T
Topper17
Guest
Part 2:
Again, I am going to repost LCMS Pastor Moeller’s comments:
**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”
Jon, it seems to me that Pieper is trying to have his cake and eat it too. You simply CANNOT take 4 books out of the NT and place them into a ‘secondary category’ of the NT from which you will not develop doctrine, and claim that those 4 books did not make a difference – doctrinally.
It doesn’t make any sense to say that those books don’t contain doctrines at odds with Lutheran doctrine, and yet, for some reason, say that you shouldn’t determine doctrine from them. That is double speak.
Taking those 4 books and giving them a lesser importance does DAMAGE to Holy Scripture. Of course I know ALL about the ‘voices of antiquity’, but Jon, none of those ‘voices’ came up with Luther’s list of 4. Furthermore, since it is now KNOWN that Luther was WRONG about James and Revelation (include Jude here if you will) it then becomes a FACT that the current Lutheran (or maybe just the LCMS) approach to the Antilegomena and to Scripture is just flat out wrong, or at least inconsistent with the facts in a very crucial way.
Jon, the Holy Spirit inspired or authorized ALL of those books. Luther made a mistake about those books and you admitted that, at least about James. But to carry on that mistake knowing that it is an error is MUCH MORE than just a simple error. At that point, it becomes a very telling matter. Each of those 27 books were ‘authorized’ by the Holy Spirit for a reason. We don’t have to understand the reason that each was, but once those books are recognized as the actual writing of an Apostle, then they MUST take their place in the Homologemena and they MUST be used for doctrinal decisions. Lutheranism, or possibly it’s just the LCMS only, needs to do the right thing.
Pieper’s claim that taking those four books and placing them in the anti does not change doctrine is not credible even in the slightest. Pieper says:
**“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 unanimously testimony of the ecclesia primativa.” **Pieper
As you know well, Pieper here is refuting Luther in a very important matter.
The main reason that Luther included James in his list of questioned books is because he had such a ‘problem’ with the fact that it taught directly against his radical belief of Salvation by Faith Alone. He made that point VERY clear in his prefaces to the book of James in his ‘translation’ of the NT.
Futhermore, as we have learned, there is no specific connection between the judgments of the ancient Church in regards to the questioned books. There is however a very direct connection between Luther’s questioned/criticized/disrespected books and the Antilegomena of Lutheranism. My point is that Pieper’s comments do not match up with the facts and do not comport well either with logic and reason.
Lutheranism should correct their position on the placement of (at least) James and Revelations in the Antilegomena. But how can it do that without admitting ‘too much’. It would seem that this admission and change in policy would be going way too far down the slippery slope of admitting error on a hugely important issue - the ‘use’ of Holy Scripture.
God Bless You Jon, Topper
IOW, it doesn’t matter if you eliminate a bunch of books from the list from the list of books from which doctrines are determined? IOW, those four books don’t contain any doctrinal teachings that disagree with Lutheran doctrines, like on Salvation? That is NOT the way that Luther saw it at all.
Again, I am going to repost LCMS Pastor Moeller’s comments:
**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”
Jon, it seems to me that Pieper is trying to have his cake and eat it too. You simply CANNOT take 4 books out of the NT and place them into a ‘secondary category’ of the NT from which you will not develop doctrine, and claim that those 4 books did not make a difference – doctrinally.
It doesn’t make any sense to say that those books don’t contain doctrines at odds with Lutheran doctrine, and yet, for some reason, say that you shouldn’t determine doctrine from them. That is double speak.
Taking those 4 books and giving them a lesser importance does DAMAGE to Holy Scripture. Of course I know ALL about the ‘voices of antiquity’, but Jon, none of those ‘voices’ came up with Luther’s list of 4. Furthermore, since it is now KNOWN that Luther was WRONG about James and Revelation (include Jude here if you will) it then becomes a FACT that the current Lutheran (or maybe just the LCMS) approach to the Antilegomena and to Scripture is just flat out wrong, or at least inconsistent with the facts in a very crucial way.
Jon, the Holy Spirit inspired or authorized ALL of those books. Luther made a mistake about those books and you admitted that, at least about James. But to carry on that mistake knowing that it is an error is MUCH MORE than just a simple error. At that point, it becomes a very telling matter. Each of those 27 books were ‘authorized’ by the Holy Spirit for a reason. We don’t have to understand the reason that each was, but once those books are recognized as the actual writing of an Apostle, then they MUST take their place in the Homologemena and they MUST be used for doctrinal decisions. Lutheranism, or possibly it’s just the LCMS only, needs to do the right thing.
Pieper’s claim that taking those four books and placing them in the anti does not change doctrine is not credible even in the slightest. Pieper says:
**“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 unanimously testimony of the ecclesia primativa.” **Pieper
As you know well, Pieper here is refuting Luther in a very important matter.
The main reason that Luther included James in his list of questioned books is because he had such a ‘problem’ with the fact that it taught directly against his radical belief of Salvation by Faith Alone. He made that point VERY clear in his prefaces to the book of James in his ‘translation’ of the NT.
Futhermore, as we have learned, there is no specific connection between the judgments of the ancient Church in regards to the questioned books. There is however a very direct connection between Luther’s questioned/criticized/disrespected books and the Antilegomena of Lutheranism. My point is that Pieper’s comments do not match up with the facts and do not comport well either with logic and reason.
Lutheranism should correct their position on the placement of (at least) James and Revelations in the Antilegomena. But how can it do that without admitting ‘too much’. It would seem that this admission and change in policy would be going way too far down the slippery slope of admitting error on a hugely important issue - the ‘use’ of Holy Scripture.
God Bless You Jon, Topper