ideas. **

**Affleck did not respond in kind. His remarks were along the lines of “It’s Gross! It’s racist,” and “Jesus! Its an ugly thing to say.” **

**In defense of their criticism of Islam, Maher and Harris produced a number of statistics, including polls showing that a majority of Muslims in various countries supported the harsher aspects of sharia law. **And Affleck and [columnist Nicholas] Kristoff? They produced the race card, the emotion card, and the moral superiority card. They didn’t have any arguments, but they did have feelings and fashionable attitudes. ……

**“What then? By conflating all Muslims with Islamic beliefs, Affleck was, in effect, positing a new civil right – the right not to have your beliefs criticized.” **Kilpatrick

With all that in mind, as you know,** I have a great deal of respect for Lutherans as individuals**

, especially the ones that really care about doctrine.
I have seen no evidence of the bolded in your history of posting here at CAF.

However, when I criticize Luther or Lutheranism, people seem to take it VERY personally

Consider this: I have had active, and at times heated discussions here at CAF with many, many a Catholic, and never took their comments personally. Why? Because they dialogue with charity and respect. They defend their positions, not by bashing others, but by presenting the Catholic view, sourcing their arguments with Catholic teaching.

For example, Randy Carson’s recent threads on the king and the steward are present a compelling argument from a CATHOLIC point of view.

Jon**

 

[benjohnson]

Anyway…how do you think your Reformation will ever succeed on its own without the big bad

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

The beginning portion of the quote you provide from McGrath says:* “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.”

You might want to start a thread about Luther and Lutheranism and praying for the dead. This thread, as you know is about Luther, Lutheranism and the NT Canon.

The subject of praying to the dead which you seem to have fixed on, was introduced ONLY because it was included in a McGrath quote which was actually about the subject of the thread, which again is - Luther, Lutheranism and the NT Canon. For the benefit of those who are new to the thread I will repost the appropriate and on-topic portion of the McGrath quote:

“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

My point is (reinforced by McGrath), that the reformers “excluded from the canon of Scripture any works which happened to contradict [their] theology”, and THEN proclaimed that their theology was ‘Scriptural’. This charge is most applicable to Martin Luther, and thus to the theology which bears his name. This refers directly to my contention that Luther’s ‘problem’ with James had primarily to do with the Apostle being so obviously against Luther’s radical teaching of Salvation By Faith Alone.

That is the point that you ignored, concentrating on the much less important (and much easier to deal with) matter of praying to the dead. Jon, I would like to get your reaction to that quote.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

A mix of two subjects. There is a dramatic difference between prayer to the dead, and prayer for the dead, and McGrath’s comments, at least what you have quoted, doesn’t speak to what you claim it does. The Lutheran confessions state clearly that we are not opposed prayer for the dead. So, I don’t know how this becomes an “errant” use of the NT.

First of all, with all due respect, nobody here is suggesting that Lutherans don’t pray for the dead, so I don’t have any idea why you are focusing on this minor and off topic point. On the other hand, in contrast to your statement, McGrath’s comments DO speak to exactly the issue at hand, which by the way is the NT Canon of Luther and Lutheranism. As a matter of fact, McGrath makes an almost identical argument in regards to the Wittenberg reformers, (and of course with Luther being the primary Wittenberg reformer), using theological criteria to judge the ‘orthodoxy’ of the Fathers. As we have learned, the key for Luther was whether a given book taught for or against Salvation by Faith Alone. That same ‘standard’ was applied to the Fathers also:

**‘The Wittenberg reformers, however, used an explicitly *theological *(emphasis McGrath) criterion in evaluating the Fathers: how reliable were they as interpreters of the New Testament? **On the basis of this criterion, Augustine was to be preferred, and Origin was to be treated with some suspicion. **The humanists were not prepared to use such an explicitly theological criterion in evaluating the relative merits of the Fathers, thus heightening the tension between the two movements.” **McGrath, “Reformation Thought”, pg. 62

As we have been reading, Luther judged books (yes whole books) of the Bible on the basis of his newly developed radical theology of Salvation by Faith Alone. Here McGrath informs us that Luther also ‘evaluated’ the Fathers on the basis of the same theological criterion. As we know from a variety of sources, Luther “preferred” Augustine. This must mean (as we ALWAYS hear), that in developing Salvation by Faith Alone, Luther was only ‘following’ Augustine. I wonder if, in reality, Augustine’s views could be used to support SBFA? I wonder if that is true?

I think that it is worth mentioning that none of the early Church Fathers who questioned the canonicity of James mentioned that it was because James spoke against Salvation by Faith Alone. The reason – nobody prior to Luther had ever ‘heard’ of Salvation by Faith Alone. Luther on the other hand mentions that James refuted his version of Salvation very bluntly and clearly:

1522 version: “In a word, he wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without works, but was unequal to the task in spirit, thought, and words. He mangles the Scriptures and thereby opposes Paul and all Scripture. [PE version: "rends the Scriptures and thereby resists Paul and all Scripture] He tries to accomplish by harping on the law what the apostles accomplish by stimulating people to love. **Therefore I will not have him in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books, **though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him. One man is no man in worldly things; how then, should this single man alone avail against Paul and all Scripture.”(LW, 35:395-398)

**“In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works **[2:24]. It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac [2:21]; though in Romans 4:2–22] St. Paul teaches to the contrary that Abraham was justified apart from works, by his faith alone, before he had offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15:6]. Now although this epistle might be helped and an interpretation devised for this justification by works, it cannot be defended in its application to works [Jas. 2:23] of Moses’ statement in Genesis 15:6]. For Moses is speaking here only of Abraham’s faith, and not of his works, as St. Paul demonstrates in Romans 4. This fault, therefore, proves that this epistle is not the work of any apostle.” LW 35, p. 396

Although McGrath states that Luther’s misgivings about four of the books of the NT gained little support, it is certainly no coincidence that the four books that Luther questioned just happen to be the exact same four books that the Lutherans have demoted to the antilegomena. And somehow, Lutherans claim that their church is following the judgments of the ancient church in the matter, and not Luther, and yet, there is not one Father who questioned those exact same four books. So who, specifically and exactly, provided the guidance for the Lutheran Church demoting four books of the NT into a category from which doctrine cannot be set? Only Luther used this criteria.

Only Luther judged James on the basis of it’s approach to Salvation as we will learn soon from an ‘unimpeachable source’. As such Luther’s criticism of James was NOT in keeping with ANY judgment of anyone from the early Church.

God Bless You Jon, Tim

 

[KjetilK]

Those same four books are the four books make up the antilegomena of Lutheranism, the books which are ‘not used to establish doctrine’. Furthermore, Lutheranism does not have a closed canon of Scriptures.

According to whom, exactly? It seems now that it has become my mission here to state, over and over again, that ‘Lutheranism’ is NOT a Church, but an ecclesial tradition (just like Byzantinianism), and that what you need to do is to ask what any particular Lutheran Church has to say on the matter. Just as there are major differences between particular Byzantine Churches such as the Russian Church (Moscow patriarchate) and the Bulgarian Greek Catholic Church (which is in Communion with Rome).

As a member of the Church of Norway, I have never, ever, heard anyone say that the four books in question makes up some kind of ‘antilegomena,’ and that we cannot use them ‘to establish doctrine.’

And it is true that ‘Lutheranism’ does not have a closed canon of Scriptures. But neither does ‘Byzantinianism.’ The Byzantine Churches in communion with Rome has the same canon as Rome, and the Orthodox Byzantine Churches have another canon. Again it needs to be said that, as Byzantinianism, Lutheranism is NOT a Church, but an ecclesial tradition. What you need to do is to ask what any given particular Lutheran Church has to say. If it is a problem for me, as a member of the Church of Norway, that ‘Lutheranism’ does not have a closed canon of Scriptures, then it is equally a problem for you, as a member of the Roman Catholic Church,* that ‘Byzantinianism’ does not have a closed canon of Scriptures.

And, since people seem to forget this over and over again, as a scholar Luther had/has no formal authority for Lutheran Churches. If he believed that the four books in question made up some kind of ‘antilegomena,’ it carries no more formal weight than the opinion of, say, Karl Rahner in the Roman Catholic Church.*

• I use ‘Roman Catholic’ as the name of the ‘collection’ of particular Churches in Communion with Rome, and in accordance with pope Pius XII’s use of this particular title in Humani generis, where he said that “the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.”

 

[JonNC]

According to whom, exactly? It seems now that it has become my mission here to state, over and over again, that ‘Lutheranism’ is NOT a Church, but an ecclesial tradition (just like Byzantinianism), and that what you need to do is to ask what any particular Lutheran Church has to say on the matter. Just as there are major differences between particular Byzantine Churches such as the Russian Church (Moscow patriarchate) and the Bulgarian Greek Catholic Church (which is in Communion with Rome).

As a member of the Church of Norway, I have never, ever, heard anyone say that the four books in question makes up some kind of ‘antilegomena,’ and that we cannot use them ‘to establish doctrine.’

And it is true that ‘Lutheranism’ does not have a closed canon of Scriptures. But neither does ‘Byzantinianism.’ The Byzantine Churches in communion with Rome has the same canon as Rome, and the Orthodox Byzantine Churches have another canon. Again it needs to be said that, as Byzantinianism, Lutheranism is NOT a Church, but an ecclesial tradition. What you need to do is to ask what any given particular Lutheran Church has to say. If it is a problem for me, as a member of the Church of Norway, that ‘Lutheranism’ does not have a closed canon of Scriptures, then it is equally a problem for you, as a member of the Roman Catholic Church,* that ‘Byzantinianism’ does not have a closed canon of Scriptures.

And, since people seem to forget this over and over again, as a scholar Luther had/has no formal authority for Lutheran Churches. If he believed that the four books in question made up some kind of ‘antilegomena,’ it carries no more formal weight than the opinion of, say, Karl Rahner in the Roman Catholic Church.*

• I use ‘Roman Catholic’ as the name of the ‘collection’ of particular Churches in Communion with Rome, and in accordance with pope Pius XII’s use of this particular title in Humani generis, where he said that “the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.”

The problem, Father K, is that Topper17 has made a huge mountain out of this molehill.
I have cited the Francis Pieper article:

In this connection the question has been asked whether the distinction between the homologoumena and the antilegomena has any “sweeping dogmatical significance.” We for our part answer No, assuming that the meaning is that he who regards and treats the antilegomena as canonical thereby obtains more and other doctrines. On the one hand we observe the distinction made by the ancient Church between the writings of the New Testament; on the other hand we are convinced that the antilegomena, even when taken by themselves, neither contain false doctrine nor yet a doctrine which goes beyond the doctrine contained in the books that have the unanimous testimony of the ecclesia primitiva. We are convinced that Rome and certain sectarians misuse the Epistle of James when they make it the protector of their doctrine of work-righteousness. We must simply keep in mind that James is speaking of faith not insofar as it justifies before God, but insofar as we are, according to God’s will and ordinance, to evidence our faith to men, which can be done only by works. James is addressing not so much the new man as the old man in the Christian. And the Apocalypse does not contain an inkling of that chiliasm with which old and modern chiliasts have disturbed and plagued the Church. …

IOW, doctrinally, it doesn’t matter whether or not one considers these books Antilagomena or homologoumena.

Jon

 

[pablope]

Before you make this a personal accusation,

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=250002

 

[TertiumQuid]

Luther had every right to criticize what he saw as the misuse of James at the time. You see, I recognize the fact that Luther lived in a different time than we do, something that is lost on some apologists on both times, who wish to fan the flames of division.

This is a good point- about the “different time”- and it is often lost in current squabbles. There is a sense in this historical controversy in which Luther’s responses were motivated by the comments of his Catholic detractors. I find it interesting that there are instances in Luther’s written corpus in which he adheres to the typical Protestant theological harmonization of James and Paul. Even though Luther knew how to harmonize James and Paul, it may be the case that the question of James’ apostleship out-weighed it. Luther certainly reacted to his Catholic opponents who repeatedly quoted the book of James to him. This indeed provoked him, but I wonder why he didn’t simply respond back with the harmonizing solution.

An interesting fact not usually mentioned is that even though Luther had doubts about James, these were not enough to deter him from preaching from the book. For instance, in 1536 Luther preached on James 1:16-21. Sermon for the Fourth Sunday after Easter, “Two things there are which part men from the Gospel: one is angry impatience, and the other evil lust. Of these James speaks in this epistle.” As one reads through it, it is apparent that Luther did find many good things in James worthy to be preached. Similarly, one can find Luther positively quoting from the book of James throughout his writings.

While I’m well aware that there are (unfortunately) people who simply mine writings for polemical purposes- there is an interesting pdf article, “A Right Strawy Epistle”: Reformation Perspectives on James" by Timothy George (Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, Fall 2000). While I’m not a big fan of Dr. George, this is an interesting article because it compares and contrasts Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Anabaptists, and Catholic views on the book of James. I don’t agree with everything presented, but the overall presentation is helpful to those interested in actual historical studies.

 

[TertiumQuid]

For the benefit of those who are new to the thread I will repost the appropriate and on-topic portion of the McGrath quote:

“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

My point is (reinforced by McGrath), that the reformers “excluded from the canon of Scripture any works which happened to contradict [their] theology”, and THEN proclaimed that their theology was ‘Scriptural’. This charge is most applicable to Martin Luther, and thus to the theology which bears his name. This refers directly to my contention that Luther’s ‘problem’ with James had primarily to do with the Apostle being so obviously against Luther’s radical teaching of Salvation By Faith Alone.

This section of McGrath’s book is available via Google Books. The reference given is to pages 151-152. Unless a different edition is being utilized, the quote is actually from page 98.

What I find interesting about the repeated citation from McGrath is that it raises an important methodological question. Why or when should something be cited? In its original context, McGrath isn’t intending to make the point Topper17 is making. Rather, he’s describing an historical situation and how Catholics responded to Luther. to cite McGrath correctly, one should say: McGrath described the 16th century Catholic response to Luther, and that’s my response as well.

Why not just simply make the point without citing McGrath? Simply by adding McGrath’s name and words out-of-context to a point one is making doesn’t give an argument more force. Quoting a book out-of-context actually works against the point being made.

Those arguments I find most compelling from those I disagree with are those that present historical research in context and with integrity. Those arguments I find least compelling are those that use quotes in the style of propaganda (information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.)

Continue on weary warriors.

 

[JonNC]

=pablope;12473944]
Of course, not your personally. I meant the Lutheran confessions. And I am familiar with your thread. At what point are you in this…My intention will be to contact my synod leaders, and petition them in this way. I hope you will do the same.
(if I may ask)

I have had some discussions about this with people within the synod. One of the things I hear is we have a particular understanding of the charge, which is not what people think of in some contemporary American groups - dispensationalists and the like.

Well, from your own thread, you admitted as much…to some degree we cannot distinguish between the man and the office. He is either Christian or not, and therefore so is the office.

It is hard, in our current times. We see things differently than they were seen 500 years ago. If nothing else, over the last 50 years or so, we see each other differently, at least most Lutherans and Catholics do. Some on both sides prefer the animosity for some reason.

I do not understand why all the pretense of trying to separate the man and office when you really cannot. Is it an attempt to rationalize?

I don’t think so. I think the understanding is the teaching rather than the man, and despite the teaching, the vast majority of Lutherans see the popes of recent vintage as good (sometimes great) Christian men and leaders. What’s interesting about that is, while this has been happening, you guys have the extreme traditionalists and sedavacantists on your other flank. I read some of their stuff and blush at the vitriol.

And that is why, I think it is closer to a Jekyll and Hyde look than a saint and sinner view

And I don’t. Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI are at the very top of my list of great Christian leaders in my lifetime. I no more think of them as “The Anti-Christ” than I do my own dad, who was a Lutheran pastor.

Jon