Posted on 01/23/2011 5:12:54 AM PST by 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?
In Matthew 18 gave the ability to bind and loose to all the Apostles not just Peter.
1 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?
Jesus then tells them about the children and how they need to become like them. He says that anyone who offends one the them that it would be better for them to have a milstone hung around their neck. He then tells of how to deal with a church member who is doing wrong, then in verse 18 say that all the apostles and church leaders have the ability to bind and loose. He was not talking only to Peter as the RCC would have us believe.
18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Jesus made the following positive declaration, which is diametrically opposed to Roman teaching: 'But be ye not called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shalt exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.' Matthew 23:8-12.
Paul is silent about Peter's primacy. He wrote some thirteen or fourteen epistles, and never once refers to Peter's authority over the others. If such authority had existed would he not have spoken of it?
Paul considers himself Peter's equal. He says: 'I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles.' 2 Corinthians 11:5. If Peter had been Pope would he have dared to speak after this fashion?
Paul censured Peter openly. He says: 'When Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.' See Galatians 2:11-16. How would Paul have dared to censure Peter openly for failure to practice what he preached in his action toward the Gentiles, if Peter had been Pope?
Peter was considered only as one of the pillars of the Church. See Galatians 2:8-10. He was like James and John, one of the pillars of the Church, not its head.
No writer of the New Testament speaks of Peter as Pope. What does their silence mean? Can it be a conspiracy against him? Why do they ignore his authority? Why? Because Peter never was Pope. All the apostles were brethren.
Do you deny it as the catalyst?
Read again what I wrote.
The underpinnings were surely there.
Dissent has been around since the beginning.
My understanding of Luther’s actions as the start of the Reformation is accurate.
>> The Catholic understanding of papal authority hardly rests on one passage.<<
Nor do the scriptural proofs against it. Check my other posts, and I have more, but I will wait till you get back. May the Holy Spirit guide you’re attendance.
And you’re avoiding the question. The initial premise of this thread is false. You’ve done nothing to address that question either.
Said with grace, but alas we must disagree.
The Church is comprised of the followers of Christ. Any who have accepted the Son of God as their savior. The Word is sufficient and complete. It does not need help from man.
God Bless
Is this the same Catholic Church which prohibited translation of the Bible?
Is that done by transubstantiation, or is there another process that's used?
Non sequitur. There is no way to attribute such an "admission" as there has been none.
The authority of the Church in determining scripture, ie canon, was not disputed. That which was indisputably accepted as scripture is accepted as Protestant Canon, just as it is Catholic.
What was at controversy and under dispute was not included, just as the early Church fathers didn't and just as the Roman Catholic Church didn't right up to the Council Of Trent, even leaving the matter theologically open as a result of that Council.
You'd be hard pressed to get an acknowledgment of this through all the bellowing about "removing books" that were never included with any degree of certainty up to that point, though. It's apparently just too easy to demagogue, all concern over factuality aside.
“These intellectually challenged have no response to your inquiry so they reply with taunts which serve as their justification.”
And the spiritually challenged choose to judge and throw stones.
God gave us the Bible despite the efforts of the Catholic Church to prevent it. The fact that its translated and available to anyone is not due to the efforts of the Catholic Church.
Again, the initial premise of this thread was incorrect. Martin Luther did not choose the books of the Bible.
That’s the first time I ever got that question.
Great typology!
“Think of the intellectual history of Protestant Europe and all the consequences it brought for the world, a higher level of scientific inventiveness notwithstanding, and come up with a cost/benefit ratio and see how close you can get to dividing by zero.”
As opposed to the Catholics who have a negative cost/benefit? I wonder how many lives and souls could be saved if a fraction of the gold in the Vatican was taken off the wall and used.
really??? they deny baptismal regeneration and infant baptism. no one believed as they do until the 16th century. read the church fathers, which one was a baptist?
little c, big c nonsense is another 16th century creation of men.
“That’s the first time I ever got that question.”
Really? And to think this thread is about Martin Luther.
So you are saying that Christ did not form the Catholic Church?
Hope you get your answer at the moment of your particular judgment.
Are you saying that the Apostles were not chosen by Christ? That they were not the first Bishops of the Church, given authority through Christ breathing on them and saying, “Receive the Holy Spirit, whose sins you shall forogive, they are forgiven them, whose sins you shall bind, they are bound.”
It was *a* catalyst among many catalysts. It was *the* catalyst in what later became Germany.
You're apparently unaware of the decentralized nature of the Reformation and the fact that it cannot be ascribed to one individual in one place at one time. Luther wasn't a catalyst at all among the followers of John Hus in Prague. Hus was profoundly influenced by Wycliffe. Luther hadn't even been born.
There are many other examples recognized by "Protestants" as being leading lights of the Reformation. It's not all about Martin Luther, despite his seeming prominence. His initial action was very specific and therefore emblematic, and subsequent generations have latched onto it for simplicity's sake, I suspect, for better or for worse.
Your whole post is based on fiction. Your bias of the Reformation and Martin Luther has no basis in fact. Read the following learn some factual history in regards to Martin Luther’s beliefs.
You might be surprised to find Luther was more in line with the Catholic church, no surprise since he was raised Catholic.
Apocrypha—intertestamental books
The additional books included in Roman Catholic Bibles are the so-called Apocrypha, several books written between the time of the Old and New Testaments. Generally considered to be part of the Apocrypha are 1 and 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, Prayer of Manasseh, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and additions to Daniel and Esther. In 1546, at the Council of Trent and as part of the Counter-Reformation, the Catholic Church officially declared the Apocrypha to be part of the biblical canon. Their omission of 1 and 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh from the list seems to have been a mistake since they are included in later, official editions of Catholic Bibles.
Apocryphal books have been included in various editions of the Bible prior to and beyond Roman Catholic Bibles. They were included in the Greek translation of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint, although manuscripts of the Septuagint are not consistent about which books are included. St. Jerome included them in his Latin translation, the Vulgate (about 400 a.d.). Luther included them in his German translation of the Bible. Editions of the King James Bible also included them.
Apocrypha—inspired books?
The critical question is whether they are part of the biblical canon and should be regarded as divinely inspired. The Jewish believers prior to Christ did not consider them canonical. The Old Testament at the time of Jesus had three major divisions: the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms—but no apocryphal books. Jesus and the apostles did not consider them inspired or authoritative. Luther said they were beneficial books to read, but they could not be recognized as part of the inspired books of the Bible. Not all Catholics accepted them as part of the Bible until the church hierarchy declared them to be so and attached a curse on everyone who did not accept their ruling.
Protestants do not count the apocryphal books among inspired ones for two reasons: (1) Jesus did not accept them as canonical, and (2) they contain errors and anti-scriptural teachings (like praying for the dead). In fairness it should be said that false doctrines in Catholicism result more from tradition and misuse of canonical Scripture.
If people are worried that by excluding the Apocrypha from the canon they will miss out on something God wants them to know, they should read these books. I believe that their fears will be quickly laid to rest.
You rightly observe that official Catholic Bible translations differ to a degree from Protestant ones. The main reason for this is that Protestant translations are normally based on the original Hebrew and Greek texts of the Old and New Testaments, while Catholic translations are usually based on their official authoritative text—the Latin Vulgate. John Wyclif’s pre-Reformation English translation was drawn from the Vulgate, but after the Reformation only Catholic translations continued to lean on that Latin version. This explains most translation differences that prevail despite the fact that all are translations of the Bible text.
so you accept Jerome as a Christian, even though he taught baptismal regeneration, the Real Presence in the Eucharist, the sacrifice of the mass, apostolic succession, infant baptism, the papacy, prayers for the dead????
“Hope you get your answer at the moment of your particular judgment.”
Salvation depends on acceptance of Jesus as the Son of God. That we are all imperfect and fall short. That Jesus died for our sins and is our Savior.
Thats all it takes, nothing else.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.