protestant birth

[thereselittleflower]

I would want that everyone finds his or her right church, but there are a few items of historical inaccuracy in what I'm reading.

Well, we'll see. . .

Actually, Luther did emphatically reject indulgences.

Pelase show me where in his 95 Thesis he outright and totally rejected indulgences.

The dispute over the promotion of them in Germany you refer to was merely the starting point.

When Luther wrote the 95 Thesis, he had not rejected indulgences, and THAT was the context of my statement. So no inaccuracies there . .

Yes, he opposed the sale of what was seen by the people to be a sale, but Luther found no support for indulgences at all, as can be seen in the Ninety-five Theses and what he maintained at the Leipzig Debates.

Again, please show me where he catagorically rejected all forms of indulgences in the 95 Thesis.

Luther did not side with the idea of "salvation without works," just the opposite. Luther and Lutherans generally know that a faith which does not produce works is not a real faith. The issue is not "salvation without works" for that is impossible, but which if either contributes to one's salvation.

And he came up with the idea that works contribute nothing to our salvation. That is the same as saying what I said . . . you must take things in their proper context . . .

Yes, Luther came as close as you can to salvation by faith and work without allowing for works to be contributory in any way as faith is.

This is why he wanted to throw out the book of James, for it completely contradicted his position on this.

However, he did recognize that as heat and light are necessary components of a fire, so are faith and works necessary components of salvation. He just reufsed to grant works the same position he granted faith.

In fairness, the Roman Catholic Church ALSO threw out several of the Apocryphal books following Luther's career,

No they didn't . . the canon as settled by the councils of the late 3rd and early 4th centuries is the exact same one as dogmatically proclaimed by the Council of Trent. We threw nothing out following Luther's career. You sources of information are very faulty.

and Luther appealed to the practice of the Eastern Orthodox churches which are at least as old as the Roman See and which never believed in indulgences.

Luther did not follow the Eastern Church in their practices. And your statement about the Eastern Church regarding indulgences is fallacious. Though they would not call their beliefs by the name of indulgences, they nevertheless hold to the underlying principles and doctrines in thier own way. These are seen in the Early Church.

http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Faith/0910-96/article9.html

A more accurate rendering would be to say that no man is a pope.

No . . I disagree. Luther claimed for himself an infalliblity no pope has ever dreamed claiming, and his emphasis on personal interpretation has led to every man becoming his own pope.

Since Luther condemned the Peasant's Revolt, and since the Thirty Year's War was as much the doing of Catholic as well as Protestant forces, that is quite a stretch.

HArdly. Yes, Luther condemned the peasants revolt, but only after he instigated it by his ill chosen words, rhetoric and polemics, and lost control of the peasants. . . But you neglect to mention HOW he condemned it and what he called for on the part of the noblity in response. What did he call for? Do you support what Luther did? Do you support Luther's call to hack, slay, maim, kill the peasants by whatever means the nobility could?

Most religious historians point out that Luther was a very cautious and conservative thinker who refused to criticize many Catholic practices that other Protestants were keen to have removed from the church. He did not reject the liturgy, the Real Presence, images, the Church Calendar, the Immaculate Conception, and so on. He was determined that his issues remain the basics of God's and Man's relationship to each other, not to throw out anything else.

Hmmm. . . that is an interesting white wash of Lutherian history . . . He threw out many things. He threw out ancient doctrines of the Church from apostolic times. . . . Yes, there was bath water to throw out, ecclesial abuses needed to end . . .but I discovered, much to my shock and dismay while I was still protestant, that most of what he threw out was baby.


Peace

 

[Albion]

And he came up with the idea that works contribute nothing to our salvation.

I wouldn't argue with the way you put it there, but my comment went to how you worded it before: "It would be a few more years yet before Luther would develop his doctrines of salvation without works."

Luther did not maintain that salvation comes "without works." He maintained that--as you said here--works contribute nothing to our salvation." Hopefully, you see the difference.

This is why he wanted to throw out the book of James, for it completely contradicted his position on this.

I'm sure you'd like us to believe that, but the reason he was concerned about the Epistle of James is not that. Lutherans easily point out that James does NOT contradict Luther's and Paul's teachings on the matter of Faith, but the book still has its weaknesses.

He just reufsed to grant works the same position he granted faith.

That's right. They aren't in the same position.

No they didn't . . the canon as settled by the councils of the late 3rd and early 4th centuries is the exact same one as dogmatically proclaimed by the Council of Trent.

You'll need to read further into this.

Luther did not follow the Eastern Church in their practices.

I didn't say that he did, so that's that.

No . . I disagree. Luther claimed for himself an infalliblity no pope has ever dreamed claiming,

How ridiculous. Where does Luter claim to be infallible? Huh?

HArdly. Yes, Luther condemned the peasants revolt, but only after he instigated it by his ill chosen words, rhetoric and polemics, and lost control of the peasants.

In view of all the mayhem in the history of Western Civilization during the time when the Roman Church was the only Church in town, I don't think you want to wade into that line of argument.

 

[thereselittleflower]

And he came up with the idea that works contribute nothing to our salvation.

I wouldn't argue with the way you put it there, but my comment went to how you worded it before: "It would be a few more years yet before Luther would develop his doctrines of salvation without works."

Luther did not maintain that salvation comes "without works." He maintained that--as you said here--works contribute nothing to our salvation." Hopefully, you see the difference.

I am glad that you see the difference between what you thought I said and what I was actually saying.

This is why he wanted to throw out the book of James, for it completely contradicted his position on this.

I'm sure you'd like us to believe that, but the reason he was concerned about the Epistle of James is not that. Lutherans easily point out that James does NOT contradict Luther's and Paul's teachings on the matter of Faith, but the book still has its weaknesses.

So, it had nothing to do with the issue of works according to you? Are you sure? So you think that what I would like you to believe isn't true?





Shall we look at what Luther actually said himself?

We should throw the Epistle of James out of this school [Wittenberg], for it doesn’t amount to much. It contains not a syllable about Christ. Not once does it mention Christ, except at the beginning [Jas. 1:1; 2:1]. I maintain that some Jew wrote it who probably heard about Christian people but never encountered any. Since he heard that Christians place great weight on faith in Christ, he thought, ‘Wait a moment! I’ll oppose them and urge works alone.’ This he did. He wrote not a word about the suffering and resurrection of Christ, although this is what all the apostles preached about. Besides, there’s no order or method in the epistle. Now he discusses clothing and then he writes about wrath and is constantly shifting from one to the other. He presents a comparison: ‘As the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from


works is dead’ [Jas. 2:26]. O Mary, mother of God! What a terrible comparison that is! James compares faith with the body when he should rather have compared faith with the soul! The ancients recognized this, too, and therefore they didn’t acknowledge this letter as one of the catholic epistles.

(LW 54:424)

​

some of Luther's "marginal notes in one of his own Bibles":

To James i, 6 (But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering), he remarks, "That is the only good place in the whole epistle"; to i, 21 (Receive with meekness the engrafted word), "Others engrafted it, not this James"; to ii, 12 ff., "What a chaos!" and to ii, 24 (Ye see then that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only), "That is false."
(Smith, 269-270)

Only the papists accept James on account of the righteousness of works, but my opinion is that it is not the writings of an apostle. Some day I will use James to fire my stove.
(Bartling, 2; Weimar, Tischreden [5], p. 5854)

​

​

What place does he give his reasoning regarding its teachings on works for rejecting it? Last place? 2nd to the last place? etc?


Actually . .none of the above . . He gave it the pre-eminent positon of FIRST place!

Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, 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 (2:24). It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac (2:20); Though in Romans 4:22-22 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 15:6. Although it would be possible to "save" the epistle by a gloss giving a correct explanation of justification here ascribed to works, it is impossible to deny that it does refer to Moses' words in Genesis 15 (which speaks not of Abraham's works but of his faith, just as Paul makes plain in Romans 4) to Abraham's works. This fault proves that this epistle is not the work of any apostle.. . . . . But this James does nothing more than drive to the law and its works​

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004_09_19_socrates58_archive.html#109615259350783122


​

​

Hmmm . . .it seems that not only did he reject James because of its emphasis on works, but he also got what James was saying about works in relationship to faith COMPLETELY WRONG!
How could a reformer who is leading people to truth make such an obvious error?

I mean, he cleary states that James teaches us that we are saved by works ALONE! Yet nowhere in James is that claim ever made. What James DOES state is that one is NOT saved by FAITH ALONE.

So yes, my statement regarding Luther's reason for wanting to "throw the Epistle of James out" of the canon of scripture (and even more literally as clearly stated above) has very much to do with its emphasis on works and his improper understanding of what James is all about.

That's right. They aren't in the same position.

Your right, James puts faith in the position of the body, and WORKS in the position of the SOUL . . which obviously Luther understood made works MORE important than faith, as the soul is superior to the body. He takes GREAT exception with how James equates WORKS with the SOUL . . .He believes that works should be equated with the body, for it is inferior to the soul, and that faith should be equated with the soul.

However, SCRIPTURE STANDS AGAINST HIM!

SCRIPTURE equates WORKS with the higher, more noble part . .. THE SOUL, and FAITH with the lower, more base part . .. THE BODY.


Quite a reversal from how Protestants are generally taught to view this . . I know it always puzzled me as a protestant for it seemed to me James had it backward (I am not puzzled about it any more) however, protestants tend to view faith as the equivalant of the soul as they see faith as superior to works . . . This is the legacy of Luther's teaching, IN HIS OWN WORDS ABOVE, regarding this issue, CONTRARY TO the scriptures.

So who is right? Luther? Or James, the inspired word of God?

No they didn't . . the canon as settled by the councils of the late 3rd and early 4th centuries is the exact same one as dogmatically proclaimed by the Council of Trent.

You'll need to read further into this.

I have read a GREAT deal in this field . . you will have to do better than this type of a retort to effectively dismiss my words and make an effective argument against them.

How about for starters you go find the canon as listed by these early councils and post it here . . then post the canon from the council of Trent . . and PROVE me wrong, rather than make such a ineffectual retort.

I didn't say that he did, so that's that.

I am glad we have that cleared up.

How ridiculous. Where does Luter claim to be infallible? Huh?

Do you REALLY want me to go there?

In view of all the mayhem in the history of Western Civilization during the time when the Roman Church was the only Church in town, I don't think you want to wade into that line of argument.

What you seem to not understand is that I have no fear of the truth. I have examined all of this closely before deciding to become Cahtolic.

Some of you make these thinly veiled threats as if somehow we will be cowed into silence . . . we are not afraid of these things. We are able to confront the truth head on and deal with it.

Just be careful of where you wade . . it may not turn out the way you think it will . . . .Take my quotes of Luther's above as a case in point . . .


Peace

 

[Tertiumquid]

Shall we look at what Luther actually said himself?[

Hello there Little flower,


Understanding Luther on this issue demands approaching him from two perspectives:

1. Luther’s perspective on the canon as a sixteenth century Biblical theologian

2. Luther’s personal criterion of canonicity expressed in his theology


Roman Catholics tend to disregard #1.

You cited Luther's Tabletalk comment from 1542. Note that both #1 and #2 are contained in that comment.

Luther saw a contradiction between Paul and James, though he did become aware of the solution. Roland Bainton has pointed out,

“Once Luther remarked that he would give his doctor's beret to anyone who could reconcile James and Paul. Yet he did not venture to reject James from the canon of Scripture, and on occasion earned his own beret by effecting a reconciliation. ‘Faith,’ he wrote, ‘is a living, restless thing. It cannot be inoperative. We are not saved by works; but if there be no works, there must be something amiss with faith’.”

Paul Althaus agrees: “[Luther] also agrees with James that if no works follow it is certain that true faith in Christ does not live in the heart but a dead, imagined, and self-fabricated faith.”

In The Disputation Concerning Justification, Luther answered this spurious proposition: “Faith without works justifies, Faith without works is dead [Jas. 2:17, 26]. Therefore, dead faith justifies.” Luther responded:


“The argument is sophistical and the refutation is resolved grammatically. In the major premise, “faith” ought to be placed with the word “justifies” and the portion of the sentence “without works justifies” is placed in a predicate periphrase and must refer to the word “justifies,” not to “faith.” In the minor premise, “without works” is truly in the subject periphrase and refers to faith. We say that justification is effective without works, not that faith is without works. For that faith which lacks fruit is not an efficacious but a reigned faith. “Without works” is ambiguous, then. For that reason this argument settles nothing. It is one thing that faith justifies without works; it is another thing that faith exists without works.”

Even though Luther arrived at the harmonizing solution, it is probably the case that the question of James’ apostleship out-weighed it. One cannot argue that Luther was never presented with a harmonization between Paul and James. He seems to have granted the validity of it, yet still questioned the canonicity of the book.

For more information, see:

http://www.ntrmin.org/Luther%20and%20the%20canon%202.htm

Little Flower, out of curiousity, what do you believe the Protestant position is on faith and works? How do Protestants reconcile James and Paul in your understanding?

Regards,
James Swan

 

[Albion]

I am glad that you see the difference between what you thought I said and what I was actually saying.

Flower, I reproduced your actual words to show that I didn't misunderstand. Your first statement was factually in error; your second one was correct. I only reacted to what was written.

Shall we look at what Luther actually said himself?

I'd recommend to you the excellent explanation (just below this) that was posted by Tertiumquid.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Flower, I reproduced your actual words to show that I didn't misunderstand. Your first statement was factually in error; your second one was correct. I only reacted to what was written.

Hi Albion

I had hoped that you would have accepted that you simply misunderstood my intent, rather than force your own interpretation on my words. Granted, my words lent themselves to such a misunderstanding, which I clarified with my restatement of what I was actually trying to convey. However, something my father used to keep on his desk is true here (I may have paraphrased it slightly ):

I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am sure you realize that what you heard was not what I meant.
​

Rather than insisting that you did not misundestand what I was trying to convey, I hope you will reconsider such a stance, otherwise, I do not see how we can progress if we can't get past simple misunderstandings such as this.

I'd recommend to you the excellent explanation (just below this) that was posted by Tertiumquid.

Then I take it that you do not care to share your own thoughts on the matter. Thank you for taking time to read my post.


Peace


Peace

 

[thereselittleflower]

Hello there Little flower,

Understanding Luther on this issue demands approaching him from two perspectives:

1. Luther’s perspective on the canon as a sixteenth century Biblical theologian

2. Luther’s personal criterion of canonicity expressed in his theology

Roman Catholics tend to disregard #1.

You cited Luther's Tabletalk comment from 1542. Note that both #1 and #2 are contained in that comment.

Luther saw a contradiction between Paul and James, though he did become aware of the solution. Roland Bainton has pointed out,

“Once Luther remarked that he would give his doctor's beret to anyone who could reconcile James and Paul. Yet he did not venture to reject James from the canon of Scripture, and on occasion earned his own beret by effecting a reconciliation. ‘Faith,’ he wrote, ‘is a living, restless thing. It cannot be inoperative. We are not saved by works; but if there be no works, there must be something amiss with faith’.”

Hello James,

It is nice to meet you.

I have difficulty with the assertion of Roland Bainton, as Luther did remove James at one point from the canon of scripture, and relegated it to the position of a secondary work as he did the books of the Old Testament he termed apocrypha. He kept it within the bindings of his first bible, however, that does not mean it was part of the canon.

He did add it back into the official canon, agreed. But he had indeed ventured to reject it from the "canon".

Paul Althaus agrees: “[Luther] also agrees with James that if no works follow it is certain that true faith in Christ does not live in the heart but a dead, imagined, and self-fabricated faith.”

Agreed. Luther did not dismiss entirely the place works has in the life of the believer. I believe, without looking back at my previous post, that I said something to this effect already.

In The Disputation Concerning Justification, Luther answered this spurious proposition: “Faith without works justifies, Faith without works is dead [Jas. 2:17, 26]. Therefore, dead faith justifies.” Luther responded:

“The argument is sophistical and the refutation is resolved grammatically. In the major premise, “faith” ought to be placed with the word “justifies” and the portion of the sentence “without works justifies” is placed in a predicate periphrase and must refer to the word “justifies,” not to “faith.” In the minor premise, “without works” is truly in the subject periphrase and refers to faith. We say that justification is effective without works, not that faith is without works. For that faith which lacks fruit is not an efficacious but a reigned faith. “Without works” is ambiguous, then. For that reason this argument settles nothing. It is one thing that faith justifies without works; it is another thing that faith exists without works.”

May I ask if you hand typed that or copied it from another place? For the way it is presented above, some elements do not make sense . . for instance, "is not an efficacious but a "reigned" faith" . . . shouldn't this be "feigned" faith?

And “faith” ought to be placed with the word “justifies”

So we should have "faith justifies without works justifies" ?

I think what is trying to be communicated above is "faith justifies without works" which to me is simply a rewording of what was already there without any significant change in meaning . . I see no real difference in meaning between the two phrases, as I understand them both the same way.



Now, to the rest of this quote of Luther's:

We say that justification is effective without works, not that faith is without works.


​

It is not my undestanding that Luther ever claimed that faith was without works. His words in other places testify to the contrary.


The issue is not 'are there works?' but "what role do works play in the Chirstian life, in our justification."

Luther clearly states above that justification is effective without works, which makes it independent of works.

James clearly states that we are justified by our works, making justification dependent on our works.

These two positions contradict each other.

For that faith which lacks fruit is not an efficacious but a reigned faith. “Without works” is ambiguous, then. For that reason this argument settles nothing. It is one thing that faith justifies without works; it is another thing that faith exists without works


​

Luther, seemingly unwilling and/or unable to accept the clear words of James on the matter, appears to try to rework what James says.

Not only does James say that faith, the kind of faith that justifies, does not exist without works (to which Luther agrees), James goes farther and uniquivocably states that we are justified BY our works, not just our faith that is proven to be efficacious by our works.

James clearly presents to us a dualism for justification, in which both faith and works play a part and contribute to our justification.

Luther would not, or could not, accept this. So he attempted to find a way to reason around it.

Even though Luther arrived at the harmonizing solution, it is probably the case that the question of James’ apostleship out-weighed it. One cannot argue that Luther was never presented with a harmonization between Paul and James. He seems to have granted the validity of it, yet still questioned the canonicity of the book.

Luther's method of harmonizing James with his understanding of faith and works and justification left him really no alternative but to rework what James said untill it fit his concepts.

However, his result was not true to what James actually states.

For more information, see:

http://www.ntrmin.org/Luther%20and%20the%20canon%202.htm

Little Flower, out of curiousity, what do you believe the Protestant position is on faith and works? How do Protestants reconcile James and Paul in your understanding?

Regards,
James Swan

As for "the" Protestant position on faith and works, there is no one position. There are varied views on this. As for how Protestants reconcile James and Paul, the answer is the same. There is no one way Protestants do so. Protestantism is a big umbrella that finds groups beneath its arms with different positions on this matter.

So there is no one answer I can provide you for either question.

As a protestant, I used to have difficulty reconciling James and Paul.

As a Catholic, I have no difficulty whatsover.


Peace

 

[Debi1967]

Oh Big Sister is at it again I see....

Luther the topic of discussion? Hmmmmm, interesting but but but .... Oh I will be a good little girl .....

 

[Albion]

Hi Albion

I had hoped that you would have accepted that you simply misunderstood my intent, rather than force your own interpretation on my words.

There wasn't any interpretation, Flower. I just reacted to what was written.

You corrected yourself afterwards, so I don't see how I could be misinterpreting anything. Had I misinterpreted your initial comment, you would not have altered it. Anyway, we now agree that Luther was not opposed to works, so let's move on.

Then I take it that you do not care to share your own thoughts on the matter.

I have indeed shared my thoughts. I shared my opinion that his thread was right on the money and so not needing to be restated again by me. If you disagree with any of it, I would be happy to respond to any points you care to make about it.

 

[constance]

Again, please show me where he catagorically rejected all forms of indulgences in the 95 Thesis.

He didn't - he did it two years later:

Like it or not, I am compelled to learn more every day, with so many and such able masters vying with one another to improve my mind. Some two years ago I wrote a little book on indulgences, which I now deeply regret having published. For at the time I still clung to the Roman tyranny with great superstition and held that indulgences should not be altogether rejected, seeing they were approved by the common consent of men. Nor was this to be wondered at, for I was then engaged single-handed in my Sisyphean task. Since then, however, through the kindness of Sylvester and the friars,who so strenuously defended indulgences, I have come to see that they are nothing but an fraud of the Roman flaterers by which they rob people of their faith and fortunes. I wish I could convince the booksellers and all my readers to burn up the whole of my writings on indulgences and to substitute for them this proposition
http://www.ctsfw.edu/etext/luther/babylonian/babylonian.htm

plunged Germany into a social and economic state that took it much longer to emerge from than any other European country

Germany? Germany wasn't a country until the late 19th century. Can you please cite your source as to this economic devastation? Was it any different than any other Northern European area, or that of England?

It would be a few more years yet before Luther would develop his doctrines of salvation without works (even of the kind James said was absolutely necessary) "Faith alone" . . . it was in debates about other doctrines he started to question openly, such as prayers for the dead, that he developed his doctrine of scripture alone and dsmissed 7 books of the bible that were canonized in the late 4th century . . This was done in response to a famous debate he had with Eck . . When Eck kept turning to the scriptures to prove that prayers for the dead were indeed scriptural, and Luther found he could not fight against that argument; he simply then declared that the particular book Eck was quoting from (Maccabees) was not scritpure . . and then he proceeded to throw out what have become known as the 7 Deuterocanonicals . . and with them he originally threw out James (because of it teaching salvation by works as well as faith in chapter 2), Hebrews, Jude and Revelation from the Canon of Scripture. (He was convinced by friends that no one would take him seriously if he went that far, so he put James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation back into the canon of scripture in his 2nd edition of his bible).

But it was the policy of the Roman Catholic Church that the Apocrypha was to be used for edification - not for the development of doctrine. Eck was in error. Trent changed this policy (or, to be more PC, it was the unwritten tradition of the RCC that it was to be used for edification, Trent revealed the written Magisterium)

HArdly. Yes, Luther condemned the peasants revolt, but only after he instigated it by his ill chosen words, rhetoric and polemics, and lost control of the peasants. . . But you neglect to mention HOW he condemned it and what he called for on the part of the noblity in response. What did he call for? Do you support what Luther did? Do you support Luther's call to hack, slay, maim, kill the peasants by whatever means the nobility could?

You might be shocked that you and I see eye to eye here.

But then, I'm a Waldensen. We were "protestant" before Luther.

Constance

 

[Tertiumquid]

I have difficulty with the assertion of Roland Bainton, as Luther did remove James at one point from the canon of scripture, and relegated it to the position of a secondary work as he did the books of the Old Testament he termed apocrypha. He kept it within the bindings of his first bible, however, that does not mean it was part of the canon .He did add it back into the official canon, agreed. But he had indeed ventured to reject it from the "canon".

Hello thereselittleflower. The reason for the difficulty is because Bainton is using the word “canon” differently than you. Luther holds to a “canon within a canon” [see Roland Bainton, Studies on the Reformation (Boston: Beacon Press, 1963), 5]. Paul Althaus explains that Luther “allows the canon to stand as it was established by the ancient church. But he makes distinctions within the canon” [See Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), 83]. That there was a tradition throughout church history that did similarly is beyond dispute. This practice was definitely applied to the books of the apocrypha: the books were considered non-canonical, yet useful for the edification of the church. As William Webster explains,

“The distinction that Athanasius made between the canonical Scriptures and other writings which were not canonical, but nonetheless used for edification in the Church, was further expressed by Rufinus at the beginning of the fifth century. He was greatly influenced by Origen and likewise listed the canonical books according to the Jewish numbering. He claimed that the canon he gave was that which had been handed down by tradition through the fathers as authoritative and that the specific books he enumerated were alone to be used for establishing the doctrines of the faith. He cited the major works of the Apocrypha, specifically the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, and the Maccabees as books that were not canonical but ecclesiastical. These were appropriate to be read in the Churches but were not authoritative for the confirmation of doctrine. Such, says Rufinus, was the tradition handed down from the fathers. Significantly, Rufinus expressed this view after the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, demonstrating that they did not possess universal authority for the Church at large”

Source: William Webster, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Volume II (WA: Christian Resources Inc, 2001), 342-343].



It is a simple historical fact that Luther’s translation of the Bible contained all of its books. Luther began translating the New Testament in 1521, and released a finished version in 1522. He published sections of the Old Testament as he finished them. He finished the entire Bible by 1534. During these years, various incomplete editions were released. Those who assert Luther took books out of the Bible sometimes wrongly use this sentiment interchangeably with “Luther removed books from the canon.” If indeed Luther took books out of the Bible, then one expects to open Luther’s Bible and find certain books missing. One does not.

Some more familiar with Luther’s view postulate he removed books from the canon of Scripture. When Luther published his Bible, a layman found the entirety of the canon. Luther expressed his thoughts on the canon in “prefaces” placed at the beginning of particular Biblical books. These prefaces were not out of the ordinary. Luther was not engaging in any sort of outrageous scholarly behavior. The prefaces contained Luther’s opinion on the canon. Luther scholar Paul Althaus explains, “[Luther] allows the canon to stand as it was established by the ancient church. But he makes distinctions within the canon.”[Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), 83]. It is these “distinctions” that are often seen as removal.

Agreed. Luther did not dismiss entirely the place works has in the life of the believer. I believe, without looking back at my previous post, that I said something to this effect already.

More importantly is the Protestant distinction between “living faith” and “dead faith”. As James says, faith without works is a dead faith. Thus, a living faith produces works.

May I ask if you hand typed that or copied it from another place? For the way it is presented above, some elements do not make sense . . for instance, "is not an efficacious but a "reigned" faith" . . . shouldn't this be "feigned" faith?

Thanks. Indeed it is a typo. It should be “feigned”. The source I utilized for this quote was the electronic version of Luther’s Works, so the typo is in the software. In the past few years I’ve sent them “typo alerts” (there is a feature in the Libronix software that allows for this). This one slipped by me. Thank you.

The issue is not 'are there works?' but "what role do works play in the Chirstian life, in our justification.

Read Ephesians 2. We have been saved (past tense) by the gift of God. Not by works. Verse 10 is crucial. We are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which were prepared in advance for us to do. Again, we find the idea that faith must be a living faith, if it is really saving faith. It does works, not to eventually be justified, but because it has been justified.

Luther clearly states above that justification is effective without works, which makes it independent of works.

Luther says, “We say that justification is effective without works, not that faith is without works.” Again, we find that Luther is teaching the distinction between a living and dead faith. As an aside, it might shock you to learn that I think salvation is totally of works= the perfect works of Christ, who satisfied the demand of perfection that a sinner never can.

James clearly states that we are justified by our works, making justification dependent on our works. These two positions contradict each other.

No they don’t. James describes what a real true faith in Christ is: a real saving faith is a living faith. If no works are found in a person, chances are, that faith is a dead faith c.f.James 2:17). James then describes a true example of dead faith: the faith of a demon. A demon has faith that God exists, that Christ rose from the dead- I would dare say a demon knows theology better than you or I. But is the faith of this demon a saving faith? Absolutely not.

And “faith” ought to be placed with the word “justifies”

So we should have "faith justifies without works justifies" ?

Try to think outside of the box. There isn’t any such thing as a dead faith that is a justifying faith. I'm not asking you to agree, only to see the pertinent text from a position other than your own.




Regards,

James Swan

 

[Diane_Windsor]

Thereselittleflower said "plunged Germany into a social and economic state that took it much longer to emerge from than any other European country."

Germany? Germany wasn't a country until the late 19th century. Can you please cite your source as to this economic devastation? Was it any different than any other Northern European area, or that of England?

I can't believe I missed that . I think Otto von Bismarck would have something to say about this LOL

Great questions Constance.

Diane

 

[constance]

Great questions Constance.

I'd rather talk about the Hapsburgs.....

Ich grolle nicht!



Constance

 

[thereselittleflower]

There wasn't any interpretation, Flower. I just reacted to what was written.

Yes you reacted to your understanding of what was written. The written word always has to be interpreted to be understood. . . that is the way God made us. That is just a fact of life.

You corrected yourself afterwards, so I don't see how I could be misinterpreting anything. Had I misinterpreted your initial comment, you would not have altered it. Anyway, we now agree that Luther was not opposed to works, so let's move on.

As I said, the way I said it allowed for what I was trying to say to be misunderstood.

If you do not want to recognize this and meet me even half way on this, then I do not see how we can realisitically have a discussion in which there is mutual respect.

Peace

 

[Albion]

Yes you reacted to your understanding of what was written. The written word always has to be interpreted to be understood. that is the way God made us. That is just a fact of life. .

You made a mistake, at least in how you worded your statement. That's life. You corrected it. I acknowledged that. Let it go.

 

[thereselittleflower]

He didn't - he did it two years later:

Germany? Germany wasn't a country until the late 19th century. Can you please cite your source as to this economic devastation? Was it any different than any other Northern European area, or that of England?

The magnificent attempt of the German people ended in ignominious defeat and, for a time, in greater oppression. In the long run, however, the situation of the peasants did not become worse. Whatever the nobility, princes and priests could wring out of the peasants had been wrung out even before the war. The German peasant of that time had this in common with the modern proletarian, that his share in the products of the work was limited to a subsistence minimum necessary for his maintenance and for the propagation of the race. It is true that peasants of some little wealth were ruined. Hosts of bondsmen were forced into serfdom; whole stretches of community lands were confiscated; a great number of peasants were driven into vagabondage or forced to become city plebeians by the destruction of their domiciles and the devastation of their fields in addition to the general disorder. Wars and devastations, however, were every-day phenomena at that time, and in general, the peasant class was on too low a level to have its situation made worse for a long time through increased taxes. The subsequent religious wars and finally the Thirty Years' War with its constantly repeated mass devastations and depopulations pounded the peasants much more painfully than did the Peasant War. It was notably the Thirty Years' War which annihilated the most important parts of the productive forces in agriculture, through which, as well as through the simultaneous destruction of many cities, it lowered the living standards of the peasants, plebeians and the ruined city inhabitants to the level of Irish misery in its worst form.

The Peasant War in Germany Frederick Engels Ch 7
​

The actual secular historical source I wanted to quote I cannot find at the momment. If I do I will supply you with more information. And I did not limit myself to the northen eurpoean area.

But it was the policy of the Roman Catholic Church that the Apocrypha was to be used for edification - not for the development of doctrine. Eck was in error. Trent changed this policy (or, to be more PC, it was the unwritten tradition of the RCC that it was to be used for edification, Trent revealed the written Magisterium)

I have never seen any official policy of the Catholic Church that supports your assertion.

You might be shocked that you and I see eye to eye here.

But then, I'm a Waldensen. We were "protestant" before Luther.

Constance

Peace

 

[thereselittleflower]

You made a mistake, at least in how you worded your statement. That's life. You corrected it. I acknowledged that. Let it go.

Albion, You are not understanding my reason for trying to work this out with you. I made no error in intent or understanding. Since you want to insist that you are right and can tell me what I meant by my words, then I am not going to continue discussing this topic with you.

Please respect this.

Thank you.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Hi Tertiumquid

I am sorry, I was hoping to get to your post, but I will have to get back to this later. Please accept my apologies.

Thanks

 

[Albion]

Albion, You are not understanding my reason for trying to work this out with you. I made no error in intent or understanding. Since you want to insist that you are right and can tell me what I meant by my words, then I am not going to continue discussing this topic with you.

There's nothing to 'work out,' flower. You said, "It would be a few more years yet before Luther would develop his doctrines of salvation without works."

I pointed out that Luther did not maintain that salvation comes "without works."

That's all there is to it. You corrected your words later and said that you had actually meant something different. I fully accepted your correction and that you meant to say something like "would develop his doctrine(s) of salvation not based upon works."

then I am not going to continue discussing this topic with you.

Good move. That's just what I've been trying to suggest to you for the past three or four posts!

 

[constance]

The magnificent attempt of the German people ended in ignominious defeat and, for a time, in greater oppression. In the long run, however, the situation of the peasants did not become worse. Whatever the nobility, princes and priests could wring out of the peasants had been wrung out even before the war. The German peasant of that time had this in common with the modern proletarian, that his share in the products of the work was limited to a subsistence minimum necessary for his maintenance and for the propagation of the race. It is true that peasants of some little wealth were ruined. Hosts of bondsmen were forced into serfdom; whole stretches of community lands were confiscated; a great number of peasants were driven into vagabondage or forced to become city plebeians by the destruction of their domiciles and the devastation of their fields in addition to the general disorder. Wars and devastations, however, were every-day phenomena at that time, and in general, the peasant class was on too low a level to have its situation made worse for a long time through increased taxes. The subsequent religious wars and finally the Thirty Years' War with its constantly repeated mass devastations and depopulations pounded the peasants much more painfully than did the Peasant War. It was notably the Thirty Years' War which annihilated the most important parts of the productive forces in agriculture, through which, as well as through the simultaneous destruction of many cities, it lowered the living standards of the peasants, plebeians and the ruined city inhabitants to the level of Irish misery in its worst form.


The Peasant War in Germany Frederick Engels Ch 7

​

The actual secular historical source I wanted to quote I cannot find at the momment. If I do I will supply you with more information. And I did not limit myself to the northen eurpoean area.

Well, this quote doesn't support your arguement - it says that the situation of the peasants didn't become worse. My second objection is that Engels is the co-founder (with Karl Marx) of communism. Engels believed that the main purpose of religion was to keep the people quiet so they could be exploited by the wealthy few. His analysis of the reformation is going to reflect his strong belief that religious language is a cover for political agendae. For example, he calls Luther a "Middle-Class" reformer. He calls Muenzer a "plebian" revolutionary, and he calls the Catholic Church the Reactionaries.

Engels' arguement is based in Marxist analysis which Pope Benedict XVI warned Catholics against using over 20 years ago, and continues to do:
http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_df84lt.htm

I have never seen any official policy of the Catholic Church that supports your assertion.

There are no official teaching of the Catholic Church about the Canon until Trent, so there is no way that either of us can definitively prove our point. However, in another thread, I listed several early church authorities which speak specifically to the "edification and devotion" but not to the "development of dogma":
http://www.christianforums.com/t1527743-why-did-protestants-take-the-deuterocanonicals-out-of-the-bible.html
The list includes Ximenez, a 16th century Grand inquisitor; Cajetan, Luther's opposor; Jerome, etc.

Constance