Did Martin Luther Act Infallibly in Defining What Books Belong in the Bible?

Self | January 2011 | Aquinasfan

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

Did Martin Luther Act Infallibly in Defining What Books Belong in the Bible?

If Luther did not act infallibly:

- How can Protestants be certain that they have an infallible collection of Books in Holy Scripture?
- How can the Bible be the sole rule of faith, if no one knows with certainty which books belong in the Bible?

If Luther acted infallibly:

- How do you know?

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

Actually, this is not attacking the Bible, rather it is pointing out that the reformers did debate about removing some books from the bible like Jude and Apocalypse, and removed Maccabees etc., and yet to accept canon is to accept the Councils that were the tool that approved canon

Yes, this thread is not meant to attack Scripture. The point is to provide a logically coherent account for trust in the Holy Scriptures.

Luther contradicted his own theory of "the Bible alone," since he rejected the Bible that was used by all Christians in his day. What authority did he have to change the canon of Scripture? None. And did he act infallibly when he did so? No.

Now, this is NOT an attack on Scripture itself. Rather, it is a different and logically coherent explanation for trust in the authority of Scripture.

This is not meant as an insult to Protestants. Catholics accept all that is true, so of course we share much in common with Protestants. But where differences exist, they must be acknowledged.

[Cronos]

it is the Baptists who most closely capture the faith and mindset of the early church fathers in the first few hundred years AD in this modern world.

Seriously -- why do you say that?

Especially in light of what is written in The Didache (written in AD 70)

Centrality of communion
"Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . . On the Lord’s Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure" (Didache 4:14, 14:1 [A.D. 70]).

Baptism
"Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit Chapter 9

[Cronos]

A straightforward reading of the Acts of the Apostles shows that the Church was very centralized even during the Apostolic Era.

In the Acts of the Apostles, we find a Church that is immediately centralized in Jerusalem. When Peter has his disturbing vision in which God directs him to admit the Gentiles into the Church, he refers back at once to the apostolic leadership in Jerusalem (Acts 11:2).

The mission of the infant Church was directed from Jerusalem, with Barnabas and Agabus being sent to Antioch (Acts 11:22, 27). The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) was convened to decide the Gentile question, and the council sent a letter of instruction to the new churches in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia (Acts 15:23). Philip, John, Mark, Barnabas, and Paul travel to and from Jerusalem, providing a teaching and disciplinary link between the new churches and the church in Jerusalem. After the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 69 authority is not centered in Jerusalem, but rather vested in Peter and Paul as apostles, as their epistles to the various churches attest. This central authority was very soon focused on Rome, so that St. Ignatius, a bishop of Antioch, wrote to the Romans in the year 108, affirming that their church was the one that had the "superior place in love among the churches."

by the time of Irenaeus in the mid-second century, the centralizing role of the Bishop of Rome was already well established. From then on, citation after citation from the apostolic Fathers shows that the whole Church—from Gaul to North Africa and from Syria to Spain—affirms the primacy of the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter and Paul.

[Cronos]

From the beginning the churches were ruled by elders (bishops). Acts 14:23, and Timothy1:5 describes the apostles appointing these elders. The elders kept in touch with the apostles and with the elders of the other churches through travel and communication by epistle (1 Pt 1:1, 5:1). Remember that this was in the Roman and Parthian Empires and the speed of their communication was not rivalled until the invention of the telegraph.

In the early Church we do not find independent congregations meeting on their own and determining their own affairs by reading the Bible. In the first two centuries the canon of the New Testament had not yet been decided. Instead, from the earliest time we find churches governed by the bishops and clergy whose authenticity is validated by their succession from the apostles. So Clement of Rome writes, "Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on the question of the bishop’s office. Therefore for this reason . . . they appointed the aforesaid persons and later made further provision that if they should fall asleep other tested men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians, 44). Ignatius of Antioch writes letters to six different churches and instructs the Romans, "be submissive to the bishop and to one another as Jesus Christ was to the Father and the Apostles to Christ . . . that there may be unity."

[Religion Moderator]

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

[Judith Anne]

They do a lot of things that I do not agree with but I am not going to start a hate thread about them.

No need, just read any open thread on the RF; no matter what it starts with, it will have thousands of anti-Catholic posts by the time it ends.

[Cronos]

Yes, we all do believe the books of the Bible are infallible. However, the reformers did wish to toss out books such as James and Apocalypse, so the question is not, are the books of the Bible infallible, but how do you know the collection of books (i.e. the canon) is infallible?

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

Protestants believe the books of the Bible we accept are infallible.

Which Bible? The Catholic canon? The Orthodox canon? The Protestant canon?

Why is the Protestant canon to be judged superior to the Catholic or Orthodox canons? And how do we know that it is inerrant?

Since Luther rejected the canon of Scripture that existed in his day, he violated his own principle of "the Bible alone."

We do not believe our choices were infallible.

This would mean that Luther acted fallibly when rejecting books from the Bible that existed in his time.

(In fact, R.C. Sproul has called the Bible a fallible collection of infallible books.)

[RegulatorCountry]

So the books of the Bible were solely selected by Luther? A false premise so the rest of the argument is not worth reading. But of course if you want to attack Protestants its a good start.

The "Come Home" slogan that constantly crops up is a big clue. There's a concerted media campaign ongoing, right down to television commercials with that slogan as a closing line. The long and short of it is that FR is being used as an ad platform just as are NBC, CBS, ABC et al.

The wishful thinking exhibited in these sorts of replies is nothing short of astonishing, leaving the impression that the Roman Catholic Church in the United States is just the most traditional, conservative body of Christian believers that there could possibly be. This couldn't be further from the truth, given the various scandals, controversies, the voting habits of their laity in general ... my perception has been that they're straining to bring their own flock back into some semblance of orthodoxy after decades of liberalism and moral decay, more or less.

What's sad is I've supported this effort in the past. Who wouldn't support fellow brothers and sisters in Christ trying to set things right in their church? I maintained that support right up to the point that my own beliefs and in fact any Christian belief outside their church became a punching bag used to maintain some strange Kabuki theatre being publicly played out on an electronic stage, projecting themselves as they want to be perceived, not as they are.

Again, it is an ad campaign. The attempt is directed at changing perceptions, not behaviors. I've watched it develop here and elsewhere over the past several years.

I think a certain Shakespeare quote might be oddly in order here, regarding this Roman Catholic media blitz that has now run completely off the rails:

The lady doth protest too much.

Perhaps it began with the best of intentions, but at this point all the flailing and scapegoating has become very off-putting. I can't help but think it's even becoming counterproductive in the attempt to sway those who have strayed from their own church.

[Cronos]

The first council of Nicea in 325 declared the Nicene Creed which states that:

We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen."

you DO accept this, right?

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

The Roman Catholic Church is a man-made denomination—nothing more.

The Catholic Church wrote, preserved and canonized the Bible that was in existence in Luther's day. This is a matter of historic fact.

If this Church was an errant, man-made denomination, then how could Luther justify the Bible being the sole rule of faith?

[HossB86]

Have anything with any authority??

Hoss

[Mr Rogers]

Here is an article I posted a long time ago about how the canon is viewed by Orthodox, Protestants and Catholics. If you goal is understanding, it should help. If it is just to piss in someone else’s wheaties, don’t bother.

How We Got the New Testament - 2 1/2 Views (LONG!)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2320483/posts

[sayuncledave]

“But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”

http://www.drbo.org/chapter/61003.htm

The Church is the foundation of Christianity. As in, the Catholic Church.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

A remarkably stupid post by a remarkably ignorant Catholic. Anyone who has spent even the smallest amount of time studying scripture will know how Scripture came to be. This is rubbish. All Christian denominations, with the exception of the usual fringe, understand and recognize which books and included and, more importantly, why.

8-) Are you aware that Protestants account for 25% of all Christians? (Orthodox, 25%. Catholics, 50%).

If we're going to count noses in the search for truth, only 25% of Christians accept Luther's canon of Scripture.

[Mr Rogers]

“I have attended many Baptist churches and hypocrisy abounds. Alleged Baptist proximity to Christianity be it early or current is a figment of imagination. They are the group most associated with and known for involvement the Know Nothing , Nativist and KKK movements in this nation. How do you associate early Christianity with that historical record?”

Do you REALLY want a discussion of wrongdoing, to include tolerance for pedophiles and burning people like William Tyndale?

[GAB-1955]

Luther is not the entire Protestant Reformation; he was merely the first prominent Reformer.

I’m suffering a very bad cold, so I’ll get back to you on this when I can breathe and think logically. Else I’d be in church today.

[Texas Eagle]

Stand back as I light the fuse......(ahem!).....a question from the back of the Cathedral.

Martin Luther begin his religious life as a Catholic Monk. What happened? What caused his dissatisfaction?

[chesley]

Hypocrisy doesn’t exist in the Catholic Church?? Or any other?

I musta missed the memo.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

Here is an article I posted a long time ago about how the canon is viewed by Orthodox, Protestants and Catholics. If you goal is understanding, it should help. If it is just to piss in someone else’s wheaties, don’t bother.

Is the Protestant canon infallibly determined? How do you know? Who acted infallibly in determining it?

My object is not to "piss in your wheaties," but to humbly point out that Luther's notion of the Bible being "the sole rule of faith" for Christians is logically incoherent.

That's no small thing.

Note that in the first post, I provide the Catholic justification for intellectual trust in the canon of Scripture. It is a non-contradictory account.