The Origin of the Bible

[josie_L]

Again, Luther translated and included all 73 of the books histroically in the western Church’s Bible. Luther threw none of them away, any more than St. Jerome or Cardinal Cajetan did.
Luther didn’t “not like them”. He, like many other theologians, questioned their canonicty. But he did say the were valuable to read and study. And so thinking he translated and included all 73 of the books historically found in the western Church’s Bible.

One more point, there was never unanimity about the canon in the so-called pre-Luther Church. Orthodoxy’s canon was and continues to be different.

Jon

But Jon both Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) agree (were always in agreement) with the 73 books as being inspired whereas Protestants don’t (why are there less books and not more in the Bible Protestants read)? Either the deuterocanonical are inspired or they are not? From the looks of it the overwhelming evidence states they are.

 

[JonNC]

Luther was disobedient and cared more about ego than unity.

How was Luther disobedient regarding the canon of scripture?

Please cite a source that proves Luther cared more about ego than unity. I could say the same thing about Pope Leo X, not that saying it about either does any good whatsoever.

Jon

 

[po18guy]

I didn’t read all of your post,

It’s just as well you did not read it. It is likely a cut and paste from some anti-Catholic’s site. Notice there was no attribution.

p.s. If teachers of the Church err then I would suppose you do not go to Church (otherwise how would you know if what you preacher says is being infallibly interpreted, or is it you who interprets infallibly)? If it’s you who interprets infallibly (through the HS) than it is not the Bible who is the infallible authority for interpreting the Bible.

Bible Christians have a foundation of sand. They do not believe the bible, but rather in their personal opinion of what the bible says. That is sand. That is also why none of them can agree.

 

[JonNC]

But Jon both Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) agree (were always in agreement) with the 73 books as being inspired whereas Protestants don’t (why are there less books and not more in the Bible Protestants read)? Either the deuterocanonical are inspired or they are not? From the looks of it the overwhelming evidence states they are.

I don’t know about overwhelming evidence, but by majority rule, you are probably right. And I admit, there is something to be said down through 2000 years about majority rule.
And I’ve said before, I think Lutheran Bibles should be printed as Luther did (well, except in English for Americans, of course ), with the d-c included.
I also think it is just historically incorrect to say:

“Luther threw out 7 books.” He didn’t. Those books are in his translation for anyone to see. If one wants to criticize modern Protestantism, ok.

“Luther was disobedient concerning his view of the canon”. He wasn’t. He was doing what many theologians did. If Luther was disobedient, so was Jerome, and Cajetan, and many others. It was permitted by the Church to challenge the canon until Trent, and Trent didn’t cover Luther.

Jon

 

[Tuttle01]

The deutercanonical books were always accepted by the Church as inspired scripture, that some individuals had reservations about it throughout time means nothing. The many councils established to verify the canonicity of the deuterocanonicals were always upheld.

While you may want this, it is alas untrue.

 

[po18guy]

How was Luther disobedient regarding the canon of scripture?

Please cite a source that proves Luther cared more about ego than unity. I could say the same thing about Pope Leo X, not that saying it about either does any good whatsoever.

Jon

Basics: Luther was a Catholic priest. At that time, the leaders of the Church were corrupt, but the Church itself still labored under the hope of Christ’s promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against her. The practice of the leaders was sinful, placing their souls in peril, but the official teaching of the Church was not affected by their sinful actions. They were hypocrites. However, even Christ advised the faithful to follow the teaching of the Pharisees because, while they were corrupt, their teaching remained sound.

The vast majority of Catholic priests remained faithful to the Church, in spite of the corrupt leaders, because they perceived the greater good that was to be served. Luther’s act of separation from the Church is the very definition of disobedience. Clearly, Luther must have suffered a loss of hope for him to take such radical action. Combined with that loss of hope, his well-known ego filled in the rest and he assumed his own authority.

The corruption of the Church leaders died off with them, reforms were made, but the Sacred Body of Christ was forever divided, losing strength against the evil one. Fast forward 500 years: the divided and weakened Body of Christ struggles against the unified body of evil. This is why I assert:

The Holy Spirit unites.
The demon divides.

Christ’s peace be with you.

 

[Tuttle01]

Your unusual opinion is noted. So, did the Lord Himself hand you your bible? The canon of scripture was settled in 384 by Pope Damasus 1 ad the Church council. You obviously do not believe this, just as you have chosen not to believe so much else of God’s revealed truth.

So what?You, out of ignorance or false teaching, refer to God’s word as apocrypha. Please consider who you are actually insulting. Certainly, Jerome had reservations, but for the sake of unity and obedience, he deferred to the authority of the Church. He later recanted his objections to it. He is a Saint. Luther was disobedient and cared more about ego than unity. He is not a Saint.

You are funny! So, you prefer the authority of man to the authority given by God? Amazing!

No, you see you want the authority of men so much that you will take their word as if it is infallible placing them on the same plain as God. Christians follow God, not someone in an ivory tower who presumes God’s power

 

[po18guy]

While you may want this, it is alas untrue.

That was soooooo easy for you to say, wasn’t it?

 

[JonNC]

What I refer to is Luther’s self-appointed authority to “demote” Sacred Scripture to the level of “apochrypha”. He had no church council to assist him - he did it by himself. So, it was man made, that is, outside of the authority of the Church that Christ founded.

How do you see Luther conferring upon himself a self-appointed authority for holding an opinion, shared by many, dating back to the early Church?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

The vast majority of Catholic priests remained faithful to the Church, in spite of the corrupt leaders, because they perceived the greater good that was to be served. Luther’s act of separation from the Church is the very definition of disobedience. Clearly, Luther must have suffered a loss of hope for him to take such radical action. Combined with that loss of hope, his well-known ego filled in the rest and he assumed his own authority.

Christ’s peace be with you.

And His peace also with you.

My question was, where was he disobedient regarding the canon of scripture? This is what the discussion is about.

We can discuss the ego thing on another thread.

The Holy Spirit unites.
The demon divides.

Pray He works the hearts of our leaders to unify us, my brother in Christ.

Jon

 

[po18guy]

No, you see you want the authority of men so much that you will take their word as if it is infallible placing them on the same plain as God. Christians follow God, not someone in an ivory tower who presumes God’s power

OK, I’ll make it simple:

Did Jesus give His Apostles authority? (John 20:22-23)

Did Jesus tell them “He who hears you hears me”? (Luke 10:16)

Did the Apostles act within that authority throughout history? (the entire Book of Acts and subsequent history)

I can understand your bible -based opinions, but rather than denying yourself (Matthew 15:24, Mark 8:34) you grant yourself an indulgence and seek private interpretation of God’s word. God Himself provided a Church, not only to write that word, but to teach you what it means. You remain outside in the darkness and then complain about the light from within hurting your eyes!

 

[po18guy]

How do you see Luther conferring upon himself a self-appointed authority for holding an opinion, shared by many, dating back to the early Church?

Jon

First, he separated from the Catholic Church by his “own authority”.
He added “allein” (“alone”) to the letter to the Romans “by my own authority”
Luther then sought to exclude the letter of James, which disagreed with his personal opinion - by his “own authority”.
He separated the Deuterocanonical scripture from the other 66 books - leaving it in the bible which bears his name, but then declaring it to be non-inspired, by his “own authority”.
Luther, by his “own authority”, rejected the authority of the very Church that Christ founded upon Peter, and to which he had vowed obedience.
Luther, by his “own authority”, introduced the heresy of sola scriptura, which formalized the rejection of the Christ-given Church authority.

If he had done all of this in accord with the Church council against a rebel Pope, I could understand it. But he did all of this by his “own authority” - that of man and not of God.

Simply put, Luther lost hope.

 

[po18guy]

And His peace also with you.
My question was, where was he disobedient regarding the canon of scripture? This is what the discussion is about.
We can discuss the ego thing on another thread.

Ah, but it’s been done to death, hasn’t it? I was just veering off on a tangent.
Pray He works the hearts of our leaders to unify us, my brother in Christ.

JonFrom your lips to God’s ears! Amen!

 

[po18guy]

No, you see you want the authority of men so much that you will take their word as if it is infallible placing them on the same plain as God. Christians follow God, not someone in an ivory tower who presumes God’s power

Are you speaking of the local pastor who has appointed himself pope, but without the assistance of the entire Church council? Yes, I agree with you 100%.

 

[JonNC]

=po18guy;5544325]He separated from the Catholic Church, correct?

Immaterial. And he was excommunicated, so he had help.

He added “allein” to the letter to the Romans “by my own authority”

Good point. In the German, he felt it necessary to add the word in order to convey the meaning in German. It isn’t in any English translation, since it isn’t necessary to convey the meaning in English. And his sarcasm regarding the criticism is noted.
And your are right, that sarcasm does come across as egotistical and as claiming authority. Make sure, however, you read that quote in context - the entire letter and what he was responding to.

He separated the Deuterocanonical scripture by his “own authority” - leaving it in the bible which bears his name, but then declaring it to be non-inspired. Again, by his “own authority”.

I don’t think there was any “rule” that required the books to be listed in any particular order. Hippo? Carthage? I don’t know. He claimed they were not inspired, as the rest of the canon was. He was not alone in this assessment. Until Trent, he was allowed to hold this opinion, as many did. If you blame Luther for this opinion, you *must * accuse St. Jerome of the same disobedience.

He, by his “own authority”, rejected the authority of the very Church that Christ founded upon Peter, and to which Luther had vowed obedience.
By his “own authority”, he introduced the heresy of sola scriptura, which accelerated the fracturing of the brotherhood.

The first part of this is polemics. You putting own authority in quotes doesn’t mean he had or claimed any. Your Bible still has 73 books. He had no effect on your Bible, and therefore, authority is irrelevant. What he rejected was the abuses and false teachings which infested the Church at the time. He probably shares guilt, but the Church of his time holds equal blame. Pray with me that, in our time or very soon, our communions will overcome the fracturing of our brotherhood.

He lost hope

Maybe so, maybe not. But you and I certainly haven’t, have we?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Jon: Pray He works the hearts of our leaders to unify us, my brother in Christ.

From your lips to God’s ears! Amen!

This is evidenced by the level of civility our conversations have, you and I. I do appreciate your steadfastness, buffered by your charity.
Always a pleasure.

Jon

 

[Tuttle01]

Are you speaking of the local pastor who has appointed himself pope, but without the assistance of the entire Church council? Yes, I agree with you 100%.

No, the pope is who I speak of. There is no such animal, man can not set himself up as God as the RCC has done with their pope. As such the RCC is a cult

 

[po18guy]

Immaterial. And he was excommunicated, so he had help.

He was disobedient long before the excommunication. Excommunication is the final remedy for someone who persists in disobedience. Since excommunication is so rarely done, do you suppose it was arbitrary and capricious, or was there at least some reason?

Good point. In the German, he felt it necessary to add the word in order to convey the meaning in German. It isn’t in any English translation, since it isn’t necessary to convey the meaning in English. And his sarcasm regarding the criticism is noted.

You nailed it with the “He”. It was Luther’s personal opinion - disregarding that the Church had been teaching Christ for fifteen centuries to the known world with no problem.

And your are right, that sarcasm does come across as egotistical and as claiming authority. Make sure, however, you read that quote in context - the entire letter and what he was responding to.

Luther’s well documented ego and temper lead Calvin and Zwingli to separate from him, even after they had separated from the Catholic Church in following Luther.

I don’t think there was any “rule” that required the books to be listed in any particular order. Hippo? Carthage? I don’t know. He claimed they were not inspired, as the rest of the canon was. He was not alone in this assessment. Until Trent, he was allowed to hold this opinion, as many did. If you blame Luther for this opinion, you *must * accuse St. Jerome of the same disobedience.

Except Jerome remained obedient and later recanted his dissent. Jerome remained united, and denied himself for the greater good of Christian unity.

The first part of this is polemics. You putting own authority in quotes doesn’t mean he had or claimed any.

Au contraire! This is Luther’s exact quote when challenged as to under what authority he added “allein”. It revealed his ego in a moment of defensiveness.

Your Bible still has 73 books. He had no effect on your Bible, and therefore, authority is irrelevant. What he rejected was the abuses and false teachings which infested the Church at the time.

False teachings? I know of false practices, but not false doctrines.

He probably shares guilt, but the Church of his time holds equal blame. Pray with me that, in our time or very soon, our communions will overcome the fracturing of our brotherhood.

I certainly do pray for this. It is as Christ wanted. But, the truth has suffered in this fracturing. Only one version of scripture is 100% truth. The entire Church, over 15 centuries had used and then declared 73 books as the canon. One man, acting apart from that authority, changed this. Luther is neither the the angel that some think nor is Pope Leo X the demon that some think. Luther began with good intentions, but fell into egoism. Pope Leo X clearly had many faults, but did act to preserve unity - even if in a very flawed manner.

Do you think that Catholics find the Church easy? No! It is difficult and requires the denial of self, obedience and discipline. Unity always does. As with the trinity, may we one day be one.

(as to my allegation of Luther’s loss of hope) Maybe so, maybe not. But you and I certainly haven’t, have we? Jon

I don’t know how else to explain it. Of all the Deacons, Priests, Bishops and Cardinals in the Church, only Luther and a few followers left. Is not that reflective of a loss of hope? Look at how Catholic Saints suffered at the hands of the Church yet remained faithful, persisting in hope. No one ever talks of the Catholic Reformation, but Saint Teresa of Avila and Saint John of the Cross were integral parts of it. We lose perspective when we focus on the flawed personalities in the Church and lose sight of the official teachings and mission of the Church. That’s all I’m saying. Today, remarkably, Lutherans and Catholics are the strongest supporters of unity in my experience. There is so much more that unites us than divides us.

And I did mention the bible in all of this, so it is technically related to the thread.

 

[CWBetts]

No, the pope is who I speak of. There is no such animal, man can not set himself up as God as the RCC has done with their pope. As such the RCC is a cult

Umm, no, you made a mistake there. We do not set up the Pope as God. That would be blasphemy, idolotry and all kinds of other bad things. We worship God as God. THere is not a faithful Catholic in the world who would disagree with me. Where is your source for thios little factoid of yours? If you don’t have one, I will judt have to discount it as yet another ill-informed opinion.

 

[josie_L]

The pope is often refered to as “servant of servants” so I hardly think Papa Ratzi thinks he’s God.