What follows is a lot to digest, and i am not going to get into another extended FR debate on all this, which might be better done with the sources, but provide this as a supplement to what has been said here.
It is a common misconception that Luther was basically acting alone and in a summary manner in rejecting the apocrypha, and did not include James and Hebrews in his Bible, and the we look to Luther as a pope, but in reality the rejecting and questioning of a few books by Luther, whose views were part inn a process of development, was based upon the judgment of scholars of Rome and scholarly principles. Luther and the Reformers treated the Apocrypha as did many in the centuries preceding them, which was that these books are not to be held as equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read. More.
Substantial dissent existed through the centuries and right into Trent, even among some of the best scholars over the apocryphal books. (Hubert Jedin Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent: St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947; pp. 278, 281-282). Among them was Cardinal Seripando. The Roman Catholic historian (and expert on Trent) Hubert Jedin explained “he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship” at the Council of Trent.” The Roman Catholic historian (and expert on Trent) Hubert Jedin writes that his position was “Tobias, Judith, the Book of Wisdom, the books of Esdras, Ecclesiasticus, the books of the Maccabees, and Baruch are only "canonici et ecclesiastici" and make up the canon morum in contrast to the canon fidei. These, Seripando says in the words of St. Jerome, are suited for the edification of the people, but they are not authentic, that is, not sufficient to prove a dogma. Seripando emphasized that in spite of the Florentine canon the question of a twofold canon was still open and was treated as such by learned men in the Church. Without doubt he was thinking of Cardinal Cajetan, who in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews accepted St. Jerome's view which had had supporters throughout the Middle Ages.” (Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 270-271).
Despite decrees by early councils such as Hippo, Carthage and Florence, the decision of Trent in 1546 was the first “infallible” and final definition of the Roman Catholic canon, (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, Bible, III (Canon), p. 390; The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent : Rockford: Tan, 1978), Fourth Session, Footnote #4, p. 17) possibly after a vote of 24 yea, 15 nay, with 16 abstaining (44%, 27%, 29%). This definition, coming over 1400 hundreds years after the last book was written, was issued in reaction to Martin Luther and the Reformation. And in so doing, it arguably chose to follow a weaker tradition in pronouncing the apocryphal books to be inspired. In addition, some of the books of the Pseudepigrapha were invoked by some church fathers, and found their way into other canons of various Eastern churches.
Thus , if the canon list was dogma prior to Trent, then there were many Catholics throughout history who would have been de facto excommunicated. More.
Jedin also explains that Luther “was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship” at the Council of Trent. Luther's opponent at Augsburg, Cardinal Cajetan, following Jerome, expressed doubts concerning the canonicity of Hebrews, James, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. Of the latter three he states, "They are of less authority than those which are certainly Holy Scripture."63 Erasmus likewise expressed doubts concerning Revelation as well as the apostolicity of James, Hebrews and 2 Peter. It was only as the Protestant Reformation progressed, and Luther's willingness to excise books from the canon threatened Rome that, at Trent, the Roman Catholic Church hardened its consensus stand on the extent of the New Testament canon into a conciliar pronouncement.64 http://bible.org/article/evangelicals-and-canon-new-testament#P137_49234 Nor was Luther the first to have “alone” in Rm. 3:28.
The Catholic Encyclopedia states also, "only the decisions of ecumenical councils and the ex cathedra teaching of the pope have been treated as strictly definitive in the canonical sense, and the function of the magisterium ordinarium has been concerned with the effective promulgation and maintenance of what has been formally defined by the magisterium solemne or may be legitimately deduced from its definitions." http://www.bible-researcher.com/gelasius.html
The oft made claim that the Council of Rome (382) approved an infallible canon is contrary to later Roman Catholic statements which point to Trent, and the prior claim depends upon the Decretum Gelasianum, the authority of which is disputed (among RC's themselves), based upon evidence that is was pseudepigraphical, being a sixth century compilation put together in northern Italy or southern France at the beginning of the 6th cent. More: http://www.tertullian.org/articles/burkitt_gelasianum.htm
Therefore, as shown in previous debates, what can be said is that the Roman Catholic canon was largely settled early by the time of Carthage, but not without disagreement by notable Catholics scholars until Trent settled the issue, when it provided the “first infallible and effectually promulgated declaration on the Canon of the Holy Scriptures,” (The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent (Rockford: Tan, 1978), Fourth Session, Footnote #4, p. 17; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm; cf. New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, Bible, III (Canon), p. 390) though this was not exactly the same canon affirmed by such councils as Carthage, but which ended the debate which went on among Roman Catholic scholars right into Trent. (Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 278, 281-282.“ More . And that in Trent itself there was some debate about the apocrypha, and that Luther sided with some notable Catholic authorities in rejecting the it, yet he commented favorably upon 1 Maccabees as being able to be included. He questioned the apostolicity of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation because the early church categorized these books as antilegomena. Yet Luther 's Bible contained the disputed books, though they were placed last in order, while his views on some of these books changed in later years.
As for James and Hebrews,
“He had a low view of Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Revelation, and so when he published his New Testament in 1522 he placed these books apart at the end. In his Preface to Hebrews, which comes first in the series, he says, "Up to this point we have had to do with the true and certain chief books of the New Testament. The four which follow have from ancient times had a different reputation."'
Regarding James, in his preface he states,
“Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, 1 I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle; and my reasons follow.
In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works. It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac; though in Romans 4 St. Paul teaches to the contrary that Abraham was justified apart from works, by his faith alone, before he had offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15.”
In the second place its purpose is to teach Christians, but in all this long teaching it does not once mention the Passion, the resurrection, or the Spirit of Christ.
“Luther's translation of the Bible contained all of its books. Luther also translated and included the Apocrypha, saying, "These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read." He expressed his thoughts on the canon in prefaces placed at the beginning of particular Biblical books. In these prefaces, he either questioned or doubted the canonicity of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation (his Catholic contemporaries, Erasmus and Cardinal Cajetan, likewise questioned the canonicity of certain New Testament books). Of his opinion, he allows for the possibility of his readers to disagree with his conclusions. Of the four books, it is possible Luther's opinion fluctuated on two (Hebrews and Revelation). Luther was of the opinion that the writers of James and Jude were not apostles, therefore these books were not canonical. Still, he used them and preached from them.” Five More Luther Myths
Luther's questioned Hebrews by pointing out that throughout Church history it has had a “reputation” of uncertain canonicity. Erasmus had a critical attitude to the same four New Testament books Luther did. Cardinal Cajetan questioned the canonical status of Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, and Jude (among others).
“The Epistle of James is classed by Eusebius (in Bk. III. chap. 25) among the antilegomena (disputed books). The ancient testimonies for its authenticity are very few: It was used by no one, except Hermas, down to the end of the second century. Iren`us seems to have known the epistle (his works exhibit some apparent reminiscences of it), but he nowhere directly cites it. The Muratorian Fragment omits it, but the Syriac Peshito contains it, and Clement of Alexandria shows a few faint reminiscences of it in his extant works, and according to Eusebius VI. 14, wrote commentaries upon "Jude and the other catholic epistles." (see Bk. III. chap. 25, note 1).” Source: Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers Series II, Vol. 1 http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/footnote/fn14.htm
“Most writing from before 200 do not mention the Epistle of James. One significant text does quote James: The Shepherd of Hermas, written before 140 M66. (The theologian and biblical scholar, Origen, quotes James extensively between 230 and 250. He mentions that James was Jesus' brother, but does not make it clear if the letter is scripture M138. Hippolytus and Tertullian, from early in the third century, do not mention or quote James. Cyprian of Carthage, in the middle of the third century, also makes no mention. The "Muratorian Canon," from around 200, lists and comments on New Testament books, but fails to mention James, Hebrews, and 1 and 2 Peter. Yet by 340 Eusebius of Caesarea, an early Christian historian, acknowledges that James is both canonical and orthodox, and widely read. However, he categorizes it, along with the other catholic epistles, as "disputed texts" M203. Two Greek New Testaments from that time each include James, along with the other catholic epistles M207. In 367 Athanasius lists the 27 New Testament books we presently use as the definitive canon M212. But the battle for James was not won. Bishops in 428 and 466 rejected all the catholic epistles M215. Early bibles from Lebanon, Egypt, Armenia, India and China do not include James before the sixth century M219. A ninth century manuscript from Mount Sinai leaves out the catholic epistles and the Syriac Church, headquartered in Kerala, India, continues to use a lectionary without them still today M220. — James and Canon: The Early Evidence)
Also, as one researcher states, neither was Rome completely unified in its soteriology before Trent, and between extremes “were many combinations; and though certain views predominated in late nominalism. In condemning the Protestant Reformation, the Council of Trent condemned part of its own catholic tradition." — Jaroslav Pelikan, The Riddle of Roman Catholicism (New York: Abingdon Press, 1959), pp. 51-52.
As for the claim that Scripture has no infallible list, this is true, but it also evidences that writings were recognized as being such (and faith was preserved) by Jesus time without an assuredly infallible magisterium (AIM), as its means of establishment was essentially the same as how a true man of God is established as such, by his/her unique qualities and supernatural effects, which conform to that which God prior established by the same means. The manna from heaven owes its enduring acceptance to what it is and thus does, more than church decrees, as valid and helpful as they can be.
And there is also no infallible list of traditions, nor a complete list of all infallible definitions. And the “stewardship=infallibility logic is invalid, and would require submission to the Judaism.
- 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?
Likewise the questions can be asked of Catholics.....
"How can Catholics 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?
Catholics need to answer that question as well. Does that not then make *Holy Tradition* less certain as well? If the Catholic church erred in it's canonizing of Scripture at Trent, doesn't that bring into question ALL of the decisions arrived at at Trent?
If Trent acted infallibly: - How do you know?
The decisions at Trent were apparently not unanimous.
Despite decrees by early councils such as Hippo, Carthage and Florence, the decision of Trent in 1546 was the first “infallible” and final definition of the Roman Catholic canon, (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, Bible, III (Canon), p. 390; The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent : Rockford: Tan, 1978), Fourth Session, Footnote #4, p. 17) possibly after a vote of 24 yea, 15 nay, with 16 abstaining (44%, 27%, 29%).
Not much of a majority, if true. Just more than either of the others, but not more than both.
No doubt about it, Trent was what defined Catholicism as we know it today. But 1400 years after the fact, Catholics can hardly claim that Trent defined all of Christianity up to that point.
Thank you Daniel....it just looks like the same issues which plague Christians today....on how we got our Bible, was clearly disputed for many years as much as it is today.
I’ve found the “disputed” apo. too often like fairy tales.....never have the sense of reading Gods word when reading them. Though certain passages or places were interesting...but more like a good read than the affect scripture has. So IMO I think we have the scriptures, as they are, to teach and tell us all we need to know.
Regarding James, in his preface he states,
“Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, 1 I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle; and my reasons follow.
In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works. It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac; though in Romans 4 St. Paul teaches to the contrary that Abraham was justified apart from works, by his faith alone, before he had offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15.”
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.
But if Luther thought that James was not an apostle he was probably right, as James was most likely an older step brother who became a believer after Jesus,s death along with his other brothers and sisters and mother Mary.
There is no indication that any of jesus,s family was followers of him.
(I am not stating that as fact but the scriptures seem to put much more sense in that than any thing else.)
If a group of farmers in one country are trying to read a letter from a farmer from another country and a different language they may have a problem but then a professor comes along and deciphers it for them is he also expected to understand it?
No, after it is translated the farmers should then be expected to understand it much better than the professor.
That may be a poor example but we go on and on about what some professor said hundreds of years ago, and they go on about what some one else said before them.
We have the same scripture they did, we do not agree any more than they did and we are not going to agree because we like them all want it to say what we want it to say.
An example
Luke 22:44 (King James Version)
44
And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.
Even the doctors will tell you that it might be possible, but what the heck are we talking about? why are people asking if it is possible to sweat blood when it does not say that jesus sweat blood, the scripture says that it was (as it were great drops of blood falling to the ground, sweat is water.
So the so called doctors of religion, the professors go on an on about how Jesus could have sweat blood, why not ask a working man or woman, a fisherman, a lumberjack, miner, farmer,construction worker, any one who actually works for a living.
They can tell you what its like to sweat as it were great drops of blood falling to the ground, but most of them can not tell you how it could be done by praying.
If we believe the scripture s are nothing more than an alice in wonderland story then i guess we should be able to read them to suit our selves and change what we don,t like to something more to our liking.
If we really believe, why would we want to change any thing
or are we like the religious leaders who had Jesus killed,
just pretenders, pretend we believe in something we don,t just to be on the band wagon, out to get our share of the gravey.
And some people say that this is the generation of Christians that will be taken up in a rapture, they have got to be kidding.