But since some RC scholars also did not hold them as Scripture proper, why could not Luther's dissent from a disputable canon? The fact that you could, and that Rome wanted to be void Luther's objection, moved her to make acceptance of those book mandatory, yet many did not want to make it an article of faith.
Yet despite this or in ignorance of the facts, RCs regularly present Luther as a maverick in rejecting books, as if he did not have Catholic company. And indeed Jerome was one.
he treated them the same way he treated the Old Testament dueterocanonicals, and defamed them in his commentary (”as epistle of straw” ... “certainly not a description of a the Christian God”)
Which is typical polemical language and such quotes do not accurately convey his complete attitude. As Swan so often shows, rarely is Luther accurately quoted on this topic.
“In a word St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it. But more of this in the other prefaces.”[51]
An interesting fact about this quote (hardly ever mentioned by Luther-detractors!) is that it only appears in the original 1522 Preface To The New Testament. John Warwick Montgomery points out: “Few people realize — and liberal Luther interpreters do not particularly advertise the fact — that in all the editions of Luther’s Bible translation after 1522 the—Reformer dropped the paragraphs at the end, of his general Preface to the New Testament which made value judgments among the various biblical books and which included the famous reference to James as an “Epistle of straw.”[52] Montgomery finds that Luther showed a “considerable reduction in negative tone in the revised Prefaces to the biblical books later in the Reformer’s career.”[53] For anyone to continue to cite Luther’s “epistle of straw” comment against him is to do Luther an injustice. He saw fit to retract the comment. Subsequent citations of this quote should bear this in mind.[54]
And unlike Rome, Luther did not declare that his judgment was in any way binding, and like early Catholic church fathers, his views were evolving. He also cited and preached from the book of James, as in Lectures on Genesis:
“Thus God’s testing is a fatherly one, for James says in his letter (1:13): “God is not a tempter for evil”; that is, He does not test in order that we may fear and hate Him like a tyrant but to the end that He may exercise and stir up faith and love in us. Satan, however, tempts for evil, in order to draw you away from God and to make you distrust and blaspheme God.”[77].
The Catholic Church had pointed out to him where the doctrines such as purgatory, participation for the expiation for sins, the need for faith to be made manifest in work, etc., were located, utterly contradicting his assertion that they were not scriptural. THEN he responded by declaring that the books could not be scriptural.
That motivation is certainly plausibly part of it though you do not know Luther's mind before hand on the canon and whether he doubted some books as others, and for which he could enlist scholarly reasons (indeed, there is no cross in James, and only twice mentions Christ and the church once, and much reads like Jewish wisdom literature).
In 1520 he wrote, “…I will say nothing of the fact that many assert with much probability that this epistle is not by James the apostle, and that it is not worthy of an apostolic spirit; although, whoever was its author, it has come to be regarded as authoritative.”[55]
Yet the same motivation for rejection can just as validly be ascribed to Rome in taking the step to infallibly decree the disputed books part of the canon.
The Catholic Church had pointed out to him where the doctrines such as purgatory, participation for the expiation for sins, the need for faith to be made manifest in work, etc., were located, utterly contradicting his assertion that they were not scriptural.
Again what you give with one hand you take back with the other. For while you allow "there had always been substantial grey shades to the biblical canon until the Council of Trent; before then, there had never been a universal synod declaring the content of the canons," which means the canon was disputable, you then go back to charging Luther with dissent based upon the premise that these books were indisputably settled as Scripture by Rome.
Moreover, that even now Catholicism can utterly contradict this assertion that doctrines such as purgatory are not scriptural is a mere assertion. 2Mac does not even teach the prayers being offered was to obtain release from ongoing purgatorial purifying, but best defines it as making an OT sin offering that they may be delivered from sin and damnation and be in the resurrection of the just.
And which was for men who died due to mortal sin, idolatry being "the cause wherefore they were slain." (2Nac. 12:40)
Thus 2Mac. does not teach RC purgatory, as according to Rome those who die in mortal sin are damned (resulting in RC apologists having to resort to special pleading), and thus the offering was to deliver them from damnation and obtain the resurrection of life, while those in purgatory are assured they will be saved even if lacking indulgences.
And as for the need for faith to be made manifest in work, this was indeed what Luther himself affirmed. For while upholding that it is precisely the faith that is behind works that appropriates justification, not the merit of works, he also (as with other reformers) also certainly affirmed the necessity of works if faith was salvific. "...faith which lacks fruit is not an efficacious but a feigned faith." (Disputation Concerning Justification)
"When James and Paul say that a man is justified by works, they argue against the false opinion of those who think that (for justification) a faith suffices that is without works. Paul does not say that true faith exists without its proper works, for without these there is no true faith." [Commentary on Romans (Michigan: Kregel, 1976), 75] http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2009/01/luther-on-book-of-jamesrevisted.html.
However, there is a host of other traditions that are not seen in the NT church, which makes Rome an invisible church in Scripture despite her attempt to supprt such by her selective extrapolation from texts that do not teach them.
>> But since some RC scholars also did not hold them as Scripture proper, why could not Luther’s dissent from a disputable canon? <<
Simple. The RC scholars didn’t cling to the counter-biblical doctrine of sola scriptura. If you’re going to assert that the bible is the sole source of doctrine, you’d better be certain to define what comprises the bible. For Luther, the issue was establishing Christian doctrine. For most of the RC scholars, the issue was how to convince Jews that the Old Testament foretold Christianity.
>> Which is typical polemical language and such quotes do not accurately convey his complete attitude. <<
So you’re saying that he believed that Lutheran Antilegomena were scripture, but he slandered them anyway, but it’s OK because he didn’t mean it, even though he based his arguments against Catholic doctrine on the presumption that they were NOT scripture and his own followers took him seriously enough to remove them from the bible until an alliance with Calvinists and Anglicans made it politically necessary to restore them. This is your DEFENSE of him?
>> For anyone to continue to cite Luther’s “epistle of straw” comment against him is to do Luther an injustice. He saw fit to retract the comment. Subsequent citations of this quote should bear this in mind. <<
Fair enough, but that doesn’t in any way negate the point that without the Catholic Church, Luther was substantially confused about what the bible consisted of, nor the fact that he rested his arguments against Catholic doctrine on removing the books from the bible. If he became ashamed of this, he certainly did not confess it. Or... again... prevent several of his followers from removing the books altogether.
>> Yet the same motivation for rejection can just as validly be ascribed to Rome in taking the step to infallibly decree the disputed books part of the canon. <<
Absolutely! Had Luther not come along, the Catholic Church may never have defined the canon in the sense that Trent did. In fact, none of the other ancient churches have! Inasmuch as the Catholic Church rejects sola scriptura, any Catholic definition of the canon prior to Trent was (usually explicitly) for the purpose of deciding which books to include in mass readings. Most of the alleged dissenters were merely arguing the usefulness of relying on the deuterocanonicals to convince the Jews of the OT precedents revealed in the NT: if the Jews don’t believe in the deuterocanonicals, does it make any sense to cite them?
Luther challenged them to find in the bible where certain doctrines were found, and they said “fine, we don’t agree with how you came up with your rules, but we can play by them; Here’s where those doctrines are found.” Then Luther said those books don’t count, and, finding that there had never been an infallible proclamation saying they did, the Pope gathered every bishop who could come to make sure they could all agree — including two who went in dubious — that Christian doctrine had always asserted the canonical nature of every book.
See, as much as some Protestant apologists like to believe they can, Popes can’t just make up doctrine and bind someone to it.
>> For while you allow “there had always been substantial grey shades to the biblical canon until the Council of Trent; before then, there had never been a universal synod declaring the content of the canons,” which means the canon was disputable, you then go back to charging Luther with dissent based upon the premise that these books were indisputably settled as Scripture by Rome. <<
Here’s what I meant about “shades of gray”: In the absence of either a universal synod (ecumenical council) or an infallible declaration of the pope, someone with sufficient study and authority may dispute a doctrine without being a heretic... and I allowed that some did. But these people who disputed the canon largely did so for the purpose of trying to convert Jews, not for the purpose of establishing the validity of Christian doctrine. When such people disputed the canon, they nonetheless upheld moral doctrine; Luther must be held to a higher standard because he disputed the canon for the purpose of disputing moral doctrine.
>> Moreover, that even now Catholicism can utterly contradict this assertion that doctrines such as purgatory are not scriptural is a mere assertion. 2Mac does not even teach the prayers being offered was to obtain release from ongoing purgatorial purifying, but best defines it as making an OT sin offering that they may be delivered from sin and damnation and be in the resurrection of the just. <<
Clearly, the warriors in Maccabees offered the sin offering for the sake of OTHER people, not as a personal indulgence. 2 Peter, however describes a *process* of purification “as one who passes through fire,” in which the disobedient’s works are burned up, yet they are saved despite their disobedience. Gotta go... I’ll finish up soon.