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

[po18guy]

Some notes: 1. What Luther thought, said or did is authoritative and normative for no one.

OK, so why use or rely on his 66 book “canon”?

1. 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.”

He “de-canonized” them and placed them between the two Testaments. By his own authority, he declared them uninspired.

1. 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.

The Orthodox have no authority to render a canon. They cannot call a universal council to argue canonicity.

1. The reality is: there is (and never has been) any consensus about the DEUTERO books.

God’s truth is not achieved by consensus. It is revealed to the one Church which Jesus Christ founded and gave all authority to. God is neither a democracy, nor a vending machine which dispenses what we want.

For that matter, why accept the New Testament? If one rejects the authority of the Catholic Church, then the canon is thrown wide open and non-Catholics must start from ground zero. It is obvious that Christianity is so fractured that this will never happen. Either there is one authority, or there is none.

 

[garysibio]

Has anyone ever heard anyone defend the Protestant Old Testament canon on the basis that it was Luther’s canon? I’ve never heard anyone make that claim even though I’ve heard some other arguments that were equally as absurd.

 

[NotWorthy]

Excuse me, I thought I said that I follow St. Jerome’s Old Testament canon (which happens to be identical to the Jewish canon).

… decided by Jews in the 14th century AD, 1000 years after the Catholics settled on the OT Canon… but not all Jews agreed on a single Canon. There are various canons held by various Jewish sects. The Ethiopian Jews, for example, include the Deuterocanonicals among their list of Scriptural writings.

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 always find it odd that, as proof of the great dissent within the Church on the OT Canon, one has to travel some 1100 years after St. Jerome to find a Cardinal who held the same beliefs. Why, its dissension such as this that will rip the very seams of the Church apart!!!

I admit, St. Jerome was no more infallible than Martin Luther, however, St. Jerome IS a Doctor of the Church.

… and a wonderful Saint he was, although I always envision him as a crotchety old man, sort of like Ed Grant, the TV star. I guess its from reading his “Refutations against Rufus(?)”. He wasn’t the most tactful of people it seems.

Anyway, the funny thing about St. Jerome’s reasoning regarding the Scripurality of the Deutero’s is that he has since been proven wrong. St. Jerome, who studied with our brother Jews in Jerusalem, thought that the Deutero’s were never written in Hebrew text. This was one of the reasons he felt they were not inspired writings. The Dead Sea Scrolls have since proven him wrong.

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.

You might be mis-representing the facts. At Trent, the 1100 year old Doctrinal teaching of the Church was declared Dogmatic. Nothing more, nothing less. Its the Canon the Church had used from the very beginning of the authoritative Canon declarations.

 

[po18guy]

To answer the OP question - Luther’s canon was of God.

Wow! Then, you condemn yourself by not following his other “inspired” teachings and practices. If Luther was inspired only as to his ‘canon’, then what proofs can you present? It’s OK to not be Catholic, but you appear to have embraced heretical teaching strictly because they are non-Catholic. Is this not dangerous ground, my brother? Have you used a malleable canon to mold and shape a ‘gospel’ that agrees with you?

 

[NotWorthy]

Wow! Then, you condemn yourself by not following his other “inspired” teachings and practices. If Luther was inspired only as to his ‘canon’, then what proofs can you present? It’s OK to not be Catholic, but you appear to have embraced heretical teaching strictly because they are non-Catholic. Is this not dangerous ground, my brother? Have you used a malleable canon to mold and shape a ‘gospel’ that agrees with you?

PO, I think you are using illogic to prove a point.

Let me give you an example. The High Priest, Caiaphas, stated that one man must die in order that all Israel be saved. St. John tells us that he was being prophetic when he said that. Prophecy is a message from God. Although Caiaphas was a messenger of God when he said this, that does not make him a godly man, does it?

 

[po18guy]

Has anyone ever heard anyone defend the Protestant Old Testament canon on the basis that it was Luther’s canon? I’ve never heard anyone make that claim even though I’ve heard some other arguments that were equally as absurd.

My points being:

1. If Luther’s canon is of God, then why cling to it alone and turn away from Luther’s other teachings, which might also have been inspired? Is this not an affront to God?
2. If Luther’s canon is of man, why use a man-made canon? Excluding any of the inspired word of God is also an affront to Him.

There is no good answer to this.

 

[po18guy]

PO, I think you are using illogic to prove a point.

Let me give you an example. The High Priest, Caiaphas, stated that one man must die in order that all Israel be saved. St. John tells us that he was being prophetic when he said that. Prophecy is a message from God. Although Caiaphas was a messenger of God when he said this, that does not make him a godly man, does it?

Except that Luther decided ex post facto. Is there reverse prophecy?

Much controversy is solved by Church councils which reacted to heresy. And, this is certainly one of those cases.

 

[po18guy]

PO, I think you are using illogic to prove a point.

Let me give you an example. The High Priest, Caiaphas, stated that one man must die in order that all Israel be saved. St. John tells us that he was being prophetic when he said that. Prophecy is a message from God. Although Caiaphas was a messenger of God when he said this, that does not make him a godly man, does it?

However, Caiaphas spoke this before the event occurred. Luther decided after the event. He was, in effect, reverse engineering the canon to suit his personal preferences.

As well 1 John and 2 Peter speak of false teachers and false prophets to come. Guidance by the Holy Spirit produces unity. The evil one produces division.

 

[NotWorthy]

Except that Luther decided ex post facto. Is there reverse prophecy?

Hmmm… I’ll have to ponder that!

Much controversy is solved by Church councils which reacted to heresy. And, this is certainly one of those cases.

Exactly! Although heresies are an abomination, the fruit of heresies is the Church Teaching that has been clarified in order to combat these various heresies!

For instance, without Arianism, we probably wouldn’t have the Nicene Creed!

 

[NotWorthy]

However, Caiaphas spoke this before the event occurred. Luther decided after the event. He was, in effect, reverse engineering the canon to suit his personal preferences.

As well 1 John and 2 Peter speak of false teachers and false prophets to come.

Of course, Cachonga could point out that their was a tidal wave of Church opposition in favor of Luther’s Canon. I mean, C’mon!!! St. Jerome AND Cardinal Cajetan!!! That’s overwhelming support for Luther’s canon! I can’t believe Trent didn’t cave against such intense opposition!

 

[garysibio]

My points being:

1. If Luther’s canon is of God, then why cling to it alone and turn away from Luther’s other teachings, which might also have been inspired? Is this not an affront to God?
2. If Luther’s canon is of man, why use a man-made canon? Excluding any of the inspired word of God is also an affront to Him.

There is no good answer to this.

Was Luther correct when he objected to the selling of indulgences? Since Trent forbade the practice, I would have to say yes. Luther said we are saved by faith alone. Pope Benedict XVI said a few months ago that it was valid to speak of salvation by faith alone provided your understanding of faith was correct. Does this make Luther a prophet? Not at all. As the saying goes, even a broken clock is correct twice a day.

I don’t think we have to worry about Luther being a prophet. Prophets don’t say things like “If you meet a Jew on a bridge, throw him off.”

If Luther said some things that were correct, it does not make him a prophet nor does it mean that everything he had to say was correct.

 

[Cachonga]

po18guy:

Wow! Then, you condemn yourself by not following his other “inspired” teachings and practices. If Luther was inspired only as to his ‘canon’, then what proofs can you present? It’s OK to not be Catholic, but you appear to have embraced heretical teaching strictly because they are non-Catholic. Is this not dangerous ground, my brother? Have you used a malleable canon to mold and shape a ‘gospel’ that agrees with you?

I think the back wall in my living room understands me better than you do. Since it seems you continually want to argue about Luther, I’ll leave it to AmericanJosiah to speak on his behalf.

As far as Martin Luther and Cardinal Cajetan agreeing with St Jerome on the deuterocanonicals, I believe (though I cannot find a specific reference at the moment), that this was a generally held belief throughout the Church (until the Council of Trent made it dogma), and even Pope Gregory the Great agreed with it (again, I do not have any direct source readily available to confirm this, but I will keep an eye out for it).

I will add that I have read the deuterocanonicals, and find them somewhat informative and a little edifying. Of course, I can say the same thing about the movie “The Blindside” (great movie! ). I find nothing in them that would change my view of Jesus, or how to live the Christian life, but that is a topic for a different thread.

Pax!

 

[CWBetts]

I think the back wall in my living room understands me better than you do. Since it seems you continually want to argue about Luther, I’ll leave it to AmericanJosiah to speak on his behalf.

As far as Martin Luther and Cardinal Cajetan agreeing with St Jerome on the deuterocanonicals, I believe (though I cannot find a specific reference at the moment), that this was a generally held belief throughout the Church (until the Council of Trent made it dogma), and even Pope Gregory the Great agreed with it (again, I do not have any direct source readily available to confirm this, but I will keep an eye out for it).

I will add that I have read the deuterocanonicals, and find them somewhat informative and a little edifying. Of course, I can say the same thing about the movie “The Blindside” (great movie! ). I find nothing in them that would change my view of Jesus, or how to live the Christian life, but that is a topic for a different thread.

Pax!

The generally held belief throughout the Church was that the Deuterocanonicals were indeed, Scripture, as is reaffirmed by Trent.

 

[curlycool89]

God’s truth is not achieved by consensus. It is revealed to the one Church which Jesus Christ founded and gave all authority to. God is neither a democracy, nor a vending machine which dispenses what we want.

Good point, I missed that one. We tell the same things to liberal Catholics as we tell the protestants: the Church is not a democracy, and Truth is not up for vote. It’s all or nothing.

Cachonga:

As far as Martin Luther and Cardinal Cajetan agreeing with St Jerome on the deuterocanonicals, I believe (though I cannot find a specific reference at the moment), that this was a generally held belief throughout the Church (until the Council of Trent made it dogma), and even Pope Gregory the Great agreed with it (again, I do not have any direct source readily available to confirm this, but I will keep an eye out for it).

“I can’t prove what I’m saying so I’m going to throw out vague statements that support my position”. What I mean is that I see a lot of claims that, curiously enough, support your position but conveniently enough you have nothing to back it up. You have not proved anything, so we do not have to disprove it. The onus is on you to back your own statements.

 

[NotWorthy]

As far as Martin Luther and Cardinal Cajetan agreeing with St Jerome on the deuterocanonicals, I believe (though I cannot find a specific reference at the moment), that this was a generally held belief throughout the Church (until the Council of Trent made it dogma), and even Pope Gregory the Great agreed with it (again, I do not have any direct source readily available to confirm this, but I will keep an eye out for it).Pax!

I think I found where you may have mistakenly understood Pope Gregory the Great.

First, I’ll show where he quotes Sirach as Scriptural.

Pride is of course the root of all evil, of which it is said, as** Scripture bears witness**: Pride is the beginning of all sin. (Sirach 10:26) Moreover; proliferating from this poisonous root as its first offspring are seven capital sins: vainglory, envy, anger malancholy, avarice, gluttony, lust. For because he grieved that we were held in bondage by these seven derivatives of pride, on that account our Redeemer, full of the spirit of sevenfold grace, joined spiritual battle for our liberation. St. Gregory the Great, A Synthesis of Moralia in Job, Part 1, Book 3, p. 85.

The former, it is said by Holy Scripture: Do not become like the horse and the mule which have no understanding (Psalm 31:9). The proud effort of the latter is blamed when it is said: Seek not the things that are too high for thee, and search not into things above thy ability (Sirach 3:22). To the former it is said: Mortify your members which are upon the earth: fornication, uncleanness, lust, eveil consupiscence (Col. 3:5), to the latter it is said: Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy and vain deceipt (Col. 2:8) St. Gregory the Great, A Synthesis of Moralia in Job, Book 1, Part 3, 21, p. 11

But, early in his career, while he was a bishop in Constantinople and not yet Pope, St. Gregory labels 1st Maccabees as non-canonical, although he doesn’t call is un-scriptural.

With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edification of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed" (1 Macc. 6.46). (Joseph Gildea, Gregory the Great, A Synthesis of Moralia in Job (New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 1991, Part 1, Book 3, p. 126.)

But, as the author of the website matt1618.freeyellow.com attests,

Remember, just because he is terming it non-canonical does not mean it is not Scripture. Again, he began this work in 578 and ended in 595. He began being Pope only in 590 AD and reigned to 601 AD. This book is divided into two parts, with each one having six books. This book is only part one, and only book three. Thus, this passage is done in the first quarter of his whole work, well before he was Pope, where he is in Constantinople, where Maccabees is not part of the canon. As we have seen with other Fathers who did not put these books in their canon, he still refers to these books as Scripture. Notice, even here, while he is in Constantinople, he **does not term it Unscriptural, or uninspired. ** In Constantinople at the time, he most likely was only speaking of the canon in that area, which only consists of what is read in the Liturgy. The canon that he is speaking of is not the full extent of Scripture, as we saw with St. Athanasius and the other Fathers.

It’s worth noting that, in the same book where he “dis-claims” (by Protestant standards) Maccabees, he cites both Wisdom and Sirach and calls them Scripture.

 

[curlycool89]

I think I found where you may have mistakenly understood Pope Gregory the Great.

First, I’ll show where he quotes Sirach as Scriptural.
But, early in his career, while he was a bishop in Constantinople and not yet Pope, St. Gregory labels 1st Maccabees as non-canonical, although he doesn’t call is un-scriptural.

Heck, I think we even had a Pope who was elected and expected to call for support of the heresy-of-the-week, but recanted and repudiated it upon him being installed as Pope. I know I read about him somewhere here on CAF, but I can’t remember who it was.

 

[NotWorthy]

Heck, I think we even had a Pope who was elected and expected to call for support of the heresy-of-the-week, but recanted and repudiated it upon him being installed as Pope. I know I read about him somewhere here on CAF, but I can’t remember who it was.

Yes, I recently listened to this on one of Patrick Madrid’s Pope Fictions. He was supported by a rich family in Rome who were able to influence his rise to the Papacy. In return, he was going to preach a certain heresy. But immediately after his installation, he repudiated the heresy and became a pretty good Pope, if i remember correctly.

 

[po18guy]

Was Luther correct when he objected to the selling of indulgences? Since Trent forbade the practice, I would have to say yes. Luther said we are saved by faith alone. Pope Benedict XVI said a few months ago that it was valid to speak of salvation by faith alone provided your understanding of faith was correct. Does this make Luther a prophet? Not at all. As the saying goes, even a broken clock is correct twice a day.

I have heard arguments that individuals may have sold indulgences, but the Church herself did not. Luther rightly condemned such practices, which were not Church teaching. But, his massive ego carried him far afield in the area of “reform”, which, by the way was already taking form within the Church.

Indeed, Luther’s anti-Semitism and Germanic lineage is easily argued to have paved the way for many later abuses in Germany, including the greatest anti-Semitic genocide of all time.

 

[po18guy]

I think the back wall in my living room understands me better than you do. Since it seems you continually want to argue about Luther, I’ll leave it to AmericanJosiah to speak on his behalf.

The thread is about Luther, and you have stated that you believe his ‘canon’ is inspired. How do you know that, and how do you know that the rest of his teachings were not inspired? This is important for the sake of consistency. What of Luther do you believe and what do you reject? What is truth and what is opinion?

As far as Martin Luther and Cardinal Cajetan agreeing with St Jerome on the deuterocanonicals, I believe (though I cannot find a specific reference at the moment), that this was a generally held belief throughout the Church (until the Council of Trent made it dogma), and even Pope Gregory the Great agreed with it (again, I do not have any direct source readily available to confirm this, but I will keep an eye out for it).

Let’s see it when you find it.

I will add that I have read the deuterocanonicals, and find them somewhat informative and a little edifying. Of course, I can say the same thing about the movie “The Blindside” (great movie! ). I find nothing in them that would change my view of Jesus, or how to live the Christian life, but that is a topic for a different thread.

At this point, you had better pray that they are not inspired, lest you diss the Holy Spirit, which lead the Church to canonize them.

Not Worthy is right: three dissenters out of thousands neither a consensus, nor Church unity make. In the protestant world of individual dogma, this makes sense. To a Catholic who tries to deny himself and be obedient, it simply sounds fishy.

 

[garysibio]

I have heard arguments that individuals may have sold indulgences, but the Church herself did not. Luther rightly condemned such practices, which were not Church teaching. But, his massive ego carried him far afield in the area of “reform”, which, by the way was already taking form within the Church.

Indeed, Luther’s anti-Semitism and Germanic lineage is easily argued to have paved the way for many later abuses in Germany, including the greatest anti-Semitic genocide of all time.

You’re missing the point. You want Luther to be either 100% correct or 100% wrong. He was neither.