The Protestant Reformers

[itsjustdave1988]

TertiumQuid,

As far as i’ve been able to understand you, all 3 of these men questioned (or even stronger “denied”) the inspiration of certain New Testament books. Yet only Luther can be chastised, because of the way he expressed his belief.

Actually, no. All three deserve chastisement. In fact I believe after Erasmus’ death, his books were banned by the Church. Yet, none were strictly speaking, heretical, in their theological questioning/denial, in the canonical sense, as the Council of Florence did not make an infallible definition of the canon of Scripture. The point I made was that Cajetan’s questioning or doubt was simply not the same thing as Luther’s explicit denial. In other words, “Concerning the Scriptures, Luther did not express himself in a more rationalistic manner than Erasmus; nor did he interpret them more rationalistically. The only difference is that Luther said clearly and positively what Erasmus often merely suggested by a doubt” (Catholic Encyclopedia (1909) - Desiderius Erasmus)

 

[TertiumQuid]

itsjustdave1988:

If Luther’s heresy was committed by him with full consciousness of the gravity of the matter, along with the deliberate will to commit the sin, then his sin was indeed deadly. If he died impenitent of this deadly sin committed with full knowledge and deliberate will, then he’s burning in hell, and is not my Christian brother. This theology applies to impenitent Catholic priests just as equally as it did for Martin Luther. Once a baptized Christian is damned to hell, then they are no longer Christians.

Fair enough. Primary elements of Luther’s theology and Rome’s theology are in antithesis. Luther remained firm in his beliefs till the very end of his life.

I pose you this question: If Rome’s soteriology and Luther’s soteriology are in antithesis, what would be the case for devout Roman Catholics if Luther’s soteriology is correct?

 

[TertiumQuid]

itsjustdave1988:

I may have typed it wrong. I believe the quote was cited by Robert Sungenis in his book *Not by Faith Alone. *I’ll try to find it.

Thanks Dave.

Luther is not easily quoted correctly, so I tend to be very picky about citations. Even in sources that cite Luther, it’s best to look up the words in their contexts (both written and historical) before citing him. I try (as much as possible) to only cite Luther from primary sources (those available in English, that is), or at least have the primary sources available if someone questions context . I try to steer clear of citing Weimar, or books written in German that have been out-of-print for 75-150 years (not all “English-speaking-only” Web-Warriors join me here. I find Catholic Web Warriors tend to quote Luther from sources that are not easily accessible).

 

[TertiumQuid]

itsjustdave1988:

You may think so. However, your claim that you dismantled it is quite strange to me, since you haven’t given one shred of evidence that Cajetan considered any Biblical book non-canonical.

Hi Dave,

Cajetan wrote an interesting book in 1532. It’s title was:

"Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament"

Guess which "Biblical"books were left out of his book: all of The Apocrypha

Cajetan did not hold the Apocrypha to be canonical, as you probably do, and (allegedly) as Rome has always (allegedly) believed.

Argument dismantled (again).

 

[TertiumQuid]

RedGolum:

Trying to nail down Luther’s view on books like James and Revelation, and even the Aprocrapha is very difficult.

Very well said. Thanks for this comment.

The simplistic Luther-bashing approach leaves much to be desired. It isn’t enough to simply through out a Luther quote. One needs to examine many facets of Luther to arrive at a correct understanding.

Take Care,
James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

itsjustdave1988:

…So the Bible, for both Orthodox and Protestants, is described by at least one Protestant scholar (R.C. Sproul, I believe) as a “fallible collection of infallible books.” Which to me, is absurd.

Curious, what is Sproul’s reasoning for saying this?

Thanks,
JS

 

[RedGolum]

itsjustdave1988:

RedGolum,
Neither the OT nor NT were universally established by the 4th century canons, as these canons were from local synods (of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage, for example). Thats why folks like St. John of Damasus didn’t consider the Book of Wisdom or Sirach to be part of the Bible. Whereas, while St. Jerome seemingly disagreed with Pope St. Damasus regarding which books were inspired, he still abided by St. Damasus’ decree and included all the Biblical books decreed at the Synod of Rome into the Latin Vulgate.
.

Thanks for the reply Dave, but that doesn’t answer the full question. The East West schism didn’t fully erupt until 1054, and some even push this date back till 1450’s when Constantinople fell (forgot the exact year). Yet there are books and chapters in some of the EO canon that aren’t in the Roman Catholic.

One of the charges people keep throwing around is that the Protestant reformers ripped the Bible apart, yet the OT canon was not settled on till the Council of Trent.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

TertiumQuid,

If Rome’s soteriology and Luther’s soteriology are in antithesis, what would be the case for devout Roman Catholics if Luther’s soteriology is correct?

I presume you are Lutheran, so I’m sure you can present Luther’s soteriology much more accurately than I can. Perhaps you can explain were you believe Luther’s soteriology is in antithesis to Catholic soteriology.

From my view, if “faith alone” is all that is truly needed, as opposed to the Catholic formula which insists upon *fide formata *(formed faith) or “faith working in charity” which requires what Stl Paul calls “obedience of faith,” then I presume the Catholic soteriology is much more strict than Luther’s. From a Catholic viewpoint, *sola fide *is too broad a formula which can (and seems it has) led to antinomianism. Catholics discount, for example, that fide informis (unformed faith) is salvific. The faith of demons was unformed by love, and as such is not in and of itself sufficient for salvation.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

TertiumQuid:

Cajetan wrote an interesting book in 1532. It’s title was:

"Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament"

Guess which "Biblical"books were left out of his book: all of The Apocrypha

Yes, I’ve already conceded that Cajetan questioned the authenticity of Biblical books. So it seems your still attempting to dismantle an argument I am not making.

Cajetan did not hold the Apocrypha to be canonical.

I don’t jump to that conclusion based upon his belief that some Biblical books (and parts of books) were not authentic. For example, Cajetan “Erasmus had rejected the section on the Adulterous Woman as unauthentic.” Yet, he made his own translation of the entire New Testament except the Apocalypse (due to difficulties with it), and he included the section on the Adulterous Woman, not in an appendix, but in the same location as it appears in the canon of Scripture. Are you seeing the distinction yet? A “canon” is something Cajetan has no authority to change. All he could do was disagree with the existing canon, and he in fact, did. Yet, when it boiled down to it, when he translated the New Testament from Greek, he included even those books and parts of books he believed were not authentic.

… and (allegedly) as Rome has always (allegedly) believed.

That’s not the position of the Catholic Church. Rome had not always had a “canon” of Scripture. The Muratorian fragment (which includes the Book of Wisdom) looks to be the earliest evidence of a list of sacred books, but it doesn’t appear to be a “canon” as much as it was a list, and only a partial one at that. The first “canon” is likely to be that of the **Council of Laodicea **(authenticity is doubted by many). Prior to canonization of Scripture, there were many often competing theological opinions as to what books were inspired Scritpure and what books were not. As I stated earlier, the local synods of the fourth century were only binding upon thos metropolitan and regions within their jurisdiction, and since these canons were not infallible, they were not immutable. However, history shows us that the canons of Hippo and Carthage included the same canonical books as that of the General Councils of Florence (15th cent.) and Trent (16th cent.).

Argument dismantled (again).

If it makes you happy to think so, go ahead.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Correction: Cajetan questioned “the authenticity of the last chapter of St. Mark, the authorship of several epistles, viz., Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, Jude, the genuineness of the passage of the three witnesses of (I John, v, 7)” (Catholic Encyclopedia (1909) - "Tommaso de Vio Gaetani Cajetan).

Yet, he “prepared a literal translation of the Bible, including the Old Testament as far as the end of the third chapter of Isaias, and all the New Testament except the Apocalypse” (ibid). Unlike Luther, I find no evidence that Cajetan demoted those parts of the Bible he deemed non-authentic into an appendix. In other words, he seems to have had incorrectly concluded that Biblical books were not authentic, yet wasn’t so bold as to take it upon himself to change the canon of Scripture.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

RedGolum,

Here was your question…

RedGolum:

… if the full OT canon was established in the early 4th or 5th centuary, why do the various Orthodox churches have a slightly different canon?

Your premise is the part I was addressing. It is not completely accurate. The OT (& NT) canon was established (but not universally) in provinces of Rome, Carthage, and Hippo by local synods of the fourth century. The Orthodox did not fall under the authority of these synods.

Since the Greek Orthodox (who were then just called ‘Catholic’) did not fall under the authority of those local synods, those 4th century canons (local laws) were not binding for them. It wasn’t until the General Council of Florence in the 15th century (after the schism) when a General or Ecumenical Council listed the books of the Bible. This was a General Council and spoke for the Universal Church. The Eastern/Oriental Orthodox participated in that council, but due to various circumstances, do not accept that council as binding.

Yet, even after the General Council of Florence, the canon of Scripture was merely a universal norm of the Church, but not yet a definitive *de fide *dogma of Catholicism. Universal norms are not immutable, while *de fide *dogmas are immutable.

So, well before Protestantism, the Catholic Church accepted 73 books in the Bible as a local norm (4th century) in several western synods, and also as a universal norm (15th century). Some well-respected Catholic theologians such as Cardinal Cajetan still questioned the authenticity of some books of the canon of Scripture (both OT and NT). It was within their liberty to do so for items not yet definitively decreed at that point (pre-Trent).

The Orthodox only accept the first Seven General Councils of the Church as authoritative (some don’t accept all of those), no matter when you place their schism date. No universal norm nor *de fide *dogma for the canon of Scripture was established by the first Seven General Councils of the Church. So, the Orthodox do not have a dogmatic decree similar to our Council of Trent which gives a definitive dogma of Sacred books of Scripture.

That’s why the Russian Orthodox version of the Bible differs from the Greek Orthodox version. They still go by local norms (not immutable), and do not have an universal dogma (immutable).

Protestants retroactively rejected the authority of all previous general councils that didn’t agree with their theological perspective. So, they too reject the universal norm for the list of Sacred Scripture authoritatively pronounces by the Council of Florence.

 

[TertiumQuid]

itsjustdave1988:

TertiumQuid,
I presume you are Lutheran, so I’m sure you can present Luther’s soteriology much more accurately than I can.

Actually, i am Reformed, and an active member of this church:pprbc.org/

I would fall more in line with John Calvin and the Westminster Confession, rather than with Luther and the book of Concord. That being said, I have a deep respect for Lutherans, and I enjoy studying Luther.

 

[mark_a]

I can recommend “The Story of Civilization VI: The Reformation” By Will Durant. You may also want to check on Wycliff, who preceded these guys by a hundred years.

 

[TertiumQuid]

itsjustdave1988:

Correction: Cajetan questioned “the authenticity of the last chapter of St. Mark, the authorship of several epistles, viz., Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, Jude, the genuineness of the passage of the three witnesses of (I John, v, 7)” (Catholic Encyclopedia (1909) - "Tommaso de Vio Gaetani Cajetan).

Cajetan said of 2 and 3 John and Jude: “They are of less authority than those which are certainly Holy Scripture.”

Source:Grace Theological Journal Volume 11 Page 45.

Yet, he “prepared a literal translation of the Bible, including the Old Testament as far as the end of the third chapter of Isaias, and all the New Testament except the Apocalypse” (ibid). Unlike Luther, I find no evidence that Cajetan demoted those parts of the Bible he deemed non-authentic into an appendix. In other words, he seems to have had incorrectly concluded that Biblical books were not authentic, yet wasn’t so bold as to take it upon himself to change the canon of Scripture.

Cajetan said,

Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage. (cited in William Webster, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History [Carlisle, Pennsylvania: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1995], p. 12)

This isn’t much different from Luther’s attitude: "…therefore I cannot include (James) among the 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.”

 

[RedGolum]

Thanks Dave!

One other question. If the canon was not immutable till Trent, and obviously the Lutherans and other Protestants were not part of Trent, why is one of the things that routinly get thown out is that the Protestants changed the canon?

Thanks again for the reply. Part of the reason we come here is to learn.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

RedGolum,

One other question. If the canon was not immutable till Trent, and obviously the Lutherans and other Protestants were not part of Trent, why is one of the things that routinly get thown out is that the Protestants changed the canon?

Martin Luther was a Catholic monk within the Patriarchate of Rome (not Constantinople). Catholics are bound by Divine Law (de fide dogmas), Ecclesiastical Law, and Civil Law. Although Ecclesiastical Law is not immutable, a Catholic monk cannot simply disregard the law and make up his own personal law.

Seems to me Luther disregarded Heb 13:17 and simply made himself his own superior…

Heb 13:17 “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.”

Protestant did change the canon, which they had not authority to do. It’s analogous to a group in Montana for example, decided they no longer have to pay taxes, as it is not in accord with their own personal law. Would this be a criminal act or not? It is sufficient for us to make our own constitution, for example, if we did not like the part about freedom of press, simply omitting that part from “my own personal constition”??

 

[Churchmouse]

Hi TQ.

Nice to see you on board NTRM ol’ buddy ol’ pal

Peace,
CM

 

[mercygate]

itsjustdave1988:

Luther has had moments of clear thinking, it seems.

Something a lot of Protestants do not know is that Luther was quite orthodox in his thinking about Our Lady. ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ95.HTM

 

[Xavier]

Duhawk83:

As Luther believed in the Supremacy of the state over religion or the church it would be in character for him to condemn peasant revolts. Like Pandora of myth Luther set forth a force of evil that today results in many of the evils in todays world. I think that the French Revolution, Communism and Nazism would not be possible in a world where Christendom existed. Sadly, Martin Luther through stubborn pride helped cleave Christendom all to satsify his personal beliefs.

Unbelievable!!!
Without the corruption and perversion in the RCC there would have been no need for a reformation

 

[Xavier]

Duhawk83:

I am aware of no “hard” examples of Luther ordering executions.

I do wonder what your point is; Luther was a profound heretic who may not have lit the fire of violence, but, he did stack the wood and soak it with gasoline.

Who ordered the execution of Huss?