Martin Luther had developed his theory that only those books that taught his Dogma of Justification by Faith Alone should be accepted as part of the canon. However, he didn’t work out this theory until after he had lost a debate with a Catholic (either Cardinal Cajetan in 1518 or Johann Eck of Ingolstadt in 1519 AD), when 2 Maccabees 12:43-45 was quoted to refute Martin Luther’s "Faith Alone." His subjective standards were also the given for his reason for claiming that Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Book of Revelation were also not to be considered as fully the Inspired Word of God. (Although, evidently the Lutherans of the 17th century added these NT books back into their canon.) In Luther’s German translation of the Bible, he took Hebrew, James, Jude and Revelation and placed them at the end of the New Testament. He categorized them as inferior to the rest of the Bible. He also had done this with the seven Deuterocanonical Old Testament books. (Until recently, the Deuterocanonical books called "apocrypha," were still in many Protestant Bibles, but in a separate section at the end.)
The book of James contradicts Luther’s principle of Justification by Faith Alone. James 2:24 says "See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." Rather than change his theology, Luther just denied that, James the Apostle, was the author of James and removed it from his canon.
In his preface to James he claimed,
"But this James does nothing more than drive to the Law and to its works. Besides, he throws things together so chaotically that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took a few sayings from the disciples of the Apostles and thus tossed them off on paper…In a word he wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without works, but was unequal to the task."
In his preface to Hebrews, Luther said,
"We should not be deterred if wood, straw, or hay are perhaps mixed with them [precious notions], but accept this fine teaching with all honor."
( Luther’s works. Volume 35 Word and Sacrament I, pages 395-397 ed. E.T. Buchman [Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1960.]) In Luther’s commentary on Revelation he wrote, "Everyone may make up his own mind as regards this book. As for me, I have a personal aversion to it and that is enough."
In another translation of Martin Luther’s writings, "Martin Luther: Selections from his Writings" Dillenberger, page 35, we read in the Prefaces to Luther’s German Translation of the New Testament in 1522 in regard to the epistle of St. James:
"Firstly, because in direct opposition to St. Paul and all the rest of the bible, it ascribes justification to works, and declares that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered up his son. St. Paul, on the contrary, in Romans 4:3, teaches that Abraham was justified without works, by his faith alone, the proof being in Gen. 15:6 which was before he sacrificed his son. 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 Moses’s word in Gen. 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 defect proves that the epistle is not of Apostolic provenance."
(Martin Luther, "Martin Luther: Selections from his Writings" Dillenberger, page 35)
Here Luther denies that the epistle is inspired because he considers it contradictory to the Word of God claiming it is in direct opposition to Paul. Also he mentions the epistle's "defect." So much for biblical inerrancy. But his dislike of this God inspired epistle becomes much clearer in the next quote. Writing once again of James:
"In sum he wished to guard against those who depended on faith without going to works, but he had neither the spirit nor the thought nor the eloquence equal to the task. He does violence to scripture and so contradicts Paul and all of scripture. He tries to accomplish by emphasizing law what the Apostles bring about by attracting men to love. I therefore refuse him a place among the writers of the true canon of my Bible."
(M. Luther, same book mentioned above, page 36) Luther challenged an Apostle in such a crude way and said such insulting things about James’s ability to write (which was guided by the Holy Spirit.) Consider the question, that if even Luther couldn't recognize the contents of the Bible, then how could Sola Scriptura be considered a valid and workable theory ?
Catholics used human reasoning in determining the canon, but Catholic theology allows for and believes that the Holy Spirit guided them with grace in their infallible pronouncements in this all important matter. Protestant theology disallows such infallible guidance for Catholics as well as for themselves. Without the aid of God's infallible grace it would be impossible to judge supernatural things, that is, that this is the written Word of God, with just natural means.
http://www.defendingthebride.com/bb/deuterocanonical2.html
Long answer, and not to the point.
Why don’t the Orthodox accept the deuterocanonical books as fully canonical? As I said and they say, they are worthy of reading, but not inspired Scripture on the level of the 66 books we KNOW are God-breathed.
Luther was persuaded that the Book of James was canonical; Calvin always accepted James as canonical. The Protestant movement was not based on Luther alone.
I wish you God’s blessings, but I said I won’t play the game.
Long answer, and not to the point.
Why don’t the Orthodox accept the deuterocanonical books as fully canonical? As I said and they say, they are worthy of reading, but not inspired Scripture on the level of the 66 books we KNOW are God-breathed.
Luther was persuaded that the Book of James was canonical; Calvin always accepted James as canonical. The Protestant movement was not based on Luther alone.
I wish you God’s blessings, but I said I won’t play the game.
1) The verse from Revelation 22:18 refers only to Revelation.
2) Yes, Martin Luther struggled with parts of the Bible. That’s normal. He’s human and no Protestant has ever made him out to be anything more. It’s not like they claim he’s infallible. I’m sure there are many, many Catholic and Orthodox saints who have struggled with parts of the Bible.