- Joined
- Jun 12, 2015
- Messages
- 13,927
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Lutheran
- Political Affiliation
- Conservative
- Marital Status
- Married
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
@Andy
Yes, he used a FEW books some call "Apocrypha." And LOTS of other things. But to "use" is not to acknowledge any of your many claims.
Luther - by custom, not in submission to some memo from Jesus or email from the Apostles or 3 meetings it seems he'd never heard of (he never mentions any of them) - Luther continues the custom. He accepts 66 books (by our current Protestant count) as fully canonical (although not necessarily equal), but he certainly embraces others as useful (again, not equally). He clearly quotes from 8 books that some called "Apocrypha" but even more he quoted from Early Church Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils and Creeds, and not infrequently from Catholic Canon (rulings) - not to SOURCE or FORM doctrine (he only used 66 books for that) but to SUPPORT or understand those doctrines or other matters.
Andy - it's absurd to assume that because Luther quoted from some writing from Augustine (he quoted his writings a LOT) ergo he considered his writings to be Holy Scripture, inerrant, fully canonical, divinely inscripturated. Especially when Luther specifically, clearly stated he ONLY considered the 66 to be such. Every Christian teacher and pastor known to me quotes stuff outside the 66. ALL of them. A LOT. It's just silly to say, THEREFORE, this proves that the 12-14 Apostles declared them canonical, some mysterious authortative, ecumenical, Ruling Body of Christianity declared every one of those to be inerrant, fully canonical, divinely inspired Scripture, and the reason why the pew Bibles at some American Evangelical church ripped them out. And absurd to argue that because he USED things beyond the 66, ergo he insists that all that must be included in every tome with the word "BIBLE" on the cover.
Luther's German Translation (and then the MANY translations of that into other languages) included 8 books beyond the 66. One MORE than in post 1546 Catholic tomes. This was only for one reason: They were commonly used in Germany and he was translating a book for Germans. NOT because he had some memo from Jesus or email from all the Apostles or because of some meeting in 397 that he evidently had never heard of. And Luther seems to embrace the view: These are UNDER the rest, not on the same level as the rest, indeed, NOT to be used to source or form dogma, not at all, not just less than some but not at all. YES, he encouraged people to read them but his own personal, individual advise (NEVER adopted by Lutheranism) is that these 8 are useful but not canonical. Later, the Anglican Church would adopt that common view that Luther expressed as the view of that denomination.
Friend, if you want to USE anything to support a teaching YOU MAY. There is no grand law forbidding you from quoting Joel Olsteen or John Calvin or St. Augustine or Max Lucado ... no law forbidding you from quoting from Luther's Small Catechism or Pilgrim's Progress. There is no grand Conspiracy, there is no grand international law. The very fact that you HAVE read some books beyond "the 66" proves you aren't kept from doing so. You yourself seem to be the proof that your fundamental claim isn't true.
Now, we're waiting for the substantiation of your many claims.... perhaps you'd start with the ones you've made of me.
I (Josiah) am THE "prime example" of one who discourages folks the reading "them".
I (Josiah) reject the Bible of Luther (although I have and use one)...
I (Josiah) am a "neo-Lutheran" who is apathetic toward the movement of the" Protestant Deformation" (Whatever that gobbledygook means)
.
Andy said:
Yes, he used a FEW books some call "Apocrypha." And LOTS of other things. But to "use" is not to acknowledge any of your many claims.
Luther - by custom, not in submission to some memo from Jesus or email from the Apostles or 3 meetings it seems he'd never heard of (he never mentions any of them) - Luther continues the custom. He accepts 66 books (by our current Protestant count) as fully canonical (although not necessarily equal), but he certainly embraces others as useful (again, not equally). He clearly quotes from 8 books that some called "Apocrypha" but even more he quoted from Early Church Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils and Creeds, and not infrequently from Catholic Canon (rulings) - not to SOURCE or FORM doctrine (he only used 66 books for that) but to SUPPORT or understand those doctrines or other matters.
Andy - it's absurd to assume that because Luther quoted from some writing from Augustine (he quoted his writings a LOT) ergo he considered his writings to be Holy Scripture, inerrant, fully canonical, divinely inscripturated. Especially when Luther specifically, clearly stated he ONLY considered the 66 to be such. Every Christian teacher and pastor known to me quotes stuff outside the 66. ALL of them. A LOT. It's just silly to say, THEREFORE, this proves that the 12-14 Apostles declared them canonical, some mysterious authortative, ecumenical, Ruling Body of Christianity declared every one of those to be inerrant, fully canonical, divinely inspired Scripture, and the reason why the pew Bibles at some American Evangelical church ripped them out. And absurd to argue that because he USED things beyond the 66, ergo he insists that all that must be included in every tome with the word "BIBLE" on the cover.
Luther's German Translation (and then the MANY translations of that into other languages) included 8 books beyond the 66. One MORE than in post 1546 Catholic tomes. This was only for one reason: They were commonly used in Germany and he was translating a book for Germans. NOT because he had some memo from Jesus or email from all the Apostles or because of some meeting in 397 that he evidently had never heard of. And Luther seems to embrace the view: These are UNDER the rest, not on the same level as the rest, indeed, NOT to be used to source or form dogma, not at all, not just less than some but not at all. YES, he encouraged people to read them but his own personal, individual advise (NEVER adopted by Lutheranism) is that these 8 are useful but not canonical. Later, the Anglican Church would adopt that common view that Luther expressed as the view of that denomination.
Friend, if you want to USE anything to support a teaching YOU MAY. There is no grand law forbidding you from quoting Joel Olsteen or John Calvin or St. Augustine or Max Lucado ... no law forbidding you from quoting from Luther's Small Catechism or Pilgrim's Progress. There is no grand Conspiracy, there is no grand international law. The very fact that you HAVE read some books beyond "the 66" proves you aren't kept from doing so. You yourself seem to be the proof that your fundamental claim isn't true.
Now, we're waiting for the substantiation of your many claims.... perhaps you'd start with the ones you've made of me.
I (Josiah) am THE "prime example" of one who discourages folks the reading "them".
I (Josiah) reject the Bible of Luther (although I have and use one)...
I (Josiah) am a "neo-Lutheran" who is apathetic toward the movement of the" Protestant Deformation" (Whatever that gobbledygook means)
.
Last edited:
