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

I affirm that Chrysostom exhorted hearing the word, and that can refer to communal hearing, but that his exhortation such as “get you at least the New Testament, the Apostolic Epistles, the Acts, the Gospels, for your constant teachers...” for “the reading of the Scriptures and that not to be done lightly, nor in any sort of way, but with much earnestness” is an exhortation to personal study.

Your rejection of this is predicated upon the the premise that
75% of the population was illiterate, and that they could hear enough scripture as to constitute study, in seeking exposure like monks, but whatever credence that has, he also is exhorting personal study for those who can.

And if hearing it communally can help make one literate in it, and if not knowing the Scriptures is the cause of all evils, and is akin to going into battle without arms, how much be able to read one’s own copy of the Scriptures, in addition to being instructed, would overall be to their advantage.

>> “Creeds are just a way of summarizing what one believes” <<

.
Or telling someone What To Believe, without providing adequate scriptural support (or any support).

I believe that the latter happens for more than the former.

I'm not "rejecting" anything beside the contention in Schaff-Herzog that the 'reading' referred to by John Chrysostom is individual reading only. It could NOT have been for the reasons I outlined above.

What you say , how much be able to read one’s own copy of the Scriptures, in addition to being instructed, would overall be to their advantage. makes sense in a written world like ours where there are books, internet etc. available. But for a world before the invention of paper from wood (i.e. cheap books), it was not possible to teach people to read well enough to read the Bible -- and remember that a person can orally be very intelligent, but to read complex words and meanings and punctuation etc. can be difficult and if there is no other reading material, then this is not a viable option and was NOT a viable option especially in John Chrysostom's time.

The Patriarch would never exhort people who had no chance of learning to read to "go pick up a Bible and read it" -- instead he refers to HEARING, listening, READING aloud -- namely, if you are fortunate enough to know how to read, then help your fellow man, help your family learn scripture. Make them recite it and memorise it. That is what Chrysostom is saying.

and upon this rock

If you read the Greek, Jesus was referring to Peter's FAITH as the rock, not Peter, himself, as the rock. "Upon this rock (of faith) I will build my church." Ignorance of G-d has its consequences... Be very careful...

We must disagree. I still see such as

“get you at least the New Testament, the Apostolic Epistles, the Acts, the Gospels, for your constant teachers...” for “the reading of the Scriptures and that not to be done lightly, nor in any sort of way, but with much earnestness,”

to be is an exhortation to personal study.

In any case, the real issue is that it is a good thing, if one has a Berean type heart, as is the necessity of the teaching magisterium, which values Berean type souls who thus examine them by the Scriptures if they have them.

>>”Upon this rock (of faith) I will build my church.”<<

“Upon this rock (faith in Jesus) I will build my church”. There fixed it for ya.

Jesus was the rock, the cornerstone on which the church (body of believers, not an organization) is built.

I’m not sure how you read that post but if you re-read it you will notice I put the quote I am responding to at the top. I was responding to the belief that Peter was the first “pope”.

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.

Gal 2;16
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Paul seemed to be talking legalism.

James 2:14-26
14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. 18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. 25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? 26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

James just seemed to be saying any ones faith would show up some where in their works, just what Jesus was talking about in the case of the good Samaritan, the point being that any one who thinks James was wrong would have to think Jesus was also wrong.

If some one helps some one else just for the purpose of showing God that they are righteous is not what i would call faith it would be what paul would call works of righteousness.

But if some one who claims to have so much faith would pass you by if it was plainly evident that you needed help would you not think of their faith as being dead?

Faith is something that we get from God, Law is what we get from man, we can debate all day but i can not see how it would change that fact, how faith was brought about by law is another matter.

I think there are other things we need to consider before we get the idea that Paul and James had a disagreement

1 Is that Paul was writing to the Gentiles, James was writing to the 12 tribes, the Jews, the way they understood things were not quite the same,

For instance the gentiles may have thought that since they were Jews by adoption that they were supposed to put legalism on every thing.

And maybe the Jews were just the opposite thinking that since they were now Christians they did not have to do anything.

The other thing is that in Pauls case the letters were to the church,s Paul was setting up the church of God in the gentile countries, much of what he wrote was not in telling every one how to run their personal lives but how to manage the church as St Peter and the other apostles set the church up and also picking the right people for the membership of the church and putting the right members in the positions where they would do the most good.

For instance appointing elders with only one wife to be bishops or deacons.

Personally, i believe Jesus said every thing we need to know for our salvation, but he also chose the apostles to preach the gospel, so for that reason we have the letters and with out them who would know about the Gospel.

Bottom line in my opinion is that the letters which Paul wrote are not the gospel but only a route to the Gospel, the church would not be a church with out them.

>> “Tyndale’s translation was superior to the KJV, in that his goal was accuracy, while the KJV’s goal was to support the Anglican Church.” <<

I guess it just boils down to a matter of opinion, i avoided the kjv for a long time but it seemed that the other versions that we had at hand then contradicted them selves in some areas and i found that the kjv made much more sense in those areas than the others, so i trust it.

I do not have time to get into this more here or feel the need to, as i have been going back and forth on this with another poster for well over a months, one of which is here. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2618333/posts?page=7010#7010 One must first be justified to do works of faith, though that may be one event.

The KJV remains the most accurate, and understandable of the widely used translations.

For the OT, it will never be bested, but for the NT, there are some lesser known translations that are decidedly superior.

Works done for the purchase of personal salvation are not good works; they are “Filthy rags.”
.

Works done for the purchase of personal salvation are not good works; they are “Filthy rags.”

Agreed.

EXCELLENT correction and post. Faith in Jesus as our Savior is EXACTLY the right answer. I should have been clearer in my posting. Thanks!

And that's just the problem. The writings from the Apostles were inspired of the Holy Spirit from the time the ink dried on the page...

No one is arguing that.

NOT when, centuries later some councils recognized them as such (much less relying on modern textual critics to approve...).

Then who determined the canon, by what authority, and did they do it infallibly?

Evidence from Ignatius (d. AD 110) and even before...shows that the Church ALREADY recognized the Apostolic writings as holy scripture, 300 years before the Counsils of Carthage voted on it...

That would have been news to Martin Luther.

About this Book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment. I say what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic.
First and foremost, the apostles do not deal with visions, but prophesy in clear and plain words, as do Peter and Paul, and Christ in the gospel. For it befits the apostolic office to speak clearly of Christ and his deeds, without images and visions. Moreover there is no prophet in the Old Testament, to say nothing of the New, who deals so exclusively with visions and images. For myself, I think it approximates the Fourth Book of Esdras; I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.
--Martin Luther's Preface to Revelation

Luther held this fallible opinion because the inspiration of Revelation had been in dispute, to some degree, since at least the year 200 A.D.

The Alogi, about A.D. 200, a sect so called because of their rejection of the logos-doctrine, denied the authenticity of the Apocalypse, assigning it to Cerinthus (Epiphanius, LI, ff, 33; cf. Irenaeus, Against Heresies III.11.9). Caius, a presbyter in Rome, of about the same time, holds a similar opinion. Eusebius quotes his words taken from his Disputation: "But Cerinthus by means of revelations which he pretended were written by a great Apostle falsely pretended to wonderful things, asserting that after the resurrection there would be an earthly kingdom" (Church History III.28). The most formidable antagonist of the authority of the Apocalypse is Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, disciple of Origen. He is not opposed to the supposition that Cerinthus is the writer of the Apocalypse. "For", he says, "this is the doctrine of Cerinthus, that there will be an earthly reign of Christ, and as he was a lover of the body he dreamed that he would revel in the gratification of the sensual appetite". He himself did not adopt the view that Cerinthus was the writer. He regarded the Apocalypse as the work of an inspired man but not of an Apostle (Eusebius, Church History VII.25). During the fourth and fifth centuries the tendency to exclude the Apocalypse from the list of sacred books continued to increase in the Syro-Palestinian churches. Eusebius expresses no definite opinion. He contents himself with the statement: "The Apocalypse is by some accepted among the canonical books but by others rejected" (Church History III.25). St. Cyril of Jerusalem does not name it among the canonical books (Catechesis IV.33-36); nor does it occur on the list of the Synod of Laodicea, or on that of Gregory of Nazianzus. Perhaps the most telling argument against the apostolic authorship of the book is its omission from the Peshito, the Syrian Vulgate.
Apocalypse

The question is, Who or what determined the canon of Scripture infallibly? Remember, determining the canon of Scripture requires an extra-biblical authority. To return to the topic of the thread, did Luther act infallibly when he determined his canon of Scripture? Which opinion of Luther's was infallible? His early skepticism, or his later acceptance? How do we know which opinion was infallible?

As a logical matter, the "Bible alone" cannot be the sole rule of faith, since an authority outside Scripture must determine the canon; an authority such as yourself, for example.

What's incredible is the idea that the Church wandered around for 300 years having NO IDEA what was holy Scripture, and what was not....until a council magically declared that certain books were.

The canon was generally accepted, but some books were in dispute, hence the need for the Council's pronouncement (see above).

BTW, have you considered that Christ's Church wandered around for 1500 years with no record of Luther's teaching of "The Bible alone"?

The early Church certainly couldn't have adhered to Luther's teaching, since the last book of the Bible wasn't even written until the year 100 A.D., about 70 years after Pentecost.

In fact, if not for the invention of the printing press by a Catholic, 40 years before Luther's birth, Luther's doctrine would have been practically impossible. Hand-copied Bibles cost the equivalent of a year's wages, which is why they were often chained to Church pulpits.

As to the Apocrypha (that's Saint Jerome's name for it, by the way, NOT a Protestant invention)

St. Jerome was also skeptical of Revelation. Catholics do not regard him as infallible. Do you?

these were books the Jews had excluded--and never formally made a part of their canon. From the Septuigint (LXX) on, (ca. 250-130 BC) evidence suggests the Jews considered the canon closed...except for some quibblings about some of the less important books.

Various Jewish groups adhered to various canons. Canon of the Old Testament

Regardless, for the sake of argument, let's assume that you are correct, in that the Catholic Church has adopted the incorrect canon of Scripture.

This leads us back to the topic of the thread. Did Martin Luther infallibly determine the canon of Scripture? Did a particular group of anti-Christian Jews? Did you? Who determined the canon infallibly?

Or did no one? R.C. Sproul believes that we possess a fallible collection of infallible books.

The question for the Church was, do we accept the canon as given to us, (following St. Paul's principle in Romans 3:2 "... the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God.") OR do we think it takes a magical council 1500 years later (TRENT) to make books official?

If not the Catholic Church, who? Luther, based his canon of Scripture on the determination of the Jewish "Council of Jamnia." This same "council" rejected Christ. Why would he prefer their canon to the canon accepted by the early Church? Additionally, this "council" was not comparable in any way to a Church Council. It was not representative of Jews as a whole, since at this time there existed different canons amongst the different Jewish groups.

That same council, by the way, said, unequivocally, that anyone who trusts in Christ alone by faith alone (that would be most Protestants)....is forever cursed. (No ifs, ands or buts). Of course since Vatican II, Rome has backpeddled...claiming Protestants are NOT cursed to Hell. Which is authoritative though? Are we going to Hell, or not?

Don't you believe in "grace alone," as the Catholic Church teaches? Since the doctrine of "faith alone" is heretical (the Bible tells us that the demons believe), anyone who obstinately holds to it, with full understanding of the doctrine and the teaching authority of the Church, would be guilty of mortal sin. OTOH, someone who adheres to the doctrine through a misunderstanding, would not be guilty of formal sin. It's the difference between being a material and a formal heretic.

Popes, Councils and the Church have ALL erred, and do definitely in history provably contradict each other.

Name one.

Thank God His Word is perfect, and pure, and always has been.

Which canon of Scripture is perfect, the Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox one? Which canon has been infallibly defined?

If not the Catholic Church, who? Which "universal" Church?

The Eastern Orthodox had separated some 500 years before--are they not Christians? They were not a part of Trent's vote then, and plenty or Roman Catholic scholars argued against the Apocrypha at Trent too. Were they all heretics?

Luther, based his canon of Scripture on the determination of the Jewish "Council of Jamnia." This same "council" rejected Christ.

Actually, Luther, and everyone (as far as we can tell)at that time had never heard of the "Council of Jamnia" which is a hypothetical council surmised by a late 19th Century Jewish scholar. That council (if it happened) did not count into Luther, or other scholarly opinions about the Apocrypha in the 16th Century.

The 1st versions of the LXX left out the Apocrypha out...and in Jesus day, and certainly by the close of the 1st Century, no Jewish authority (see Josephus) recognized the various Apocryphal books as canonical. It's understandable why certain Gentile Christians wouldn't trust their judgement at that time--but certain Gentile Christians have also (always) been anti-Semitic...so what?

Why would he prefer their canon to the canon accepted by the early Church?

Because it was long-standing, solid, Jewish scholarly opinion.

Have you ever actually read, say, the book of Tobit? It's very clearly a fairy tale! It has a demon killing 7 husbands on their wedding night...(where in scripture do demons ever kill anyone directly?) with a magical food as the solution... preventing the killing. There is a lot of such nonsense in the Apocrypha.

The early Church, as evidenced by THE translator of the Vulgate, St. Jerome, was NOT unanimous in accepting the Apocrypha (Saints Ambrose, Amphilochus, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nanzianzus, Melito of Sardis, Hillary of Poitiers and Origen all didn't accept it as Scripture...were they all heretics?), and neither were the best scholars of the Medieval Church (Aquinas amidst them....and, Cardinal Cajetan--Luther's chief Roman Catholic opponent). (.

Was Luther infallible? No, of course not! No human other that Jesus Christ is! Is the list itself of the books EVER given by infallible authority? No. However, God Himself has evidenced His books to His people throughout history. No great earth-changing doctrine that I know of either, is based on any of the New Testament books which....long ago...were debated--and which all Christians, Roman, Orthodox or Protestant accept as canon. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the Acts, the works of Paul 1 John and a few other epistles were NEVER questioned as NOT being Apostolic--and there is nothing major established by the remainging LESS THAN 10% of the books which were questioned.

What exactly about the Apocryphal books do you find so attractive?

The facts:

1 The Roman Catholic Church did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent (1546 AD)(which by definition, was NOT a catholic/universal Christian council...). This was in part because the Apocrypha contained material which supported certain Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory, praying for the dead, and the treasury of merit.

2 Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.

3 Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.

4 These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.

5 They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.

6 They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.

7 The Apocrypha inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.

"And the day following Judas came with his company, to take away the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen, in the sepulchers of their fathers. And they found under the coats of the slain some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews: so that all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain. Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden. And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain. And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachmas of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection, (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,) And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins. (2 Maccabees 12:39-46)

8 The apocrypha contains offensive materials unbecoming of God’s authorship.

Ecclesiasticus 25:19 Any iniquity is insignificant compared to a wife's iniquity.

Ecclesiasticus 25:24 From a woman sin had its beginning. Because of her we all die.

Ecclesiasticus 22:3 It is a disgrace to be the father of an undisciplined, and the birth of a daughter is a loss.

9 It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.

10 The apocryphal books themselves make reference to what we call the Silent 400 years, where there were no prophets of God to write inspired materials.

And they laid up the stones in the mountain of the temple in a convenient place, till there should come a prophet, and give answer concerning them. (1 Maccabees 4:46)

And there was a great tribulation in Israel, such as was not since the day, that there was no prophet seen in Israel. (1 Maccabees 9:27)

And that the Jews, and their priests, had consented that he should be their prince, and high priest for ever, till there should arise a faithful prophet. (1 Maccabees 14:41)

11 Josephus (greatest of Jewish historians) rejected the apocryphal books as inspired and this reflected Jewish thought at the time of Jesus.

"From Artexerxes to our own time the complete history has been written but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets." ... "We have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine..."(Flavius Josephus, Against Apion 1:8)

12 The Manual of Discipline in the Dead Sea Scrolls rejected the apocrypha as inspired.

13 The Council of Jamnia held the same view rejected the apocrypha as inspired.

They debated the canonicity of a few books (e.g., Ecclesiastes), but they changed nothing and never proclaimed themselves to be authoritative determiners of the Old Testament canon. "The books which they decided to acknowledge as canonical were already generally accepted, although questions had been raised about them. Those which they refused to admit had never been included. They did not expel from the canon any book which had previously been admitted. 'The Council of Jamnia was the confirming of public opinion, not the forming of it.'" (F. F. Bruce, The Books and Parchments [Old Tappan, NJ.: Fleming H. Revell, 1963], p. 98])

14 Although it was occasionally quoted in earliest church writings, it was nowhere accepted in a canon. Melito (AD 170) and Origen rejected the Apocrypha, (Eccl. Hist. VI. 25, Eusebius) as does the Muratorian Canon.

15 Jerome vigorously resisted including the Apocrypha in his Latin Vulgate Version (400 AD), but was overruled. As a result, the standard Roman Catholic Bible throughout the medieval period contained it. Thus, it gradually came to be revered by the average clergyman. Still, many medieval Catholic scholars realized that it was not inspired.

16 The terms "protocanonical" and "deuterocanonical" are used by Catholics to signify respectively those books of Scripture that were received by the entire Church from the beginning as inspired, and those whose inspiration came to be recognized later, after the matter had been disputed by certain Fathers and local churches.

17 Pope Damasus (366-384) authorized Jerome to translate the Latin Vulgate. The Council of Carthage declared this translation as "the infallible and authentic Bible." Jerome was the first to describe the extra 7 Old Testament books as the "Apocrypha" (doubtful authenticity). Needless to say, Jerome’s original version of the Latin Vulgate did not include the Apocrypha.

18 Cyril (born about A.D. 315) – "Read the divine Scriptures – namely, the 22 books of the Old Testament which the 72 interpreters translated" (the Septuagint)

19 The apocrypha wasn’t included at first in the Septuagint, but was appended by the Alexandrian Jews, and was not listed in any of the catalogues of the inspired books till the 4th century

20 Hilary (bishop of Poitiers, 350 A.D.) rejected the apocrypha (Prologue to the Psalms, Sec. 15)

21 Epiphanius (the great opposer of heresy, 360 A.D.) rejected them all. Referring to Wisdom of Solomon & book of Jesus Sirach, he said "These indeed are useful books & profitable, but they are not placed in the number of the canonical."

No listing of Luther in those (very common sense, basic) reasons...just many of the reasons behind why Luther, as a scholar using his head (like all Protestants since)--not blindly trusting whatever "tradition," council, or the current pope said....didn't include the inferior, and ridiculous Apocrypha in what he recognized as God's word.

An infallible authority by definition simply doesn't need another infallible authority to recognize it...

“I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” (Exod. 3:14)

Oh, and Trent very clearly erred, when it very clearly condemned all Protestants (who believed in faith alone) to Hell (calling them accursed...the words used for those excommunicated...IE. separated from Christ and going to Hell), as well as in naming the flawed self-contradictory, fabled Apocrypha as scripture.

No human (or human council,) is free of sin, save Christ alone.

So did Luther act infallibly in determining what books belong in the Bible?

All this requires is a simple "yes," or "no."