Protestants: Please explain to me what gave Martin Luther the power to remove books?

Well said Boar.

wildboar said:

It seems to me that the most conservative approach would be to allow the reading of the Apocryphal books in the churches but to only use the undisputed books to establish doctrine. Even the common term in Roman Catholicism--deuterocanonical--implies that these books are not on the same level as the rest of the canon. The Council of Trent also said that the Latin Vulgate in use at the time of the Council must not be questioned or rejected. Nevermind the fact that there were many variations at the time from the edition produced by Jerome. And since that time there have been revisions of the Vulgate. So either Trent was in error or the Roman Catholic Church today is in error. The Roman Catholic Church also now allows translations that are not based on the Vulgate and has abandoned its anathemas against those who question the authenticity of the Johannine Comma (which was found in the Vulgate at the time of Trent but not in Jerome's Vulgate). I wouldn't want the text of my Bible subjected to the whims of some infallible council who decision could be overthrown by a council later on. I think it better to recognize that the Christian church as a whole has been able to discern which books are canonical throughout history.

Click to expand...

Deuterocanonical doesn't mean "lesser." It is a sequential description. Also, those are not the only disputed books, which means you would have to throw out books in your 66 book Bible from establishing doctrine if you permit someone's "dispute" to neuter a book that is Scripture. Also, I think I know which part of Trent & the Vulgate you mean. If it's from the 4th session, it says that no one should reject use of the old vulgate for exposition, lectures, etc... That same session permits other translations as well when it says, "(this Synod) ordains and decrees, that, henceforth, the sacred Scripture, and especially the said old and vulgate edition, be printed in the most correct manner possible." That refers to future translations. In other words, the old vulgate was to be the officially used for expositions, lectures, etc... not that other translations were discouraged. It actually encouraged that future translations be "printed in the most correct manner possible."

Mr Polo said:

Also, those are not the only disputed books, which means you would have to throw out books in your 66 book Bible from establishing doctrine if you permit someone's "dispute" to neuter a book that is Scripture.

Click to expand...

There are disputed NT books as well such as Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2&3 John, James, Jude, and Revelation and I don't believe that these should be used to establish doctrine either. It's not just some guy's dispute but the general acceptance of the church at large. And a council (Trent) that was called by a particular fragment of the church is not the same as an ecumenical council. I can rightly say that if someone denies the Gospels or the letters of Paul being part of Scripture that they are not an historic Christian but the same cannot be said about other books since even those who the Roman Catholic Church has canonized has saints have disputed these other books which apparently places them in both heaven and hell at the same time.

wildboar said:

There are disputed NT books as well such as Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2&3 John, James, Jude, and Revelation and I don't believe that these should be used to establish doctrine either.

Click to expand...

I understand you don't embrace the Catholic Magisterium, but I still must disagree with your mentality here. In Acts 15, when there was genuine dispute among legitimate elders on circumcision, they didn't just say "Well, we're not unanimous, forget about it." Rather the Spirit will sort out the truth among the Church. I think if you nix James and Jude or whatever from which you can discern doctrine on the basis that there has been dispute on those books, then I think you are quenching the Spirit. At the same time, I think that enables the devil who would use dispute in order to hinder the truth.

Mr. Polo said:

I understand you don't embrace the Catholic Magisterium, but I still must disagree with your mentality here. In Acts 15, when there was genuine dispute among legitimate elders on circumcision, they didn't just say "Well, we're not unanimous, forget about it." Rather the Spirit will sort out the truth among the Church. I think if you nix James and Jude or whatever from which you can discern doctrine on the basis that there has been dispute on those books, then I think you are quenching the Spirit. At the same time, I think that enables the devil who would use dispute in order to hinder the truth.

Click to expand...

What teaching do you find in James or Jude that is so vital to the Christian faith that is not found in the rest of Scripture? I believe along with Luther that all of Christian doctrine can be found in the Gospel of Matthew. On the other hand, there are countless heretical groups who have gone astray by taking a disputed writing such as the Book of Revelation (which even now is not read during the lectionary readings in the Eastern Orthodox churches) and come up with all kinds of goofy ideas and then read those teachings into the rest of Scripture. But if as the historic liturgy itself suggests and all the beautiful Gospel processionals suggest we give pre-eminence to the Gospels we run into far less problems. Just as dispensationalists wrongly take the disputed Book of Revelation and use it as a lens for their interpretation of the rest of the Scriptures, so the Roman Catholic Church takes a wrong reading of the disputed book of James and uses it as the lens through which to read the Gospels and the letters of Paul. And they take descriptive narratives in the OT Apocrypha and use them as a means to establish prescriptive doctrine. I have absolutely no problem with the reading of the OT Apocrypha in the churches. We sing portions of them in the liturgy at my own church at certain times of the year. There is just danger in treating them the same way you would treat the Gospels or the letters of Paul. I don't see how any of that is quenching the Spirit. Given the contradictions between some of the different councils I would have to conclude that the Holy Spirit is quite confused if I made the claim that they were all led by the Holy Spirit.

Unsubscribing

wildboar said:

What teaching do you find in James or Jude that is so vital to the Christian faith that is not found in the rest of Scripture? I believe along with Luther that all of Christian doctrine can be found in the Gospel of Matthew. On the other hand, there are countless heretical groups who have gone astray by taking a disputed writing such as the Book of Revelation (which even now is not read during the lectionary readings in the Eastern Orthodox churches) and come up with all kinds of goofy ideas and then read those teachings into the rest of Scripture. But if as the historic liturgy itself suggests and all the beautiful Gospel processionals suggest we give pre-eminence to the Gospels we run into far less problems. Just as dispensationalists wrongly take the disputed Book of Revelation and use it as a lens for their interpretation of the rest of the Scriptures, so the Roman Catholic Church takes a wrong reading of the disputed book of James and uses it as the lens through which to read the Gospels and the letters of Paul. And they take descriptive narratives in the OT Apocrypha and use them as a means to establish prescriptive doctrine. I have absolutely no problem with the reading of the OT Apocrypha in the churches. We sing portions of them in the liturgy at my own church at certain times of the year. There is just danger in treating them the same way you would treat the Gospels or the letters of Paul. I don't see how any of that is quenching the Spirit. Given the contradictions between some of the different councils I would have to conclude that the Holy Spirit is quite confused if I made the claim that they were all led by the Holy Spirit.

Click to expand...

Again, I don't get this mentality of being discouraged by other people's twisting. Catholics choose to recognize that which is Scripture no matter who twists it. If you think Catholics twist the book of James, why in the world would that stop you from trying to learn if there is sound doctrine in there? Godspeed to you however you choose to approach Scripture.

Mr Polo said:

Again, I don't get this mentality of being discouraged by other people's twisting. Catholics choose to recognize that which is Scripture no matter who twists it. If you think Catholics twist the book of James, why in the world would that stop you from trying to learn if there is sound doctrine in there? Godspeed to you however you choose to approach Scripture.

Click to expand...

The Deuterocanonicals may provide insight into certain teachings and so I don't think that they should be thrown out entirely but I do think it is necessary to interpret them through the lens of the undisputed books. I think that even the canonical order provides some help in determining which books should interpret which. Among the church fathers the sermons and commentaries are great on the undisputed books but few and far between on the disputed books.

osddso said:

Im not being condesending at all. im just curious. i dont quite understand. i was always under the impression all books in the bible are important.

i read the NKJV and i am Catholic. I prefer it over the NASB and ESV.

i just dont understand how extreme Protestants can say "what gives Catholics the right to <insert common complaint here>. It makes me wonder "what gave Martin Luther the right to exclude books?

im not being mean, i just dont know how else to put it.

Click to expand...

I would research into how such matters are decided, in general. I have not found anything great missing from the Protestant Scriptures, though there are some books not included I have found excellent, godly wisdom from.

Remember, Catholics, or the Catholic church has also excluded matters. In fact, the Catholic Church excludes many things the Protestants or Orthodox do not, and vice versa. Who gives anyone a right to do such things?

I find, because I know many good Christians who are Catholic or Orthodox, that it is best to take such things with a grain of salt. The matter of rebelling against established order and authorities is itself a great mystery. Who gave the Americans the right to rebel against the authorities of the British, for instance? Or how has any established order been overturned by rightful authority?

This is a deep matter for Christians, I believe, because Jesus did not teach to overthrow established authorities. Yet, clearly God has been behind such matters in some cases. In most cases, we might say otherwise.

wildboar said:

The Deuterocanonicals may provide insight into certain teachings and so I don't think that they should be thrown out entirely but I do think it is necessary to interpret them through the lens of the undisputed books. I think that even the canonical order provides some help in determining which books should interpret which. Among the church fathers the sermons and commentaries are great on the undisputed books but few and far between on the disputed books.

Click to expand...

So if I understand your position correctly, Jude, James, et al, are indeed the inspired word of God, but you don't believe we should derive any doctrinal truth from those books because other people don't think they are Scripture? Or are you saying some people's doubts cause you to not know if those books are God's inspired revelation to mankind, and therefore you will play it safe and not derive any doctrine from them? I am unclear as to whether or not you think any of the disputed books are indeed divine revelation.

Mr. Polo said:

So if I understand your position correctly, Jude, James, et al, are indeed the inspired word of God, but you don't believe we should derive any doctrinal truth from those books because other people don't think they are Scripture? Or are you saying some people's doubts cause you to not know if those books are God's inspired revelation to mankind, and therefore you will play it safe and not derive any doctrine from them? I am unclear as to whether or not you think any of the disputed books are indeed divine revelation.

Click to expand...

My position is that we should follow the example of the early church fathers and allow them to be read in the churches but allow for disagreement as to whether or not they should be considered part of the canon of Scripture. As Eusebius wrote:

Among the disputed writings, [&#964;&#969;&#957; &#945;&#957;&#964;&#953;&#955;&#949;&#947;&#959;&#956;&#941;&#957;&#969;&#957;], which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name. Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews that have accepted Christ are especially delighted. And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books. [&#964;&#969;&#957; &#945;&#957;&#964;&#953;&#955;&#949;&#947;&#959;&#956;&#941;&#957;&#969;&#957;]"

Click to expand...

My personal opinions about which of these disputed books should be considered canonical is irrelevant. My point is that it is a deviation from the teaching of the church fathers to a particular canon. The letters of Paul and the Gospels cannot be denied but there is some freedom elsewhere. If we start anethematizing those who deny a particular disputed book is part of the canon as Trent did then we anathematize many of the chief fathers of the church.

wildboar said:

My personal opinions about which of these disputed books should be considered canonical is irrelevant.

Click to expand...

You perhaps have seen in this thread what I think about picking and choosing certain ECFs as your rule on matters. And besides, all Eusebius said in that quote is that these books were known to have been disputed at some point. And even if Eusebius said not to derive doctrine from these books, why take his opinion over the ECFs that he says accept these books as Scripture and who did teach from them! You'd have to vehemently deny the Trinity on the same basis that there were many ECFs who disputed it and even exiled Athanasius over the matter more than once. Jerome taught us that at one point the majority of bishops were Arian!

At the end of the day your criteria is your own. You have a certain idea in your mind of how much dispute is too much, or that any dispute at all should even disqualify a book of Scripture from being used for doctrine! This must be our criteria according to whom?

The early Church passed on a 27 book NT Canon. They obviously did not take that attitude. They passed on all 27, and can be seen teaching from "disputed" books after Eusebius (and quite a bit before). I repeat again from Acts 15, there was dispute over whether circumcision was necessary. In that council, did they say, "There is dispute. We shall not be able to identify the truth." No! The Spirit is able to guide the Church through dispute! And their decision did not anathematize their opponents who had a different opinion prior to the council.

This all means the "don't get doctrine from disputed books" rule is a rule that the early Church disputes!! Which means the conservative play would be to discard that rule!!

Mr. Polo said:

You perhaps have seen in this thread what I think about picking and choosing certain ECFs as your rule on matters. And besides, all Eusebius said in that quote is that these books were known to have been disputed at some point.

Click to expand...

Eusebius is talking about which books were regarded as canonical by all and which books were disputed in his day and these books continued to be disputed even by the most esteemed church fathers. Eusebius is not saying whether or not to derive doctrine from them but making an observation about how various books were regarded by the church.

Mr. Polo said:

You'd have to vehemently deny the Trinity on the same basis that there were many ECFs who disputed it and even exiled Athanasius over the matter more than once. Jerome taught us that at one point the majority of bishops were Arian!

Click to expand...

The doctrine of the Trinity as taught by Nicea and the other ecumenical councils was accepted because it was in harmony with the regula fidei handed down by the Apostles. It was said that Peter spoke through Pope Leo in his Tome. Arius and the other heretics were out of harmony with the regula fidei.

This is quite different from the controversies over the canon. People were more than happy to live in communion with one another while having differences over the canon. The Apostles did not hand down a table of contents but a message that was all about Jesus Christ.

I'm not talking about questionable church fathers like Origen or random bishops or even the majority of bishops. Jerome had more influence on the Vulgate than anyone and questioned the authority of the deuterocanonicals in the OT. Jerome wrote things like:

As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church. If any one is better pleased with the edition of the Seventy, there it is, long since corrected by me. For it is not our aim in producing the new to destroy the old. And yet if our friend reads carefully, he will find that our version is the more intelligible, for it has not turned sour by being poured three times over into different vessels, but has been drawn straight from the press, and stored in a clean jar, and has thus preserved its own flavour.

Click to expand...

Jerome is distinguishing between canonical writings which are used to establish doctrine and ecclesiastical writings which are not but are read for edification. Athanasius made a similar distinction. Hilary of Poiters and Rufinus said similar things. Aquinas questioned the standing of some of the OT disputed writings. Augustine made distinctions between levels of inspiration.

Canons were different in different locations throughout church history and they still are. The Eastern Canon is larger than the West and certain portions of the Eastern Orthodox Church have an even bigger Canon than the Greek.

It seems as though the best theologians and scholars in the Western tradition all felt comfortable questioning whether or not certain books should be included. They did not believe questioning the deuterocanonicals was in some way questioning the regula fidei. The Council of Trent departed on the issue of the canon just as it departed on a host of other issues from the tradition of the church. In anathematizing the truth it anathematized itself. Trent makes a move very similar to that of the KJV-onlyists. They shut their ears to the truth, even if it's brought to them by the very people who brought them the Vulgate and opt for a simplistic table of contents position as if a table of contents fell from the sky and they anathematize the most revered, godly, and educated theologians in their own church.

Mr. Polo said:

The early Church passed on a 27 book NT Canon. They obviously did not take that attitude. They passed on all 27, and can be seen teaching from "disputed" books after Eusebius (and quite a bit before). I repeat again from Acts 15, there was dispute over whether circumcision was necessary. In that council, did they say, "There is dispute. We shall not be able to identify the truth." No! The Spirit is able to guide the Church through dispute! And their decision did not anathematize their opponents who had a different opinion prior to the council.

This all means the "don't get doctrine from disputed books" rule is a rule that the early Church disputes!! Which means the conservative play would be to discard that rule!!

Click to expand...

The dispute over circumcision was a dispute over whether or not Christ really did fulfill all of the law for us and pay for all of our sins--our salvation depended on it. If circumcision was still required there were things that Christ had left undone. If Christ were not God and man He could not save us. If I never read the book of 2 Peter or 1 Maccabees or 4 Maccabees, Jesus still died for my sins.

So, I'll happily stand with Athanasius, Jerome, Thomas Aquinas, Rufinus, and Hilary of Poiters rather than with a Council that took place in a fragmented region of the church that excommunicated somebody for criticizing the selling of indulgences that the Roman Catholic church said was wrong to do later on anyhow. Apparently pointing out wrong doing is wrong.

If you want to see the final polished and perfected word of the Lord check out the post under "Bibliology and Hermeneutics." Here the 66 book Lutheran bible is examined in all it's wonderful glory. dan b

MrPolo said:

None of these claims are true.

Click to expand...

Please do not take this as a sarcastic question, I really want to know this for my own sake...Can you tell me where Christ or His apostles quoted any books of the Apocrypha? Specifically the OT Apocrypha? I know they've quoted many, almost all books of the Protestant OT (I cant remember the exact number of references and the exact books), but I've never heard of them quoting the Apocrypha...can you help?