The Errors of Martin Luther's German Bible

http://www.cogwriter.com/luther.htm ^

[fortheDeclaration]

The TR, in it's various editions, was the correct Greek text.

It is the earlier readings, coming from corrupt Unicals such as Vaticanus (B) and Sinaitcus(Aleph) that led to the corrupt readings found in the Roman Catholic Bibles and today's modern versions.

[Cronos]

There is no Biblical justification for the organized churches in denominations as seen today.

I'm sorry, but I see it differently -- I see the organized apostles, 12 in all, even choosing one to succeed another as an organized Church. I see the council in Jerusalem as an organized Church checking that orthodox teaching is maintained. I see the injunctions of +Paul to teach someone who then is to teach others as an organized Church.

Are we too organized? Lets look at the alternative - anarchy. And historically we see that this leads to more and more deviations from the Word.

The Pauline Epistles are written to churches in various cities, but these are not "home" as in "only for the household" churches but of that area, taught by an Apostle and handed over the shepherding to a bishop.

[Cronos]

What Constantine did was unite the church with the State and thus, corrupt the church.

Actually Constantine did nothing of that sort. Christianity was NOT the state religion during Constantine's time, all he did was stop the persecution (and actually he was the second Roman Emperor to do so, the first being his co-Emperor in the West as I stated above).

the bishops in the East called for a council with Constantine providing a venue etc -- if he wanted to impose his views, we would be Arians, right?

[Cronos]

The NT was accepted by the NT churches within the 2nd century as the books were circulated

Again, I'm sorry, but that is incorrect -- as I pointed out to you, you had Marcion's canon in the second century, which neither you nor I would recognise

Also Origen's canon was within the 2nd century and had all the books which we have now except for James, 2 Peter, 2 John and 3 John and it had the Shepherd of Hermas as scripture.

Would you say that we should all junk out James, 2 Pet, 2 Jn, 3 Jn and put in the Shepherd of Hermas as scripture?

in fact even until the late 300s this was not decided --> +Athanasius' canon was the last before council but that also included the book of Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah and left out the book of Esther (367 AD).

Would you agree to these changes?

[Cronos]

The Apocrypha books were never officially considered as part of the Canon until Trent.

Again incorrect, the Synod of Rome in 382 AD, council of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397,419) held the Deuterocanonical books as inspired

This was then ratified by the 2nd council of Nicaea (787) and Florence (1438-1445). So, I'm sorry but the Deuterocanonicals were held so long before Trent

The Councils only recognized what the churches had long accepted as being part of the Canon. -- then why did they debate for so long over Revelation? And 2 and 3 Peter? Why the debate over the Shepherd of Hermas? Because some were accepted as inspired by some and not by others...

[Cronos]

Once you believe in Christ as your personal saviour,

It is repent and believe and you are correct that one will bear fruit (works) as a result

you will have no rewards in heaven. -- can you elaborate on this please? Which rewards specifically?

[Cronos]

The early church met in homes, not buildings that were used for churches. -- the "original" meeting places were synagogues. homes used for divine liturgy were larger houses in which people came from around and were led by the bishop of the area each Lord's day (as we read in the Didache)

These were not the modern day equivalent of the "home churches" where folks pick up a bible and teach what they feel. The Churches were in building that happened to be homes -- large homes. As time went by they met in large basilicas (forum areas) as more became Christians

[Cronos]

note again, you said The individual priesthood of the believer (which Luther stressed) is rejected -- that is false

Church belief is that The chosen people was constituted by God as "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation."6 But within the people of Israel, God chose one of the twelve tribes, that of Levi, and set it apart for liturgical service; God himself is its inheritance.7 A special rite consecrated the beginnings of the priesthood of the Old Covenant. The priests are "appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins." (Heb 5:1; cf. Ex 29:1-30; Lev 8.)

The Church teaches that he faithful exercise their baptismal priesthood through their participation, each according to his own vocation, in Christ's mission as priest, prophet, and king. Through the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation the faithful are "consecrated to be . . . a holy priesthood." and The ministerial or hierarchical priesthood of bishops and priests, and the common priesthood of all the faithful participate, "each in its own proper way, in the one priesthood of Christ." -- there is no rejection of the individual priesthood of the believer, rather it is celebrated as part of the inherent, deep-rooted beliefs.

[Cronos]

note again, you said The individual priesthood of the believer (which Luther stressed) is rejected -- that is false

to say that The third great principle of the Reformation was that of “the priesthood of all believers” completely ignores the fact that

1. Catholics and Orthodox believe in the priesthood of all believers and always have
2. they have a ministerial priesthood too a part of the overall priesthood of all believers

Lutheranism and Anglicanism retained the ministerial priesthood.

[Cronos]

That line was seen by the Reformers as not warranted in Scripture, is also false as we see the ministerial priesthood among Lutherans and Anglicans

This is also in error as this is warranted in scripture as we see right from the beginning of the differentiation between Christ's disciples and the twelve Apostles

[Cronos]

That line a treasury of the merits of saints is also false as these merits are FROM God as stated above and are the sweet fragrance of the prayers of the saints as we read in Apocalypse. For that matter neither are these changes the fact that Christ is the bridge, the Mediator between man and God. Just as you may pray on behalf of a fellow Christian, why can't priests do that?

[aruanan]

The TR, in it's [sic] various editions, was the correct Greek text.

1. The term "textus receptus" was an advertising gimmick, referring to a compilation of late minuscule manuscripts that existed (the compilation) nowhere else before.

2. Calling the TR the "correct Greek text" may be what someone wants to believe but it has no basis whatsoever in NT Greek scholarship.

[Cronos]

imho the idea of maintaining "home churches" wherein specifically people just pick up a Bible and teach (as opposed to praying, expressing their love of God, reading together) can lead to the various questions like "is there a Trinity" etc.

That's not to say that a "church in a home" that has people praying together is not a good idea -- it is -- we just need to be humble about teaching and remember that we must learn from our master Christ who gave us the Word and gave us the interpretation of it through tradition.

To say that one must derive from Scripture alone all of the theological truths that God wished to reveal to mankind—and even all of the religious practices in which Christians should engage (i.e., that Scripture is "sufficient for faith and practice") is demonstrably wrong --> and if I am not mistaken, you do not take this extreme point of view, correct?

Apostolic Tradition includes such points as against contraception or the sacrament of confession (which you do disagree with, I know), etc.

Yet, honestly, isn't even "sola scriptura" a tradition that "if its not in the Bible, we do not believe" -- a tradition that leads to all of the above differences in fundamental beliefs and even to the extreme points of the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses taking the same points to extreme (because each interprets differently -- perhaps more the Jehovah's witnesses than Mormons).

Is it not true that many times a practitioner of sola scriptura will say the Bible is "unclear" on something to allow for differing opinion and interpretations? Yet, how does that square with "Scripture is the authority and source of all doctrines of the Christian faith" if you have "unclear" points?

Let's just take the point of John 3:5 where Jesus tells Nicodemus that he must be "born of the water and of the spirit" -- does that mean:

1. Born of birth amniotic liquid? Hence that means that spirits must be born on earth (and I've heard Freepers putting this argument forth)
2. Just a spiritual Baptism?
3. Baptismal water and Holy Spirit's action through this?

Each of these views is held by various practitioners of sola scriptura, and this is a fundamental belief, mind you.

Which of these is true? All three can't be at the same time true as they are contradictory

Jesus would have explained what He meant to His disciples and Nicodemus who would have explained it down to THEIR disciples and so on and so forth ("ok, Druselius, now I was taught by Antonicus who was taught by Marius who was taught by Ignatius who was taught by Polycarp who was taught by John the Apostle who was taught by Jesus that this passage here means.....").

There is no doubt that Christ taught His disciples, scripture even points out that He taught them post His resurrection, yet those points are not in scripture, so what are they? Maybe a detailed set of what the words given earlier really meant? Most likely because the Apostles and the ones following them were always clear to say that they learnt from so-and-so Apostle

Paul made it clear when he says not to say "I am of Apollo, I am of Paul but of Christ" that the focus should be on the ultimate teacher of the teachers, not that he is against people sticking to the rule of what was taught by their teachers. In fact he urges people to stick to what they were taught and to hand that down to others. That is the basic definition of Holy Tradition -- the teachings from the Ultimate Teacher through a succession of teachers, all lesser -- it doesn't matter about the character of the intervening teachers, what matters is the Truth is pure and it is pure because it comes from the Ultimate Teacher who is pure.

[Cronos]

Now remember the Bible is utterly accurate, yet, besides as shown above not giving the exact meaning of certain points, it does not say a lot about some things either - how did Early Christians worship? What were the rules for this worship, the manner in which this worship was carried out?

The Bible does not say anything about this, yet we have an external work dating from 70 AD (Apostolic times), the Didache which does just that (in fact it possibly predates Revelations)

What does it say?

• Chapter 6: "See that no one causes you to err from this way of The Teaching" -- note, the Teaching as handed down from Ultimate Teacher to teacher to teacher.
• Chapter 7: "And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:19 in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit."
• and more to the point of worship Chapter 9: The Thanksgiving Now concerning the Thanksgiving thus give thanks. First, concerning the cup: We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of David Your servant, which You made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory for ever. And concerning the broken bread: We thank You, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Your Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Your kingdom; for Yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever. But let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving (Eucharist), but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs.
• Chapter 10: "But after you are filled, thus give thanks: We thank You, holy Father, for Your holy name which You caused to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which You made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory for ever. You, Master almighty, created all things for Your name's sake; You gave food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to You; but to us You freely gave spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Your Servant. Before all things we thank You that You are mighty; to You be the glory for ever. Remember, Lord, Your Church, to deliver it from all evil and to make it perfect in Your love, and gather it from the four winds, sanctified for Your kingdom which You have prepared for it; for Yours is the power and the glory for ever. Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the God (Son) of David! If any one is holy, let him come; if any one is not so, let him repent. Maran atha. Amen. But permit the prophets to make Thanksgiving as much as they desire."
• Chapter 14: But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations.

And this is how we worship today, just as we were taught right back to the Apostles (1 Tim 3:15 15But 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.)

[rzman21]

Luther’s doctoral education was the equivalent of a modern junior high student.

So are you saying that Martin Luther was divinely inspired, say like a Joseph Smith?

[rzman21]

True Baptists actually believe they are the final authority on what the Bible says, but are reluctant to admit it.

[Cronos]

well, I would have put it more delicately but it does boil down to the individual being the final authority.

[Cronos]

I do disagree with you rz on the statement about Luther's doctoral education. He was a disciplined student and as wikipedia points out He received a Bachelor's degree in Biblical studies on 9 March 1508, and another Bachelor's degree in the Sentences by Peter Lombard in 1509.[24] On 19 October 1512, he was awarded his Doctor of Theology and, on 21 October 1512, was received into the senate of the theological faculty of the University of Wittenberg, having been called to the position of Doctor in Bible

we can fault him for being impulsive and other human failings, but he was a thorough scholar.

Martin Luther can in no way be compared to Joseph Smith who was a charlatan and a con-man from before he created his sham religion of Mormonism

[Siena Dreaming]

The Bible didn't become God-inspired Holy Scripture only when the Catholic Church decided it was, no, it was Scripture and the truth from God

Good point and very true.

[Siena Dreaming]

the body of believers, the church does predate the writing of the books of the New Testament

But not the Bible, as I've had to make clear to more than one catholic.

There are the uneducated in all denominations, catholic included.

Some of these don't understand that God was alive and active and even inspiring scripture far before the Pope came on the scene.