What is the Reason to Believe that the Bible is Less Than 73 Books (all inerrant and inspired)?

[Abu]

Novocastrian #71
The Orthodox line on divorce and remarriage predates the schism. What then is the point of your purportedly infallible Pontiff if he can’t cast out all those Constantinopolitan prelates and princes who apparently defied Rome on that matter?

Christ’s Church doesn’t “cast out” such sinners who defile marriage – She admonishes them, calls for repentance and encourages the return to sanctity. So Christ told the woman taken in adultery “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.” (Jn 8:3-11). She had breached the sixth commandment and was now warned to pay full attention to the law.

This monotonous charade of “defying Rome” when Christ’s Church teaches the truths with His authority is ludicrous. It is those who reject Her who defy Christ.

“Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other until death. Sacramental marriage is the sign of the covenant of salvation, to which divorce does incredible injury. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery. If a husband, separated from his wife, becomes involved with another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery; and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another’s husband to herself.” [CCC, n. 2384]
archden.org/tribunal/documents/divorce.htm

 

[JonNC]

Probably because they did and do have all the inspired books. They didn’t throw out books just because they disproved their theology.

Who did that?

Jon

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Do you have any evidence that it should be translated in this way?

Nope. But considering that Pope St. Gregory the Great had elsewhere affirmed the canon, I’d say the burden of proof is on you that this one, obscure statement which can be interpreted (not “translated” specifically, as the possible meaning I ascribed to it is more contextual in nature) to not mean that he didn’t agree with the canon, actually means that he contridicted himself and the Church.

Actually, the way you said it concerns me more… Why would he be unsure by saying, “even if it’s not.”?

Not the he was unsure, but rather that his readers may be unsure and he didn’t want to argue that point at present. Kind of like saying “for sake of argument, even if it’s not canonical, it’s still good to represent the thoughts of the religious community at that time.” I hear lots of Catholic apologists even today, who strongly believe in the canonicity of the Deuterocanonicals, use words very much to that effect.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Who did that?

Jon

Martin Luther and all those who followed him.

 

[benjohnson]

Martin Luther and all those who followed him.

Martin Luther’s translation has all the books of the Catholic bible. And one more.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Martin Luther’s translation has all the books of the Catholic bible. And one more.

Yes. But he relegated them to an appendix and claimed that they were non-canonical.
Including Ester, Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation.

Mere inclusion doesn’t change this. Look, I included your claim in this post. It doesn’t mean I agree with it.

 

[benjohnson]

Yes. But he relegated them to an appendix and claimed that they were non-canonical.

So he decided they were non-canoniccal and then he put them in the his biblical cannon?

That doesn’t seem correct - do you have a source for this claim? Given they are in his cannon, and especially considering that ‘canonical’ has nothing to do with opinions.

I’m also curious - At the time, the deuterocanonicals were debated by Catholics like Cardinal Cajetan and as well, so do you say that Catholics also contributed to this modern English-speking problem as well?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

So he decided they were non-canoniccal and then he put them in the his biblical cannon?

That doesn’t seem correct - do you have a source for this claim? Given they are in his cannon, and especially considering that ‘canonical’ has nothing to do with opinions.

I’m also curious - At the time, the deuterocanonicals were debated by Catholics like Cardinal Cajetan and as well, so do you say that Catholics also contributed to this modern English-speking problem as well?

Hmmm … I think you have a misunderstanding of what “canon” and “canonical” actually mean.

 

[benjohnson]

Hmmm … I think you have a misunderstanding of what “canon” and “canonical” actually mean.

I’m making the claim that 74 books in Luther’s Bible translation are Luther’s determination on what should be canonically in the Bible.

It’s a simple claim that’s easily refuted by counting the books in Luther’s Bible.

I would also be curious to your answer to the Cardinal Cajetan question.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

I’m making the claim that 74 books in Luther’s Bible translation are Luther’s determination on what should be canonically in the Bible.

It’s a simple claim that’s easily refuted by counting the books in Luther’s Bible.

It is a simple claim. Simple, and wrong.

Look at the Wikipedia entry for Luther’s Canon:

Luther also eliminated the deuterocanonical books from the Catholic Old Testament, terming them “Apocrypha, that are books which are not considered equal to the Holy Scriptures, but are useful and good to read”.[10] He also argued unsuccessfully for the relocation of the Book of Esther from the canon to the Apocrypha, because without the deuterocanonical additions to the Book of Esther, the text of Esther never mentions God. As a result, Protestants and Catholics continue to use different canons, which differ both in respect to the Old Testament and in the concept of the Antilegomena of the New Testament.

I would also be curious to your answer to the Cardinal Cajetan question.

Why? I don’t have much of an opinion on that. You can find many Catholic scholars questioning things that I don’t think should be questioned, even today.

BTW, I’d like YOUR opinion on why, if you think Luther had included the 7 deuterocanonicals in his canon, that the Lutheran church and others have subsequently eliminated them.

 

[JonNC]

It is a simple claim. Simple, and wrong.

Look at the Wikipedia entry for Luther’s Canon:

Why? I don’t have much of an opinion on that. You can find many Catholic scholars questioning things that I don’t think should be questioned, even today.

BTW, I’d like YOUR opinion on why, if you think Luther had included the 7 deuterocanonicals in his canon, that the Lutheran church and others have subsequently eliminated them.

The position of the Lutheran Church is we don’t list a specific canon. The confessions do not. Hence, it is incorrect to say that the Lutheran Church has eliminated any of them.
What is true is that we do recognize the historic dispute about some books, old testament and new, dating back long before Luther and the Reformation.

Jon

 

[steido01]

The position of the Lutheran Church is we don’t list a specific canon. The confessions do not. Hence, it is incorrect to say that the Lutheran Church has eliminated any of them.
What is true is that we do recognize the historic dispute about some books, old testament and new, dating back long before Luther and the Reformation.

Jon

Boom! I always love when this gets mentioned. Seems to completely blow the minds of Roman Catholics and protestants alike. To understand the purpose of the “canon” in the Lutheran sense takes an entirely different type of thinking.

For those unfamiliar with the Lutheran concept, start here: internetmonk.com/archive/thinking-about-the-canon-a-lutheran-view

 

[JonNC]

Martin Luther and all those who followed him.

Evidence please.

You stated, * They didn’t throw out books just because they disproved their theology. *

Assuming you are speaking of the deuterocanon, then you must have specific evidence as to what theology each of the books Luther “disapproved” of. What did Luther disapprove of:
in Sirach -
in Wisdom -
in 1 Macc -
in 2 Macc -
in Tobit -
in Judith -
in Baruch -

If you claim he “removed” them because of theology, then please state the theological principle from each book. A source with Luther’s own words would be appreciated.

Jon

 

[benjohnson]

It is a simple claim. Simple, and wrong.

Look at the Wikipedia entry for Luther’s Canon:

You must find a proper Lutheran source for your claim that we have 1) A fixed cannon 2) That excludes the dutreroconanicals.

The Lutheran church and others have subsequently eliminated them.

You say “we eliminstated them”. I’m telling you you can buy them from us here and they never were excluded from the German version of our bibles.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Evidence please.

You stated, * They didn’t throw out books just because they disproved their theology. *

Assuming you are speaking of the deuterocanon, then you must have specific evidence as to what theology each of the books Luther “disapproved” of. What did Luther disapprove of:
in Sirach -
in Wisdom -
in 1 Macc -
in 2 Macc -
in Tobit -
in Judith -
in Baruch -

If you claim he “removed” them because of theology, then please state the theological principle from each book. A source with Luther’s own words would be appreciated.

Jon

Luther removed 2Maccabees because he disbelieved in purgatory and praying for the dead. He used the Jewish Palestinian canon as an excuse to justify their removal.

Martin Luther stated in his Table Talk (XXIV), “I am so great an enemy to the second book of the Maccabees, and to Esther, that I wish they had not come to us at all, for they have too many heathen unnaturalities.”

Yes, he provided many other “reasons” that he distrusted 2Macc, as would any proud historical-critical proponent or Jesus-seminarian. But doctrinally, this is the reason.

In fact, he supported 1Maccabees as being in the canon, but had to remove it since keeping it would destroy his Palestinian canon excuse.

He removed Hebrews since it referenced 2Macc. He removed James because it directly contradicted his belief in sola fide.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

You must find a proper Lutheran source for your claim that we have 1) A fixed cannon 2) That excludes the dutreroconanicals.

Sorry, but I was being perhaps too charitable in my assesment.
How can you say that the Bible is authoritative unless you first establish what the Bible IS?

ESPECIALLY when purportedly following the faith of the person who invented sola scriptura.

You say “we eliminstated them”. I’m telling you you can buy them from us here and they never were excluded from the German version of our bibles.

And I’m saying that it doesn’t matter much if you add them as an appendix with a notation that they’re not canonical.

I’ll bet that you also have a copyright notice in your Bible.

 

[JonNC]

=FathersKnowBest;11330172]Luther removed 2Maccabees because he disbelieved in purgatory and praying for the dead. He used the Jewish Palestinian canon as an excuse to justify their removal.

See? You are already wrong. Luther, and Lutherans allow for the praying for the dead

Martin Luther stated in his Table Talk (XXIV), “I am so great an enemy to the second book of the Maccabees, and to Esther, that I wish they had not come to us at all, for they have too many heathen unnaturalities.”

Yes, he provided many other “reasons” that he distrusted 2Macc, as would any proud historical-critical proponent or Jesus-seminarian. But doctrinally, this is the reason.

From the Apology of the Augsburg Confession:
94] Now, as regards the adversaries’ citing the Fathers concerning the offering for the dead, we know that the ancients speak of prayer for the dead, which we do not prohibit;

In fact, he supported 1Maccabees as being in the canon, but had to remove it since keeping it would destroy his Palestinian canon excuse.

You can call it an excuse, but you have just undermined your original statement, that Luther “disapproved” of them because of theology. Here you say he approved of 1 Macc.

He removed Hebrews since it referenced 2Macc. He removed James because it directly contradicted his belief in sola fide.

He removed neither of them.
He says this of Hebrews:

However that may be, it is a marvelously fine epistle. It discusses Christ’s priesthood masterfully and thoroughly, out of the Scriptures, and interprets the Old Testament finely and richly. Thus it is plain that it is the work of an able and learned man, who was a disciple of the apostles, learned much from them, and was greatly experienced in faith and practiced in the Scriptures. And although, as he himself testifies in Hebrews 6:1, he does not lay the foundation of faith, which is the work of an apostle, nevertheless he does build finely thereon gold, silver, precious stones, as St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 3:12. Therefore we should not be hindered, even though wood, straw or hay be mixed in with them, but accept this fine teaching with all honor; though to be sure, we cannot put it on the same level with the apostolic epistles.

Sound like he’s throwing it out?

And James:

Though this Epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients,** I praise it and hold it a good book**, because it sets up no doctrine of men and lays great stress upon God’s law. But to state my own opinion about it, though without injury to anyone, I consider that it is not the writing of any apostle.

But again, what about Sirach, Tobit, Judith, et al.? If you are going to say he removed them for theology, you must have a source to back up the claim.

Jon

 

[Novocastrian]

Sorry, but I was being perhaps too charitable in my assesment.
How can you say that the Bible is authoritative unless you first establish what the Bible IS?

ESPECIALLY when purportedly following the faith of the person who invented sola scriptura.

With regard to the bolded bit - how many times must you be told that that is not what Lutherans do? They follow the Confessio Augustana. I’m not a Lutheran and I’ve somehow managed to get that into my head, so how about you try to acknowledge that fact too!

 

[FathersKnowBest]

See? You are already wrong. Luther, and Lutherans allow for the praying for the dead

You’ve got to be more careful. Luther held fluid and changing convictions on this and many other points of doctrine. You could no doubt find quotes on both sides of this argument from him.

Luther, at a point in his life, even believed in soul-sleep. Of what use is prayer for someone who isn’t even conscious?

You can call it an excuse, but you have just undermined your original statement, that Luther “disapproved” of them because of theology. Here you say he approved of 1 Macc.

Yeah, he did approve of 1Macc. But it had to go so that he had a theological basis by which he could remove 2Macc as well: the Palestinain canon.

He disapproved of 1Macc because of the theology contained in 2Macc.

He removed neither of them.
He says this of Hebrews:

Sound like he’s throwing it out?

No, he didn’t throw out Hebrews, James, Revelation, etc.
He wanted to, but had to be convinced by others to keep them in. Grudgingly.

But again, what about Sirach, Tobit, Judith, et al.? If you are going to say he removed them for theology, you must have a source to back up the claim.

He removed them because of the theology contained in 2Macc primarily.

You stopped your quote from Luther’s preface to James just a little early (hmmm …):

Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, 1 I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle; and my reasons follow.

In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works. It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac; though in Romans 4 St. Paul teaches to the contrary that Abraham was justified apart from works, by his faith alone, before he had offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis

Whoops! Luther is telling us that James’ theology is wrong, and that Luther’s is right.
Be sure to tell that to St. James – he’ll be interested to be know that.

It’s pretty easy to multiply quotes from Luther on both sides of nearly every issue; he flip-floped more than John Kerry.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

With regard to the bolded bit - how many times must you be told that that is not what Lutherans do? They follow the Confessio Augustana. I’m not a Lutheran and I’ve somehow managed to get that into my head, so how about you try to acknowledge that fact too!

Because it’s simply a false dichotomy.

What if someone said that Christians don’t follow Christ, but instead follow the Apostles’ Creed? Or the Gospels?

How about anything with regard to the first question?
How can you say that the Bible is authoritative unless you first establish what the Bible IS?

Oh, and think about switching to decaf.