Was Luther's "canon" of God, or of man?

[po18guy]

****Luther excluded seven books of Old Testament Sacred Scripture which had been in use since their inspiration. One of those books, Ecclesiasticus, translates as “Church book”. This begs the question for those who no longer practice or believe what Luther taught: Was Luther’s “canon” of God or of man?

 

[po18guy]

Here are some thoughts that came up on another thread:

I would guess that the disparate group known loosely as protestants likely believe that some level of adherence to God’s truth is required for salvation. All protestants, by use of the bible they hold, declare that Luther’s “canon” of 66 books is without error. Thus, shouldn’t Luther’s authority be held valid in all matters of faith, and not restricted only to his “canon”? But, if Luther was fallible when he determined his “canon”, then everything else he declared is also fallible, right?

If any protestant reading this thread does not follow Luther’s teachings, he or she must also, by moral imperative, question Luther’s canon. If the Pope cannot pronounce infallibly under any circumstances, why could Luther be infallible in the case of his canon? By their faith in Luther’s canon, have not protestants declared Luther to be infallible?

 

[bpbasilphx]

Of man.

And no, he was not a prophet.

 

[True_Believer_1]

Luther is responsible for leading millions of people away from the One True Church, founded by Jesus Christ.

Perhaps it appears that he was a holy man, and in his mind he may have been. It is not our palce to judge, but it would seem that the act of breaking up Christ’s Church on Earth is getting as far from God as one could possibly get.

May God Bless and Keep You.

NOT JUST STRONG…CATHOLIC STRONG!!!

 

[CWBetts]

So far, this thread is looking like a mutual admiration society.

 

[Ferds_Guiang]

I think Luther went overboard in deleting other books of the Bible and branding them as uninspired. I don’t want to pass judgment on Luther’s character but maybe some of his objections could be valid at that time. But for him to say that this or that biblical writing is not a product of Divine inspiration is not for him to judge. So his choice of canon was solely his.

 

[Cachonga]

This is a carry-over from another thread, which I wouldn’t comment on in that thread because it was off topic. I also felt I was being asked to represent all Protestants as well as to defend Martin Luther. I thought I made it clear that I cannot and will not speak for all Protestants. Furthermore, since I am not a Lutheran (which I pointed out), I feel no need to defend anything he did.

As far as the “canon” (why all the "'s?), I will agree with St. Jerome’s Old Testament canon, which is what the Protestant bibles contain (see here). While he translated the deuterocanonicals and included them in his Latin Vulgate (he didn’t want to, but was told to), he did not consider them inspired Scripture I find it interesting that Cardinal Cajetan (the fellow that interviewed Martin Luther) also agreed with St. Jerome (see here).

 

[Murphs10]

This is a carry-over from another thread, which I wouldn’t comment on in that thread because it was off topic. I also felt I was being asked to represent all Protestants as well as to defend Martin Luther. I thought I made it clear that I cannot and will not speak for all Protestants. Furthermore, since I am not a Lutheran (which I pointed out), I feel no need to defend anything he did.

As far as the “canon” (why all the "'s?), I will agree with St. Jerome’s Old Testament canon, which is what the Protestant bibles contain (see here). While he translated the deuterocanonicals and included them in his Latin Vulgate (he didn’t want to, but was told to), he did not consider them inspired Scripture I find it interesting that Cardinal Cajetan (the fellow that interviewed Martin Luther) also agreed with St. Jerome (see here).

Didn’t Jerome have issues with a few of the NT books as well?

 

[NHInsider]

Didn’t Jerome have issues with a few of the NT books as well?

No, but Luther did.

 

[po18guy]

This is a carry-over from another thread, which I wouldn’t comment on in that thread because it was off topic. I also felt I was being asked to represent all Protestants as well as to defend Martin Luther. I thought I made it clear that I cannot and will not speak for all Protestants. Furthermore, since I am not a Lutheran (which I pointed out), I feel no need to defend anything he did.

As far as the “canon” (why all the "'s?), I will agree with St. Jerome’s Old Testament canon, which is what the Protestant bibles contain (see here). While he translated the deuterocanonicals and included them in his Latin Vulgate (he didn’t want to, but was told to), he did not consider them inspired Scripture I find it interesting that Cardinal Cajetan (the fellow that interviewed Martin Luther) also agreed with St. Jerome (see here).

You are clearly not Lutheran, and you are definitely not representing anyone but yourself. So, why do you cling to Luther’s canon, since Luther was not infallible? Are you then a follower of Jerome? Do you adhere to his other beliefs? No. But, you accept Luther’s canon, which is clearly his personal preference. As to Jerome, despite his personal beliefs, he denied himself and remained obedient to the Church. Luther was disobedient.

I cannot understand how someone can cling to a man-made “canon” of one particular man, but then disregard many other tenets of his belief. If you trust him to accurately and perfectly compile the word of God, how can you possibly doubt him in his other actions? Have you never questioned the authenticity or legitimacy of his “canon” of scripture? If not, why not? Is it only because it differs with the Catholic Church? I pray for a better reason than that.

 

[curlycool89]

As far as the “canon” (why all the "'s?), I will agree with St. Jerome’s Old Testament canon, which is what the Protestant bibles contain (see here). While he translated the deuterocanonicals and included them in his Latin Vulgate (he didn’t want to, but was told to), he did not consider them inspired Scripture I find it interesting that Cardinal Cajetan (the fellow that interviewed Martin Luther) also agreed with St. Jerome (see here).

What makes St. Jerome any more infallible than Luther? I won’t deny Jerome’s great contribution to the scriptures or any of the other great acts he did, but he was still but 1 man. Jerome had no more authority to decide the canon then you or I do. Only the Church had the authority to discern the official Canon, even Jerome knew that (I know I saw a link some time ago about that, I can’t seem to find it now).

 

[SemperReformada]

As to Jerome, despite his personal beliefs, he denied himself and remained obedient to the Church.

How was Jerome obedient to the Church?

1.) Jerome did include the deutero’s in the Vulgate.

2.) Jerome also included his prologues to each of the deutero’s and Jeromes prologues clearly called the canonocity of the deutero’s into doubt.

3.) There was no issue of obedience or disobedience for Jerome since there was no dogmatic decree regarding the canon of the OT.

So, when you say Jerome was obedient to the Church I’m not sure what you mean.

 

[juliamajor]

This is a carry-over from another thread, which I wouldn’t comment on in that thread because it was off topic. I also felt I was being asked to represent all Protestants as well as to defend Martin Luther. I thought I made it clear that I cannot and will not speak for all Protestants. Furthermore, since I am not a Lutheran (which I pointed out), I feel no need to defend anything he did.

As far as the “canon” (why all the "'s?), I will agree with St. Jerome’s Old Testament canon, which is what the Protestant bibles contain (see here). While he translated the deuterocanonicals and included them in his Latin Vulgate (he didn’t want to, but was told to), he did not consider them inspired Scripture I find it interesting that Cardinal Cajetan (the fellow that interviewed Martin Luther) also agreed with St. Jerome (see here).

Why would I believe ANY information from a blog that has “exposing Catholicism” as one of it’s topics?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

How was Jerome obedient to the Church?

1.) Jerome did include the deutero’s in the Vulgate.

2.) Jerome also included his prologues to each of the deutero’s and Jeromes prologues clearly called the canonocity of the deutero’s into doubt.

3.) There was no issue of obedience or disobedience for Jerome since there was no dogmatic decree regarding the canon of the OT.

So, when you say Jerome was obedient to the Church I’m not sure what you mean.

He was obedient to the Church by including the books in his work when ordered to do so by the Church. As there was no dogmatic decree at the time he was free to disagree with their canonocity which he did in his prologues.

He was obedient in including them.

Obedience is a virtue that is misunderstood today and very lacking in western society.

 

[juliamajor]

The whole deutercanonical thing is rather silly. The more some rail against them the sillier it seems.Did the early Christians read them? More than a strong possiblity that they did. Hellenism was much more influential in Judea then previously thought(reference Biblical Archaeology magazine) The Fact (which is denied on many silly websites) that five of the seven books were found in hebrew among the dead sea scrolls.Fact -many Jews of the time were quite familiar with them(Sirach was well respected)as their were familiar with Book of Enoch.If you check out the Jewish encyclopedia their is a certain amount of respect accorded them.Why we should be so disrespected because of these books is way beyond me.All it proves is that if the catholics(east and west ) use it then YOU have to hate it and disrespect it .Look in any commentary of worth or any good bible translation there will be references to LXX and the Deuterocanonicals along with apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, and extra biblical sources. It takes more then one book to really understand the bible and put it in it’s context of time and place.

 

[Cachonga]

po18guy:

You are clearly not Lutheran, and you are definitely not representing anyone but yourself. So, why do you cling to Luther’s canon, since Luther was not infallible? Are you then a follower of Jerome? Do you adhere to his other beliefs? No. But, you accept Luther’s canon, which is clearly his personal preference. As to Jerome, despite his personal beliefs, he denied himself and remained obedient to the Church. Luther was disobedient.

Excuse me, I thought I said that I follow St. Jerome’s Old Testament canon (which happens to be identical to the Jewish canon). Just because Martin Luther decided to remove the deuterocanonicals did not change what was considered canonical by the Church (including Cardinal Cajetan, who interviewed Martin Luther). I admit, St. Jerome was no more infallible than Martin Luther, however, St. Jerome IS a Doctor of the Church.

I cannot understand how someone can cling to a man-made “canon” of one particular man, but then disregard many other tenets of his belief. If you trust him to accurately and perfectly compile the word of God, how can you possibly doubt him in his other actions? Have you never questioned the authenticity or legitimacy of his “canon” of scripture? If not, why not? Is it only because it differs with the Catholic Church? I pray for a better reason than that.

And I cannot understand how someone can read the book of Judith and think that was God-breathed Scripture!

To answer the OP question - Luther’s canon was of God. If anyone disagrees, can you point to a single book in his canon that is not found in the RC canon? It should be remembered that the deuterocanonical books were not considered inspired scripture until the middle of the 16th century at the Council of Trent.

 

[juliamajor]

Excuse me, I thought I said that I follow St. Jerome’s Old Testament canon (which happens to be identical to the Jewish canon). Just because Martin Luther decided to remove the deuterocanonicals did not change what was considered canonical by the Church (including Cardinal Cajetan, who interviewed Martin Luther). I admit, St. Jerome was no more infallible than Martin Luther, however, St. Jerome IS a Doctor of the Church.

And I cannot understand how someone can read the book of Judith and think that was God-breathed Scripture! /COLOR](gee I feel that way about Ecclesiates, Esther, and sSong of Solomon!Son of a gun if the Rabbis didn’t have hard time accepting those three into the Hebraic canon-Ecclesiates because it was cynical, Esther because God is not mentioned, and Song of Solomon well, a little naughty-so yeah I have a really hard time thinking they were God inspired-especially Ecclesiates)To answer the OP question - Luther’s canon was of God. If anyone disagrees, can you point to a single book in his canon that is not found in the RC canon? It should be remembered that the deuterocanonical books were not considered inspired scripture until the middle of the 16th century at the Council of Trent.](Actually no- that’s not true-The canon was formalized then.Early council named the books to be included in canon which was binding upon all Catholics at that time and formalized at Trent

)

 

[curlycool89]

Excuse me, I thought I said that I follow St. Jerome’s Old Testament canon (which happens to be identical to the Jewish canon). Just because Martin Luther decided to remove the deuterocanonicals did not change what was considered canonical by the Church (including Cardinal Cajetan, who interviewed Martin Luther). I admit, St. Jerome was no more infallible than Martin Luther, however, St. Jerome IS a Doctor of the Church.

Which is a nice fancy title and all, but only the Church possesses the ability to truly discern the Truth. St. Jerome was a holy man, but what he says is not worth a thing unless it is verified by the Church. Not even the Pope’s every word is considered infallible!

And I cannot understand how someone can read the book of Judith and think that was God-breathed Scripture!

Because the canon of the scripture was obviously decided based on some guy comparing it to some “scripture standard”. No, it was decided by the Church because the Church was given the power to discern with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

To answer the OP question - Luther’s canon was of God. If anyone disagrees, can you point to a single book in his canon that is not found in the RC canon? It should be remembered that the deuterocanonical books were not considered inspired scripture until the middle of the 16th century at the Council of Trent.

Luther’s canon contains some of the Truth, but it does not contain the full Truth. Even the Qur’an contains some Truth (it has some of Genesis for example). And actually, it looks like the canon was first declared at the Council of Rome in 382.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Luther excluded seven books of Old Testament Sacred Scripture which had been in use since their inspiration. One of those books, Ecclesiasticus, translates as “Church book”. This begs the question for those who no longer practice or believe what Luther taught: Was Luther’s “canon” of God or of man?

Some notes:

1. What Luther thought, said or did is authoritative and normative for no one.
2. Luther included the unique set of deutero books officially embraced at The Council of Trent by The Catholic Church for The Catholic Church some after his death in his German translation. Since they are all “there”, it’s hard to see how it took them “out.”
3. It is true that Luther’s included books (exactly the same at the post Trent RCC books) did have some “missing” books - according to the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox groups; they might (and do) justifable ask why Luther and The Catholic Church at Trent removed some books from the Bible. But since Luther’s translation included EXACTLY the same books as post 16th Century RCC ones, I’m a bit at a loss to see how the accusation can be made at Luther and not equally be made at the RCC since they BOTH “removed” the same books and BOTH included the same books.
4. The reality is: there is (and never has been) any consensus about the DEUTERO books. The books themselves are not well defined - so that there’s even any agreement on what they are. The Oriental Orthodox include several different sets of them. The Eastern Orthodox have a set of them unofficially embraced. The Catholic Church has a unque set of them officially embraced at Trent in the 16th century. NONE of these sets agree, NONE of them has an affirmation beyond the single denomination. IMHO, there’s just no consensus on them. While there is firm and ecumenical and historic affirmation about the NON-DEUTERO books, those 66, the DEUTERO ones lack such beyond a single denomination. As a Lutheran, I affirm the 66. I leave the issue of the DEUTERO ones as still in dispute - neither affirming or rejecting them. When all the denominations that embrace some of them agree on which is Scripture and which is not - there will at least be something to discuss. Until then, IMHO, I’ll hold off on any dogmatic position.

.

 

[po18guy]

How was Jerome obedient to the Church?

1.) Jerome did include the deutero’s in the Vulgate.

2.) Jerome also included his prologues to each of the deutero’s and Jeromes prologues clearly called the canonocity of the deutero’s into doubt.

3.) There was no issue of obedience or disobedience for Jerome since there was no dogmatic decree regarding the canon of the OT.

So, when you say Jerome was obedient to the Church I’m not sure what you mean.

First, he remained within the Church and did not use his disagreement to form a breakaway faction. Anyway, he was a mighty fortress of the faith, but was not the appointed head of the Church. He was one dissenting voice.

In any event, the exact same authority which canonized the New Testament also canonized the Old Testament and Deuterocanon. To question any part is to question all of it.

Back to the main point, since Jerome is a canard. Luther also wanted to delete Hebrews and James, but relented.

So, is Luther’s ‘canon’ of God or of man?