The New Testament Canons of Martin Luther and of Lutheranism

[JonNC]

=TertiumQuid;12474340]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.

Thanks, James. The thing about this is, ironically, that Luther was a strong preacher of good works. He is sometimes portrayed as being negative about works, but quite the opposite is true.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

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

Maybe we have a different definition of what the word ‘admit’ means. In my book, you made a very important ‘admission’ when you stated that:

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

Jon, from that ‘admission’ or whatever you want to call it, there MUST be logical conclusions. What I did is list out what I think those logical conclusions are. When you mentioned the ‘important meaning of James’ for Christians, what did you mean?

I know that you disagree with my list of logical inferences, but honestly, what would be important would be if you could state specifically why.

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.

He didn’t? Seriously? He didn’t “place James on his list of doubted books’? The actual history of the matter records Luther as saying the following:

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/**U]. 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)

A better question I think would be whether a single man (Luther) should attempt to prevail against the Apostle James.

“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

Jon, as you know, Luther said a LOT more than the above about James. If saying that ‘this is not the work of an apostle’ is not placing James on his list of ‘doubted books’, as I said, then what possibly could be? Your statement that “Luther didn’t” - is false.

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.

Jon, until now, nobody has said anything about the ‘misuse of James at the time.’ In fact, Luther NEVER made that comment and nobody has on this thread has made that argument until just now, and it is NOT the issue. What Luther criticized is the actual doctrinal teachings of the book of James, which means that he criticized the actual doctrinal teachings of an Apostle appointed by Christ. I applaud you for admitting (or whatever) that Luther was wrong about the Apostolic authorship of James, but the matter does not end there. That statement has major ramifications in regards to Luther’s authority to teach and the credibility of his rebellion against the Church. Given that Lutheranism accepted Luther’s errant judgment about James (and other books too), there are logical conclusions about whether the approach of Lutheranism to the canon is valid.

In response to my points 3, 4, 5, and 7 from my post number 180 you only said:

Read Pieper.

Please understand Jon that I HAVE read Pieper and I might be the only one here who actually has. Nothing in Pieper deals with ANY of my seven points. If you believe otherwise, then you should post a quote from him and make your case here, making your argument available for review and follow-up questions. I am perfectly willing to consider anything you and Pieper have to say, but I am not buying the ‘fact’ that there is a response buried in Pieper somewhere that you are not willing to post.

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

Of course you may Jon, but it would be an unnecessary and pointless comment to make. Just to make sure though, it is ME who is being accused of being personally uncharitable and disrespectful - right?

To be continued:

 

[Topper17]

Part 2:

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.

Nonsense? I know better than what? I happen to work pretty hard on my posts and I think that that hard work makes them more convincing. I would suggest that if my posts were ineffective, Lutherans wouldn’t have much of a problem with them but would be very willing to address them point by point defeating each of my arguments in turn.

I brought up Affleck for a reason. If you will remember, Affleck, in trying to silence his ‘opponents’ cried out ‘racist’. Kilpatrick suggests that Affleck had no response to the facts and polls that were introduced in opposition to his position. Kilpatrick says of Affleck that he ‘didn’t have any arguments, but (he) did have feelings and fashionable attitudes……Affleck was, in effect, positing a new civil right – the right not to have your beliefs criticized.”

That’s the way I see it Jon and I apologize for any hurt feelings here, but by the same token, it is the facts themselves which are critical of Luther. My opinions should be seen as just that and they should be judged against the opinions of those who always defend him. I offer my opinions for consideration and fully expect and WANT them to be opposed. I offer up actual substance that I think supports my positions and I would very much appreciate it if someone here could put up a solid, substantive in defense of theirs.

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.

Jon – what I do here is NOT ‘bashing’ Luther, in the exact same way as what Affleck was faced with was NOT bashing Islam. Revealing the truth and attempting to have an honest open dialogue is NOT bashing. As you know very well, I am very much appreciate specific and exact arguments, because I believe that the relative validity of one position vs. another will be made clear when the specifics and the exacts of the two arguments are revealed. This generalized complaint about bashing and the like, with no specifics, will not be compelling to anyone other than those people who are already inclined to that particular emotional reaction.

I actually think that there is no way that I could possibly post my evidence, ask my questions and explain my positions WITHOUT being accused of bashing, and of demonstrating a supposed lack of ‘charity and respect’. In other words, ISTM that it is the IDEAS that I present that are objectionable to some people, and that what some want is for me to stop presenting those ideas here for the consideration of all.

I strongly believe though that this is exactly the kind of place where opposing ideas and opinions should be presented so that everyone is exposed to the arguments of both sides. Obviously not everyone feels that way.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[Even_So]

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

This needs some elabortatin. Christ: infallible. Church: human, until Jesus comes back to right the ship. As long as the human element is present, can any church be perfect? Now is the church human or just a building?

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12475482]Part 2:

Nonsense? I know better than what? I happen to work pretty hard on my posts and I think that that hard work makes them more convincing. I would suggest that if my posts were ineffective, Lutherans wouldn’t have much of a problem with them but would be very willing to address them point by point defeating each of my arguments in turn.

Yes, nonsense. You said:

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.

That is nonsense, and you know it. Guanophore criticizes Luther and Lutheranism. So do Gabriel of 12, Joe371, Contarini, Randy Carson and numerous others here at CA. And I have participated in dialogue and debate with many of them, and I do not object to their doing so. Even I have criticized Luther (though I am not willing to satisfy some by throwing him under the bus, and backing up over him for good measure). So you even asking the question of me in the bold is nonsense.

So, what’s the difference? They criticize from the position of an apologist a person who defends or supports something (such as a religion, cause, or organization) that is being criticized or attacked by other people ]. They defend their Catholic faith by presenting the Catholic POV, witness Randy’s recent threads.
What I object to is polemics a strong written or spoken attack against someone else’s opinions, beliefs, practices, etc.). And I object to it from both sides of the Tiber. I have been known to criticize non-Catholics for polemical attacks on Catholicism as well. I stand by my record here at CAF.

I brought up Affleck for a reason. If you will remember, Affleck, in trying to silence his ‘opponents’ cried out ‘racist’. Kilpatrick suggests that Affleck had no response to the facts and polls that were introduced in opposition to his position. Kilpatrick says of Affleck that he ‘didn’t have any arguments, but (he) did have feelings and fashionable attitudes……Affleck was, in effect, positing a new civil right – the right not to have your beliefs criticized.”

And to imply that this is my position, as you have clearly done here, is complete and utter nonsense.

That’s the way I see it Jon and I apologize for any hurt feelings here, but by the same token, it is the facts themselves which are critical of Luther.

What’s amazing is that you continue to have the impression that I and others have never heard your style of polemics before, as if you are some kind of trailblazer, exposing the secrets of the Luther that have been hidden by Lutherans for centuries. You haven’t “hurt my feelings”. What you continue to hurt the Catholic position, and Catholics here have admonished you for it in the past.

Jon – what I do here is NOT ‘bashing’ Luther, in the exact same way as what Affleck was faced with was NOT bashing Islam. Revealing the truth and attempting to have an honest open dialogue is NOT bashing.

Yes, I mentioned that already above, this odd notion that you are revealing something new.

**As you know very well, I am very much appreciate specific and exact arguments, **because I believe that the relative validity of one position vs. another will be made clear when the specifics and the exacts of the two arguments are revealed.

Actually, you have continued throughout this thread to reject specific and exact responses, claiming you don’t feel obliged to open a link, that doing so somehow limits the open dialogue.

This generalized complaint about bashing and the like, with no specifics, will not be compelling to anyone other than those people who are already inclined to that particular emotional reaction.

It isn’t an emotional reaction, at least not by me. It is an evaluation of a polemical approach, borne of an obvious singularly focused anti-Luther apologia. One need only do a search of your posts to witness this. Even your thread about Afleck you’ve revealed here had an ulterior motive related specifically to your polemical approach.

I actually think that there is no way that I could possibly post my evidence, ask my questions and explain my positions WITHOUT being accused of bashing, and of demonstrating a supposed lack of ‘charity and respect’. In other words, ISTM that it is the IDEAS that I present that are objectionable to some people, and that what some want is for me to stop presenting those ideas here for the consideration of all.

Why not study those Catholics here that do post with respect and charity?

I strongly believe though that this is exactly the kind of place where opposing ideas and opinions should be presented so that everyone is exposed to the arguments of both sides. Obviously not everyone feels that way.

Then you have no objections to my evaluating your polemical approach.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12475476]
Maybe we have a different definition of what the word ‘admit’ means. In my book, you made a very important ‘admission’ when you stated that:

The term is vague enough a statement or action by which someone admits a weakness, fault, etc.) that I will not use it with you.

Jon, from that ‘admission’ or whatever you want to call it

I intend to call it a statement.

, there MUST be logical conclusions. What I did is list out what I think those logical conclusions are. When you mentioned the ‘important meaning of James’ for Christians, what did you mean?

The Pieper article states it.

He didn’t? Seriously? He didn’t “place James on his list of doubted books’? The actual history of the matter records Luther as saying the following:

He didn’t do it initially, and that’s the point. Luther had the liberty of his opinions, which are reflective both of his understanding of the authorship (which turns out to be incorrect), and its place in the history of the primitive Church (which is correct).

A better question I think would be whether a single man (Luther) should attempt to prevail against the Apostle James.

then you need to ask that question of Eusebius, and many others.

Jon, as you know, Luther said a LOT more than the above about James. If saying that ‘this is not the work of an apostle’ is not placing James on his list of ‘doubted books’, as I said, then what possibly could be? Your statement that “Luther didn’t” - is false.

The book was already on the list of doubted books. He did, in fact, continue in that already established view.

Jon, until now, nobody has said anything about the ‘misuse of James at the time.’ In fact, Luther NEVER made that comment and nobody has on this thread has made that argument until just now, and it is NOT the issue.

So you think the historical context of some of Luther’s comments about James is not germane?

I applaud you for admitting (or whatever) that Luther was wrong about the Apostolic authorship of James, but the matter does not end there.

As your opinion of Luther means nothing in the end, as well.

That statement has major ramifications in regards to Luther’s authority to teach and the credibility of his rebellion against the Church. Given that Lutheranism accepted Luther’s errant judgment about James (and other books too), there are logical conclusions about whether the approach of Lutheranism to the canon is valid.

The Lutheran view of certain books as disputed is not errant, it is a historical fact.

Please understand Jon that I HAVE read Pieper and I might be the only one here who actually has. Nothing in Pieper deals with ANY of my seven points.
If you believe otherwise, then you should post a quote from him and make your case here, making your argument available for review and follow-up questions. I am perfectly willing to consider anything you and Pieper have to say, but I am not buying the ‘fact’ that there is a response buried in Pieper somewhere that you are not willing to post.

If you will not “buy” them from Pieper, then anything I add will also be unbought. The Pieper article responses specifically to your “questions”.

Jon

 

[benjohnson]

Why not study those Catholics here that do post with respect and charity?

Topper, if you can’t do this for charity - do it for the Holy Spirit. In my opinion, your form of polemics is not conductive to gathering people closer to God.

Even if you think your point is valid, I’ve seen that rubbing people noses in it can compel a distancing and a potential hardening of the heart.

 

[Denise1957]

,

“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

Jon, as you know, Luther said a LOT more than the above about James. If saying that ‘this is not the work of an apostle’ is not placing James on his list of ‘doubted books’, as I said, then what possibly could be? Your statement that “Luther didn’t” - is false.

I don’t know much about this subject, but in reading that Martin Luther believed that the Epistle of St. James could not have been the work of any Apostle, there’s a difference between what he believed, and what Eusebius believed regarding the canonicity of James. (One forum member has been bringing up Eusebius as a reason why Luther didn’t accept the Epistle of James). However, I don’t think that Eusebius outright believd that it could not have been written by St. James or any Apostle - he just ‘doubted’ it, from what I have researched this morning. St. Jerome, who was very familiar with the work of Eusebius, did include the Epistle of St. James in his Vulgate, but he also agreed with Eusebius regarding St. James In that it may not be canonical. Still, St. Jerome included it in the Vulgate, as far as I can tell.

The Council of Trent declared that the Epistle of St. James is canonical, though. I wonder why Eusebius was never canonized (though I think he is considered to be an early Church Father)? St. Jerome, however, is a canonized saint, and Doctor of the Church. I think that Eusebius also was sympathetic to some of the views of the Arians, though St. Jerome doesn’t appear to have been too bothered by this.

I’d like to mention that I think that you have been charitable in presenting your views, Topper, and it’s not fair of the Lutherans here to accuse you of being uncharitable. I think that this thread topic is a good one, and educational too.

 

[JonNC]

I don’t know much about this subject, but in reading that Martin Luther believed that the Epistle of St. James could not have been the work of any Apostle, there’s a difference between what he believed, and what Eusebius believed regarding the canonicity of James. (One forum member has been bringing up Eusebius as a reason why Luther didn’t accept the Epistle of James). However, I don’t think that Eusebius outright believd that it could not have been written by St. James or any Apostle - he just ‘doubted’ it, from what I have researched this morning. St. Jerome, who was very familiar with the work of Eusebius, did include the Epistle of St. James in his Vulgate, but he also agreed with Eusebius regarding St. James In that it may not be canonical. Still, St. Jerome included it in the Vulgate, as far as I can tell.

The Council of Trent declared that the Epistle of St. James is canonical, though. I wonder why Eusebius was never canonized (though I think he is considered to be an early Church Father)? St. Jerome, however, is a canonized saint, and Doctor of the Church. I think that Eusebius also was sympathetic to some of the views of the Arians, though St. Jerome doesn’t appear to have been too bothered by this.

I’d like to mention that I think that you have been charitable in presenting your views, Topper, and it’s not fair of the Lutherans here to accuse you of being uncharitable. I think that this thread topic is a good one, and educational too.

Denise,
I have always found your assessment of things are reasonable. If you think I have been unfair to Topper I will ponder that, and honestly consider.

As for James, our tradition has never considered less than disputed, but it has been always part of the NT canon.

Jon

 

[Denise1957]

Denise,
I have always found your assessment of things are reasonable. If you think I have been unfair to Topper I will ponder that, and honestly consider.

As for James, our tradition has never considered less than disputed, but it has been always part of the NT canon.

Jon

Thanks, Jon

Didn’t Martin Luther want James excluded from his Bible?

 

[JonNC]

Thanks, Jon

Didn’t Martin Luther want James excluded from his Bible?

I don’t believe it to be the case. One reasonable criticism of Luther is that he had a streak of arrogance, over and above the hyperbole that is sometimes mistaken for arrogance. Had he wanted to exclude a book, he easily could have done it while in hiding at Wartburg, or he could have done so anytime, considering that he worked on his translation for years.

I believe Luther was more constrained by the tradition and history of the Church than his modern detractors are willing to admit, hence the inclusion of the OT deuterocanonical books.

Jon

 

[Denise1957]

I don’t believe it to be the case. One reasonable criticism of Luther is that he had a streak of arrogance, over and above the hyperbole that is sometimes mistaken for arrogance. Had he wanted to exclude a book, he easily could have done it while in hiding at Wartburg, or he could have done so anytime, considering that he worked on his translation for years.

I believe Luther was more constrained by the tradition and history of the Church than his modern detractors are willing to admit, hence the inclusion of the OT deuterocanonical books.

Jon

I think you’re right. I was too hasty in assuming that Martin Luther didn’t want James to be included in the bible; rather it was the canon he did not want it included in. If I’m not mistaken, James was included at the end of his Bible - but still, it is there, I think. But I think that Topper does make a good point about Martin Luther not considering James to have been written by any Apostle.

I think it was accepted universally as part of the canon by the Church quite awhile before Luther lived, but I don’t know if that means that the Church considered it to be written by an Apostle. But didn’t Luther have a problem with what was written in the Epistle of James, regarding faith and works?

 

[JonNC]

It is time for me to withdraw from this thread. In parting, specific responses:

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’.

From Luther’s understanding of the time, and the history of the book, for Luther to maintain that the primitive Church was correct about James seems reasonable.

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.

From the Pieper article:

"…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. "

The writers are clear that the status of James would not change doctrines, that James is compatible , not only with Paul, but with the Lutheran understanding of the role of good works in the life of the regenerate.

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

Merely by recognizing that the early Church held these books to be antilegomena is not an error. It is historically accurate.

However, he (Gerhard) adds this remark: “In the meantime, however, because there was at times doubt in the primitive Church on the part of some about the author of this book, we for this reason refer it to the canonical books of the second rank; not indeed detracting from its canonical authority, still not simply and in all respects classifying it with the rest of the canonical books about which there never was any doubt; and by the fairest right we demand that the interpretation of such a book in no manner conflict with the canonical books of the first rank.”7 This, however, as a matter of fact, amounts to the distinction between homologoumena and antilegomena. As we cannot speak in the doctrine of God of a Godhead of the second rank (as old and modern subordinationists indeed do), so we cannot, without a certain self-contradiction, speak of deutero-canonical writings in the doctrine of Holy Scripture, which are God’s inviolable Word.

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?

The notion that Lutherans need to admit an error is polemical at best. From the article I posted from J. A. O. Preus:

Gerhard marks a definite change in thinking among Lutherans on this subject. While some men before Gerhard, such as Hutter and Schroeder, had taken much the same position he did, because of Gerhard’s great prestige as well as his full treatment of the matter, after his time the dogmaticians, while still paying lip-service to Chemnitz, for all practical purposes abolished the distinction between homologoumena and Antilegomena. This is the state of affairs which continues to the present day. It is quite close to the position of the Romanists and the Reformed, Only at rare intervals,
as in the case of Dr. Walther and Pastor Roebbelin, has the distinction been revived as a living theological factor.21 Of course, in saying the Lutherans have approached the Roman and Reformed position, we mean only that all three communions accept 27 books. The Lutherans have never made the Canon a matter of conciliar or
confessional decision.
.
To complete the picture up to the end of the age of orthodoxy, we can cite a few more witnesses. John Andrew Quenstedt, 16 17-88, nephew of John Gerhard and father-in-law of Abraham Calov, voices virtually the same opinion as Gerhard, “We call those
books of the New Testament protocanonical, or of the first rank, concerning whose authority and secondary authors there never was any doubt in the church; and those deuterocanonical, or of the second rank, concerning whose secondary authors (not their authority, however) there were at times doubts entertained by some. There was doubt, I say, and discussion concerning these books, yet not among all, merely among a few; not at all times, only occasionally. And these doubts did not have reference so much to their
divine authority or primary author, the Holy Spirit, as to their secondary authors.“28 Quenstedt even says that knowledge of the secondary author is unimportant, “For even if Philip or Bartholomew had written that gospel which is read under the name of Matthew,
it does not affect saving faith.“

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

Alreay answered:

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.

continued

 

[JonNC]

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).

Answered in the response to #4.

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.

Answered already.

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.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I think you’re right. I was too hasty in assuming that Martin Luther didn’t want James to be included in the bible; rather it was the canon he did not want it included in. If I’m not mistaken, James was included at the end of his Bible - but still, it is there, I think. But I think that Topper does make a good point about Martin Luther not considering James to have been written by any Apostle.

I think it was accepted universally as part of the canon by the Church quite awhile before Luther lived, but I don’t know if that means that the Church considered it to be written by an Apostle. But didn’t Luther have a problem with what was written in the Epistle of James, regarding faith and works?

Universally accepted is probably to strong a description. Certainly it was accepted by most. The Lutheran view, as some of the articles I’ve provided indicate, is to both acknowledge those who accepted, while not losing site of the fact that is wasn’t universal.

TertiumQuid alludes to this in a prior post, that Luther seems at times to speak to this “James contradicts Paul” approach, and at other times seems to recognize the more prevalent “protestant” view that they do in fact agree.

I might add that when one hears an epistle reading from James, or Jude, or Hebrews, or Revelation in a Lutheran Church, the reading always concludes with, “This is the word of the Lord.”

We consider them canonical.

Jon

 

[Denise1957]

Universally accepted is probably to strong a description. Certainly it was accepted by most. The Lutheran view, as some of the articles I’ve provided indicate, is to both acknowledge those who accepted, while not losing site of the fact that is wasn’t universal.

TertiumQuid alludes to this in a prior post, that Luther seems at times to speak to this “James contradicts Paul” approach, and at other times seems to recognize the more prevalent “protestant” view that they do in fact agree.

I might add that when one hears an epistle reading from James, or Jude, or Hebrews, or Revelation in a Lutheran Church, the reading always concludes with, “This is the word of the Lord.”

We consider them canonical.

Jon

But did Martin Luther himself consider James to be canonical?

 

[JonNC]

But did Martin Luther himself consider James to be canonical?

I doubt it. He says, however, at the start of his preface:
"Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, 1 I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle; and my reasons follow.
In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works. It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac; though in Romans 4 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. Now although this epistle might be helped and an interpretation 2 devised for this justification by works, it cannot be defended in its application to works of Moses’ statement in Genesis 15. 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.
"

He’s clear here that this is his opinion. I disagree with his conclusion, and the way he expresses the concern about works and his view that James in contrary to Paul.

Jon

 

[Denise1957]

I doubt it. He says, however, at the start of his preface:
"Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, 1 I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle; and my reasons follow.
In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works. It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac; though in Romans 4 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. Now although this epistle might be helped and an interpretation 2 devised for this justification by works, it cannot be defended in its application to works of Moses’ statement in Genesis 15. 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.
"

He’s clear here that this is his opinion. I disagree with his conclusion, and the way he expresses the concern about works and his view that James in contrary to Paul.

Jon

Thanks, I think you’ve answered my question.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Kjet,

Thanks for your response.

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.’

It would appear that the various ‘traditions’ within Lutheranism do not have a unified approach to the canon. To be sure, I am not aware of the doctrinal differences between American and European Lutheranism. But as far as the LCMS is concerned, Pastor Moeller (among many others) makes it very clear that the LCMS at least does not use the four books of the Antilegomena to establish doctrine.

**The “disputed” character of these books surfaced at the time of the Reformation. Luther, for instance, placed Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Apocalypse at the end of his New Testament, as books from which one did not draw doctrine. ****He felt that certain of their teachings could not have come from apostles, since some teachings disagreed, he thought, with what e.g. Paul had written in his undisputed letters. (**The apocryphal books of the Old Testament, the surplus of the Alexandrian canon as compared to the Palestinian canon, were likewise not to be considered canonical. In general, **when Lutheran teachings were later delineated, the antilegomena books were not used to establish doctrine in the church. **In the Missouri Synod up through the 20’s this same attitude and approach prevailed.” Moeller Missouri’s Critical Issue

I am not surprised that your Norwegian version of Lutheranism has such a different concept of the anti/homo. Given that Lutheranism has no real central authority, it is inevitable that the various Lutheran ‘traditions’ will continue to become more and more doctrinally diverse.

Kjet, I would like to know though whether there is any difference in the way that the 27 NT books are approached and ‘utilized’ between the LCMS and the Church of Norway. In other words, is there any difference between authenticity or authority of James as opposed to any other NT book?

As for Luther’s ‘authority’, the ‘level’ of that authority to determine doctrine was MUCH greater in the early days of Lutheranism than is commonly believed today. Lutheran Professor Robert Kolb does an extremely good job of outlining the stages of Luther’s perceived authority within Lutheranism in “Martin Luther, as Prophet, Teacher, and Hero”. Lutherans today have a completely different concept of Luther’s authority within Lutheranism than the did the early Lutheran communion. I think that many Lutherans here would be absolutely shocked to learn just how revered Luther in the first hundred years or so of Lutheranism, even to the point of being considered a Biblical type Prophet. The idea that Lutheranism just sort of “happened” to develop an Antilegomena that is the same as Luther’s list of 4 ‘doubted books’ is inconsistent with early Lutheran history. Luther had a tremendous level of doctrinal authority in early Lutheranism.

God Bless You Kjet, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

The problem, Father K, is that Topper17 has made a huge mountain out of this molehill.

“a huge mountain out of a molehill”?

Jon, since you have gone out of your way to disparage both the topic and my approach to it, it is only fair that I offer the following facts and observations.

I would submit that your actions indicate that you believe that this subject is the exact opposite of a ‘molehill’. After all, you were the very first one to respond to my OP. In addition, you have responded to every one of my posts, sometimes with more than one post in response to one of mine. Furthermore, it has not gone unnoticed that during a 7 day period, you posted 15 posts on this thread and NONE anywhere else, which is quite unlike you. At this point you have made 60 posts on this topic, far more than my 35. It would appear that this is a very important ‘molehill’ to you. I believe it is too, as I have stated. I believe that within this subject we see revealed a lot about both Luther’s and Lutheranism’s approach to Scripture, and thus about Luther and Lutheranism.

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. … Pieper

Jon, I have reposted your Pieper quote (above) because I too believe that it is important to this discussion.

Jon, We, meaning the Catholic Church, are convinced that Lutheranism is wrong in about the Homo/Anti. The “We are convinced” is, it appears, represents an opinion and one that should be refuted. In other words, the ‘We are convinced’ is not convincing.

To be continued: