>> 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.
Regardless, the protest was not that Luther rested upon Scripture as the supreme authority, which is manifestly Scriptural vs,. sola ecclesia, but that he disallowed certain books, some of which Rome invokes in trying to justify her tradition with Scripture. Luther had the right to do so, as Rome had not determine with certainty that they were Scripture proper at that point.
Your real protest is not against Luther's rejection of certain books but his reason for doing so.
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,
No, it means what i said, no your polemical rhetoric, that such quotes do not accurately convey his complete attitude, and which you go on to basically allow. I have no idea where your Luther quote on James “certainly not a description of a the Christian God” is found by the way.
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.
So are you resorting to the argument that Luther should have submitted to Rome since she claims to have given us the Bible as the discerner and steward of holy Writ? And be ashamed for dissenting from it?
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,..
Meaning inasmuch as Rome is her own authority, and the veracity of her teachings do not need to rest upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, but as per Keating, "The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true. ” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.
. 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?
In some cases that may be an argument, but it would be a poor one if that is the only reason, as it testifies to seeing these books as only being Scripture due to their polemical value for Jews. They did not have to use them if they thought etc. purgatory needed no explanation from them to Jews, but they easily could have affirmed then as Scripture as they did NT books
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.
This canonical dispute went on for well over a millennium, and I find this explanation based on attribution specious. You rest much upon motive, and by so doing you excuse those who did not uphold books as Scripture which are essential to support RC doctrine, thus indirectly supporting their denial due to lack of support, then condemn Luther for rejecting them in dissenting from said doctrine.
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.
I did not say it was a personal indulgence, but that they were making an offering to save damned souls who died in judgment for their mortal sin, not as purgatory who is not for damned souls. Thus 2Mac. 12 does not teach purgatory, only that offerings can be made for mortal souls, contra Rome. Whose purgatory is even rejected by most EOs (who have a different if ambiguous one).
Gotta go... I’ll finish up soon.
Take your time.