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?

[Quix]

Of course your interpretation of all that is the only plausible and sensible one, imho.

Sheesh.

LUB BRO

[daniel1212]

I have noticed that FR pages that come up in Google searches are not available on the server when you click on them. Wonder if he lost them.

[boatbums]

Thanks for the link. I just read the Twelve Conclusions of the Lollards. Very interesting and very revealing in why so many in the upper echelons of the "Church" would want to silence them. I found quite humorous and can imagine, even today, some will not appreciate the Eighth Conclusion - Pilgrimages. Especially the part about the worshiping of the relics of the crucifixion:

The corollary is that the service of the Rood, done twice every year in our church, is fulfilled of idolatry, for if the Rood tree, nails, and the spear, and the crown of God should be so holy worshipped, then were Judas' lips, whoso might them get, a wonder great relic.

I heartily agree with their last statement and it should be a prayer we all might agree with:

We pray God of his endless goodness reform our church. all out of joint, to the perfections of the first beginning. Amen.

[Jvette]

Again, please give the name of any church or sect which has only perfect non-sinners within them.

Please post all the exhortations in the NT of how Christians are to live their lives and treat each other and then assure me that only Catholics do not live up to the standards.

Jesus said, “Be perfect, even as my Father in heaven is perfect.”

Pretty high standards, huh?

Paul says, “The good that I would do, I do not do and the bad that I would not do, I do.”

An APOSTLE admitting that he can’t live up to perfection.

Yet, we are called to try.

And try we do, though we fall short.

I do not disagree that when a man of the cloth, be it a priest or any other protestant clergy it is most painful and detrimental to the Body of Christ.

But, to hold that up in a discussion such as this, is not debate, it is an attack and it has no place here until ALL other Christian ministers also live up to the standards so sanctimoniously presented.

In no way do I defend the actions of bad priests or bishops, they pain me terribly as I know it pains all Catholics, but I am also terribly sick of having it constantly brought up in doctrinal debates and such by people who feign “concern” when their real intent is to wound.

I am a grateful Catholic. I do believe the Church is Christ’s church. I love Him and His Church deeply and am not afraid to defend her.

In the future, please don’t respond to me.

[Jvette]

Again, please give the name of any church or sect which has only perfect non-sinners within them.

Please post all the exhortations in the NT of how Christians are to live their lives and treat each other and then assure me that only Catholics do not live up to the standards.

Jesus said, “Be perfect, even as my Father in heaven is perfect.”

Pretty high standards, huh?

Paul says, “The good that I would do, I do not do and the bad that I would not do, I do.”

An APOSTLE admitting that he can’t live up to perfection.

Yet, we are called to try.

And try we do, though we fall short.

I do not disagree that when a man of the cloth, be it a priest or any other protestant clergy it is most painful and detrimental to the Body of Christ.

But, to hold that up in a discussion such as this, is not debate, it is an attack and it has no place here until ALL other Christian ministers also live up to the standards so sanctimoniously presented.

In no way do I defend the actions of bad priests or bishops, they pain me terribly as I know it pains all Catholics, but I am also terribly sick of having it constantly brought up in doctrinal debates and such by people who feign “concern” when their real intent is to wound.

I am a grateful Catholic. I do believe the Church is Christ’s church. I love Him and His Church deeply and am not afraid to defend her.

[Jvette]

I do agree that there was a time when the papal seat was held in places different than Rome, because of Constantine.

Though there is still a schism because of the different understanding of papal authority, the Churches which are in schism are within the fold as far as the Church is concerned.

I can receive communion in Eastern Orthodox and other Easter rite churches as well as the Greek Orthodox church.

They believe the pope is the first among equals rather than holding primacy to other bishops.

[Jvette]

Ah, but who told you it was infallible?

See, it is easy to fall back on “I’ll take the Bible, Sola Scriptura all the way, baby.” but it doesn’t take into account the reality that what one knows about it, one has learned from someone else.

We all need and have received guidance regarding Scripture and none of us has come to perfect understanding of it, on our own or otherwise.

So, the written Word is indeed inerrant and infallible, however, those who read it are not.

If you claim the Holy Spirit as your guide and teacher to the truths held within Scripture, you have made a claim no different than that of the Catholic Church.

[Cronos]

And yet, this was going to happen in the middle ages, inevitably as it may very well happen now in the US (Huckabee is an ordained minister).

The Lollards did pose a threat to establishment -- secular and religious, as did Tyndale later on and this cycle was repeated in Lutheran and Reformed controlled nations in other parts of Europe.

See my earlier post (with the nice maps :-P) and it seems that the freedom that Anglicanism gave mixed with some structure is what led to the start of the industrial revolution. And then as first comers they reached critical mass quickly so that the 1800s was the British century. This had an influence on neighbouring areas (Reformed Netherlands as well as Catholic Belgium and N-W France).

[Cronos]

I am referring to your post 352 which was taken from the Schaff-Herzog encyclopedia and where the authors of that encyclopedia got their conclusions wrong. It starts off on the discussion of "personal Biblical literacy among the laity" and quotes Jerome and Chrysostom. however, in both cases, the exhortations are primarily to the COMMUNAL reading and hearing of Scripture, because the vast majority of adherents would not be able to pick up the Bible that was freely accesible in Church and read because the vast majorty of adherents were illiterate.

If one reads Chrysostom's various volumes it is clearly apparent that he tells all that they must STUDY and KNOW scripture, that it must be READ regularly, yet one cannot make the presumption that this was to pick up and read as an individual. To make that presumption is to put the logic of a written culture on the mores of an oral culture.

There is this brilliant description of the interaction between Thamus, the king of Thebes and Theuth the egyptian god who created writing described in Phaedrus by Plato

Theuth came to exhibit his arts to him and urged him to disseminate them to all the Egyptians. Thamus asked him about the usefulness of each art, and while Theuth was explaining it, Thamus praised him for whatever he though was right in his explanations and criticized him for whatever he thought was wrong.

When it came to writing, Theuth said "O King, here is something that, once learned, will make the Egyptians wiser and will improve their memory; I have discovered a potion for memory and for wisdom that is writing"

Thamus, however replied: "O most expert Theuth, one man can give birth to the elements of an art, but only another can judge how they can benefit or harm those who will use them. And now, since you are hte father of writing, your affection for it has made you describe its effects as the opposite of what they really are. In fact, it will introduce forgetfulness into the soul of those who learn it: they will not practise using their memory because they will put their trust in writing, which is external and depend on signs that belong to others, instead of trying to remember from inside, completely on their own. you have not discovered a potion for remembering, but for reminding" you provide your students with the appearance of wisdom, not with it's reality. your invention will enable them to hear many things without being properly taught, and they will imagien that they have come to know much while for the most part they will know nothing. And they will be difficult to get along with, since they will merely appear to be wise instead of really being so

An oral culture which is what the world was until Gutenburg printed his first Bible on the printing press, was one in which learning and studying, indeed "reading the scripture" did not depend on literacy but rather on read the word communally.

[Cronos]

In Matthew John Chrysostom refers to hearing of scripture thusly:

• For if you would learn how great is the profit of the Scriptures, examine yourself, what you become by hearing Psalms,
• I will give them, says He, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst of water, but a famine of hearing the word of the Lord. Amos 8:11
• Let us not therefore despise the hearing of the divine Scriptures. For this is of Satan's devising; not suffering us to see the treasure, lest we should gain the riches. Therefore he says that the hearing the divine laws is nothing, lest he should see us from the hearing acquiring the practice also.
• your very own quote from paragraph 10 "your supposing that the reading of the divine Scriptures appertains to those only, when you need it much more than they." goes on to say "what you become by hearing Psalms" and I will give them, says He, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst of water, but a famine of hearing the word of the Lord. Amos 8:11 and Yes, for a word from the divine Scriptures, made to sound in the ear, does more than fire soften the hardened soul, and renders it fit for all good things.

Chrysostom would not tell the 75% of the population who were illiterate that they must pick up the Bible and read it, rather that they must learn it, HEAR it, READ IT COMMUNALLY, they must quote from scripture, know it and memorise it. He would not say this to a majority illiterate society.

Indeed in paragraph 9 he says

For indeed both eyes and mouth and hearing He set in us to this intent, that all our members may serve Him, that we may speak His words, and do His deeds, that we may sing unto Him continual hymns, that we may offer up sacrifices of thanksgiving, and by these may thoroughly purify our consciences.

He does not exhort the illiterate to read when they could not, but says to study the scripture, which even the illiterate could do by communal reading of scripture and hearing the Word of God.

[Lancey Howard]

Seems to me that we’ve been infected by a few folks who seek divisions among Christians.

That is an excellent observation.
I agree; there's an odor.

[Cronos]

In Ephesians, the very link you gave has this:

• Hear the Scripture that saith, “The bee is little among such as fly, but her fruit is the chief of sweet things.”4

  424 [Note that Chrysostom here quotes the Old Testament Apocrypha as Scripture: ἄκουε τῆς γραφῆς λεγούσης. Dr. Schaff says: “He accepts the Syrian Canon of the Peshito, which includes the Old Test. with the Apocrypha,” &c. Prolegomena, p. 19.—G.A.]

• Hear how the Scripture saith, “And it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women.” (Gen. xviii. 11.)
• Then mingle also with your discourse the Apostle’s words, that “thus God would have our affections blended together; for listen to the Scripture, which saith
• and attentively study the Scriptures, in most things we shall derive instruction from them.

In 4 out of 5 references to scripture in that document, John Chrysostom refers to HEARING, in the 5th he refers to STUDYING, which if you read in the same paragraph above, he says Thus then, by thine own language, teach her never to speak -- this is apparent in an Oral culture where the majority were illiterate.

This is not my interpretation but 4 out of 5 references to HEARING scripture and tie that in to a culture where 75% were illiterate and John Chrysostom did NOT mean everyone go and learn to read and then read the Bible (which is complex language in itself not for someone who just learnt a b c) -- he realised the limitations of his audience but wants ALL, literate and illiterate to STUDY scripture and hear it.

[Cronos]

though, my apologies, I thought you ascribed to the Westminister confession of faith. This is it from the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) website

1. Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.

[Mr Rogers]

“the freedom that Anglicanism gave mixed with some structure”

Anglicans weren’t big on freedom. They would persecute Catholics and Baptists and anyone who didn’t submit to the state-approved church. That was the big problem, IMHO, with the majority of churches in medieval times - they were tied to the state, and thus tied to power and influence. When the church marries mammon, nothing good happens. She is to be the Bride of Christ, not the Bride of Wealth.

---

Gather not treasure together on earth, where rust and moths corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal. But gather ye treasures together in heaven, where neither rust, nor yet moths corrupt: and where thieves neither break up, nor yet steal. For wheresoever your treasure is, there are your hearts also.

The light of the body is thine eye. Wherefore if thine eye be single, all thy body is full of light. But and if thine eye be wicked, then is all thy body full of darkness. Wherefore if the light that is in thee, be darkness: how great is that darkness?

No man can serve two masters. For either he shall hate the one, and love the other: or else he shall lean to the one, and despise that other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. Therefore I say unto you, be not careful for your life what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, nor yet for your body, what raiment ye shall wear. Is not the life more worth than meat? and the body more of value than raiment? Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither reap, nor yet carry into the barns, and yet your heavenly father feedeth them. Are ye not better than they?

Which of you (though he took thought therefore) could put one cubit unto his stature? And why care ye then for raiment? Behold the lilies of the field, how they grow. They labor not, neither spin. And yet for all that I say unto you, that even Solomon in all his royalty, was not arrayed like unto one of these. Wherefore if god so clothe the grass, which is today in the field, and tomorrow shall be cast into the furnace: shall he not much more do the same unto you, o ye of little faith?

Therefore take no thought saying: what shall we eat, or what shall we drink, or wherewith shall we be clothed? (After all these things seek the gentiles) For your heavenly father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. But rather seek ye first the kingdom of heaven, and the righteousness thereof, and all these things shall be ministered unto you. Care not therefore for the day following. For the day following shall care for itself. Each days trouble is sufficient for the same self day. — Jesus Christ, quoted by Matthew, translated by Tyndale

---

I like the phrase “if thine eye be single, all thy body is full of light”. That was the problem of the medieval church, and many today - their eye isn’t single, but divided!

Also: is it just me, or has Tyndale’s translation held up amazingly well for one done nearly 500 years ago? I find it more blunt and common than the KJV phrasing, and in some ways prefer it to the ESV or NASB.

[Mr Rogers]

The Westminster confession is Calvinist, which means it includes many things a lot of us reject.

FWIW, the Southern Baptist ‘confession’ is:

“Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer’s faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer’s death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper.”

Also, many Baptists and many independents completely reject the idea of a ‘confession’. IAW the original topic of this thread, many ‘general baptists’ (the uncalvinist ones) reject creeds because it is just one more layer between us and the truth found in scripture. If God valued systematic theology, He could have provided us with a text. I think scripture is evidence that he values instead a humble heart that wants to learn OF Him FROM Him.

That doesn’t mean teachers cannot help, but only with the understanding that they are mortal and fallible as well.

[Cronos]

IAW?

[Cronos]

Sorry, for the Anglican bit, I was talking socio-economically. There is the big question -- why did the Industrial revolution and all the big innovations happen in the triangle London-Paris-Amsterdam? There were innovations elsewhere but the critical mass in this triangle defined it. My two cents are the freedom as in --> you could be Catholic in beliefs but you gotta come to the Anglican Church for everything, you could be Baptist in beliefs but you gotta come to the Anglican Church for everything.

IN COMPARISON to the continent, there was flexibility in opinion because the CoE was initially set up as a compromise solution. Of course we're seeing now the drawbacks of this compromise solution.

[daniel1212]

"The problem is that James was talking about the works of faith ( not works of the Law ) Paul was talking about works of the law, they had no argument because they were not even talking about the same thing."

This is part of an extensive debate, but a careful reading of Rm. 4 shows Paul was not simply referring to works of the law, as Abraham was not under the law, and was justifed before he was even circumcised, and "not by works of righteousness" (Titus 3:5; written to a Gentile) and "not by works" (Eph. 2:9) and "not according to our works" (2Tim. 1:9) has no qualification as to what kind of works, but disallows any system in which souls are justified and are given the gift of eternal life by morally worthiness.

God-given faith is the instrument that procures justification in Rm. 4, as like Abraham being unable to effect God's promise, man is destitute of any merit whereby he may gain eternal life, and his works actually make him worthy of eternal damnation, and thus he can only be saved on Christ's blood-expense and righteousness, his faith in Him being counted for righteousness, a Abraham's was.

But saving faith and works are basically inseparably, as the former will effect obedience to the will of its Object, and while one receives initial justification by imputed righteousness, yet works of faith by the Spirit confirm one is saved. (Rm. 10:9,10) And this being a characteristic of salvific faith - and repentance when convicted of not doing so - thus "not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." (Romans 2:13) Faith without works is not a living faith that is from God, and one must continue in faith. (Heb. 6:9-12)

Yet as in baptism by desire and "perfect contrition" which Rome allows, this must allow for salvation even in the case wherein a soul cannot evidence any formal works of repentance. God sees the heart, and Cornelius and household were born again before baptism, though they were pious but lost to begin with, and "confessed Christ" by magnifying God.

This issue is also part of the issue of grace and freedom of the will, such as seen in the Congregatio de Auxiliis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregatio_de_Auxiliis) unresolved debate

[editor-surveyor]

Creeds and confessions are nowhere to be found in the word of God.

Had the Lord wished that we make such confessions, he surely would have given us an example, much as he did when he taught the disciples how to pray, and to whom their prayers were to be addressed.

If its not in the scriptures, it cannot be of God.
.

[Mr Rogers]

Creeds are just a way of summarizing what one believes. If someone asks me what I believe about baptism, I’ll tell them that Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit, but water baptism is important because it tells the world that we are putting away our former way of life and want to have a new life, with God in control.

That is an informal creed. If the person wants to know more about my belief, I’ll go thru the scripture with him and explain how I came to that conclusion.

If I am looking for a church in a new town, a creed can help me know what they believe. If they have a creed that says, “We believe in baptismal regeneration and infant baptism”, then I know this Baptist will not be welcome there. If someone says “We believe the Bible”...well, what do they believe the Bible teaches?

Creeds are not bad in themselves, so long as the creed doesn’t replace the scripture, and so long as folks understand that scripture is the rule, not the creed.