Why did Luther remove the biblical books he did?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Didi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
GregoryPalamas said:
He should have stuck around a bit longer:shrug: Perhaps the “reformers” were too busy plotting with the German Princes to attend an ecumenical council. Or perhaps they heard how the Turks were trying to destroy Europe and they wished to help.

CDL
Click to expand...
So do you say Luther was wrong in addressing the abuses that were going on in the Chruch? Should he have not said anything about these abuses and just let them continue?
 
JTBT said:
So do you say Luther was wrong in addressing the abuses that were going on in the Chruch? Should he have not said anything about these abuses and just let them continue?
Click to expand...
List the abuses that were supported by the Church, please. We should all address abuses, but could you list those abuses Luther addressed?

CDL
 
JTBT said:
:hmmm:Martin Luther was dead! so I don’t think he got the invite
Click to expand...
Maybe I should have said, “The Reformers who were still alive, and those that were leaders of the new churches of the reform movement were invited…”

Happy?:hmmm:
 
GregoryPalamas said:
That’s how Council work. They confirm matters that have generally been accepted for most of the time. The Church doesn’t make up new things. Moreover, most Councils were called to counteract heresies. Lutheranism was one of the biggest ones Christianity has ever faced.

The political reason Luther removed this books because he wished to create his own Church based upon Lay Investiture. Read his letter to the German Princes if you don’t believe me.

CDL
Click to expand...
Councils are called when problems can’t resolve themselves between the two opposing parties/beliefs. In an ideal world, neither Councils nor Papal decrees are necessary. But people like Nestor and Arias have proved that Councils and Popes are the glue that keeps the Church together.

OK, OK, it’s the Holy Spirit that keeps the Church together, but often He uses the Councils and Popes to do the dirty work.
 
Didi said:
I understand that Luther removed several books (deuterocanonical or apocryphal books) during the reformation.

Does anyone have some brief answers as to why he removed the books he did? (I have short-term memory problems, so reading long articles about it is difficult for me.)

For example, I’ve read that Macabees was removed because of its obvious teaching on praying for the dead and purgatory. But what about the others?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
He didn’t exactly “remove” them. He relegated them to a lesser status. In both the OT and NT cases, he only did this with books whose canonicity had been disputed in the past. These questions were being raised with new urgency because of Renaissance literary scholarship. In the case of the OT, the “excluded” books were those that did not form part of the Hebrew canon. In the case of the NT, they were books whose apostolicity many early Christians had questioned. Luther did not simply take out the books he disliked. However, taking a fairly rigorous attitude on this issue (i.e., downgrading the authority of books that had historically been disputed) certainly favored Luther’s theological project. Luther believed that there were certain core books whose teachings were particularly central–in the case of the NT this meant primarily the Gospel of John and the letters of Paul (particularly the letters modern scholars consider to be indisputably Paul’s, although no such questions were raised in Luther’s day). Note that the Synoptics were far less favorable to Luther’s theological project than John, and Luther did suggest that John was somehow more important, but he never in any way suggested that the Synoptics were not inspired or not authoritative. That is a decisive argument against the idea that Luther simply took out the books that didn’t suit his project. If he had, Matthew wouldn’t have fared much better than James. (In my opinion, the Gospel of Matthew provides most of the strongest arguments against Luther’s theology.)

Edwin
 
GregoryPalamas said:
He should have stuck around a bit longer:shrug: Perhaps the “reformers” were too busy plotting with the German Princes to attend an ecumenical council. Or perhaps they heard how the Turks were trying to destroy Europe and they wished to help.

CDL
Click to expand...
Or perhaps they didn’t want to share the fate of John Hus, treacherously murdered by a Holy Roman Emperor and an Ecumenical Council after having been given a safeconduct! (Charles V had explicitly said with regard to Luther at Worms that he had no desire to follow in the footsteps of Emperor Sigismund, and I think he was too honorable to do such a nasty thing–but I can’t blame the Reformers for not wanting to stake their lives on this.)

Edwin
 
JTBT said:
So do you say Luther was wrong in addressing the abuses that were going on in the Chruch? Should he have not said anything about these abuses and just let them continue?
Click to expand...
The Reformation was not just about addressing abuses. It was about how to address abuses and how to define them. Luther believed that the root cause of all the abuses was doctrinal error, and the doctrinal “error” he identified was one that clearly went back to the early Church, and was even found in the Reformers’ favorite theologian, St. Augustine (as the Lutherans ruefully and reluctantly admitted–the Reformed were closer to Augustine and less likely to admit where they differed from him).

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
The Reformation was not just about addressing abuses. It was about how to address abuses and how to define them. Luther believed that the root cause of all the abuses was doctrinal error, and the doctrinal “error” he identified was one that clearly went back to the early Church, and was even found in the Reformers’ favorite theologian, St. Augustine (as the Lutherans ruefully and reluctantly admitted–the Reformed were closer to Augustine and less likely to admit where they differed from him).

Edwin
Click to expand...
Addressing abuses by Lay Investiture was always a tricky matter. Henry IV of Germany and many many princes of his time tried it and even went so far as to kidnap a Pope. Philip the Fair some centuries later did the same thing. There have been murder plots against popes and murders of bishops and priests all in the name of Lay Investiture. In theory and usually in practice Lay Invetiture is a bad thing. It makes the Church and its clergy subject to secular rulers. The one time Lay Investiture worked was when Otto I appointed several popes when the papacy was itself in danger of collapse or of being controlled completely by secular princes. Otto did it right. When a new pope was elected (appointed?) he stepped back to honor that pope’s authority. Luther was not like that. He used the power of secular princes…or they used him…in order to overthrow any spiritual authority whatsoever.

Luther cooked up a stew he eventually didn’t like much but once it was cooked so was he as a spiritual authority.

CDL
 
JTBT said:
it has always been my understanding the books listed above were added, at the Council of Trent, after Luthers death!!:eek:🙂
Click to expand...
Actually, the books have been used by Christians ever since the beginning. Even the Orthodox Church uses them.

An Orthodox priest once told me that the Orthodox Church was unaware that it had been using the wrong books up until a protestant told them in the 1950’s!

An examination of the historical record reveals the truth. For instance, here is a proposed canonical list from the year 397…
bible-researcher.com/carthage.html

St. Augustine’s proposed list from the year 397, also…(scroll to chapter 12)
ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/augustine/ddc2.html. Notice in his commentary before the list that one of his criteria for inclusion is that the books are used in churches with greater authority.

Notice that all the books the Catholic Church uses are listed.

Martin Luther didn’t like some of them, so he suggested thier removal. Other Protestants followed suit. It’s that simple.

The canon was ratified over a series of councils. No single man made the choice. The books were debated and argued over and then settled upon. The only christian churches who do not use all of the books, which include the “apocrypha”, or deuterocanon, are protestant churches.

The Orthodox do, the Coptics do, the Antiochans do, the Syrians do, the Armenians do, and the list goes on. Only the protestants leave them out.

As far as the matter at Trent, the Church made a final canonization there, done in the face of protestant opposition.

Sub
 
GregoryPalamas said:
So a dispute over whether or not a legate of the pope, Tetzel, moved into Simony was enough of a reason to try to destroy the Church by schism?

CDL
Click to expand...
that was not Luther’s original intention. but should I take it that your stance was that Tetzel was RIGHT in what he was doing?
 
JTBT said:
that was not Luther’s original intention. but should I take it that your stance was that Tetzel was RIGHT in what he was doing?
Click to expand...
A dispute over whether Tetzel was right or wrong should be a dispute between Tetzel and Luther. Luther, if I remember correctly, wanted to get rid of Indulgences all together. You don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.
 
NotWorthy said:
A dispute over whether Tetzel was right or wrong should be a dispute between Tetzel and Luther. Luther, if I remember correctly, wanted to get rid of Indulgences all together. You don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.
Click to expand...
read the 95, a link to it is posted above,
and what was Luther supposed to do; challange Tetzel to a fist fight?
 
JTBT said:
that was not Luther’s original intention. but should I take it that your stance was that Tetzel was RIGHT in what he was doing?
Click to expand...
No. But one does not support the destruction of the Church in order to start ones own Church because they have a difference over something like this. Look at the pattern he set. Do you really believe that 37,000 denominations is really justified?

CDL
 
GregoryPalamas said:
No. But one does not support the destruction of the Church in order to start ones own Church because they have a difference over something like this. Look at the pattern he set. Do you really believe that 37,000 denominations is really justified?

CDL
Click to expand...
Luther didn’t support the destruction of the Church, he wanted reform and a council, which didn’t happen in his life time.
you act like this was the 1st time the Church split, as I recall the Great Schism happened about 1054 almost 500 years prior to the reformation. I’m not sure about the 37,000 denominations where did you get that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top