Luther and the Epistle of Straw


#1

I paraphrased this from the book written by Henry G. Graham, “***WHERE WE GOT ******THE BIBLE ***OUR DEBT TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH”: geocities.com/thecatholicconvert/wherewegotthebible.html
Luther referred to the Epistle of St. James as unworthy to remain within the volume of Holy Scripture – ‘an Epistle of straw’ he called it, ‘with no character of the Gospel in it’. He also said the same thing about the Epistle of St. Jude and the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the beautiful Apocalypse of St. John, declaring they were not on the same footing as the rest of the books, and did not contain the same amount of Gospel (i.e., his Gospel).

How do Protestants get passed this with regard to their core belief in Sola Scriptura?

Curious,

Schizm


#2

Again Eden & Mickey, take special note that i’m not the one starting all these Luther threads. Indeed, Roman Catholics seem to be obsessed with Luther. I think Catholic Answers should start a “Luther” board for you folks so you can have your own “space”.

But anyway, hello there schizm. I just wanted to thank you for the link. This topic has been around here alot, so no need to go through it again.However, on another thread I pointed out that Steve Ray made a comment about Melanchthon stopping Luther from removing books from the Bible, and how Ray provided no documentation for this. I was thankful for the link you provided, because here we find Henry G. Graham making a similar undocumented assertion:

“Even in regard to the New Testament it** required all the powers of resistance on the part of the more conservative Reformers to prevent Luther from flinging out the Epistle of St. James ** as unworthy to remain within the volume of Holy Scripture – ‘an Epistle of straw’ he called it, ‘with no character of the Gospel in it’. In the same way, and almost to the same degree, he dishonored the Epistle of St. Jude and the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the beautiful Apocalypse of St. John, declaring they were not on the same footing as the rest of the books, and did not contain the same amount of Gospel (i.e., his Gospel).”

-continued-

Regards,
James Swan


#3

-continued-

Now why do I point this out? because i’m extremely skeptical of Catholic research on Luther’s canon. Here’s Steve Ray’s charge:

“Martin Luther understood the place of the Church in establishing the canon… He realized that if he could jettison the Church, or at least redefine it as “invisible” and “intangible”, he was free to reevaluate and regulate the content of the canon for himself. He actually began to function as his own pope and council. If it weren’t for his theologian Philip Melanchthon, Protestants would no longer consider James, Revelation, Hebrews, Jude and a few other books as inspired Scripture.”

Source: Steve Ray: “Bible’s Canon: Do Protestants or Catholics Have The Correct Books?.”

Ray infers that Luther wanted to create his own canon, while most scholars recognize Luther holds to a “canon within a canon” [see Roland Bainton, Studies on the Reformation (Boston: Beacon Press, 1963) 5]. Paul Althaus explains that Luther “allows the canon to stand as it was established by the ancient church. But he makes distinctions within the canon” [See Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), 83].

Ray makes questionable points that make me wonder how familiar he is with Luther. Which “few other books” is Mr. Ray referring to? I am unaware of Luther ever seriously questioning the canonicity of any other New Testament book other than the four mentioned above. Ray also gives Melanchon far too much credit for the entire course of subsequent Protestantism. Melancthon’s theological opinions did not carry overly significant influence in other protestant non-Lutheran lands. For instance, Calvin in Geneva would hardly factor Melanchthon’s opinions as the decisive element in determing his theological perspectives.

Ray also seems to indicate, Luther’s views on the canon were somehow curtailed by Melanchthon. Ray says elsewhere,

“When Martin Luther rejected “popes and councils” he also realized that the canon was again up for grabs. He didn’t like James as we know, but he also placed Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation at the back of the book, not with the inspired books. **It was only later that Philipp Melanchthon convinced him to defer to long tradition ** and place the books back in the New Testament, back in the recognized order. How did Luther fail to recognize the self-authenticating writings?"

Source:Steve Ray, “New Testament Books: Self-authenticating? No Need for the Church to Close the Canon?”

Ray would do well to provide further information to substantiate this claim that Melanchthon was the primary reason Luther put books “back in the New Testament.” To my knowledge, there is no such document from either Melanchthon or Luther. I have e-mailed him in the past asking for a source, I recieved no response. I tend to think its because it does not exist.

I was given some links to Steve Ray’s material where he mentions the bit about Melanchthon stopping Luther from removing books, and more than one Catholic has said it to me. So, I went to work and researched it, and came up with nothing. Simply because Ray doesn’t cite his source, doesn’t mean I think he’s the bogeyman. Maybe he read someone say “Maybe Melanchthon stopped him” or something like that. I would really like him to simply document what he’s referring to.

To my knowledge, no such information exists as Ray describes Luther & Melanchthon. The most in depth treatment of Luther’s Bible was done by M. Reu, Luther’s German Bible: An Historical Presentation Together with A Collection of Sources (Ohio: The Lutheran Book Concern, 1934). This book is the most in-depth thurough treatment on this subject. Within 600 pages, Reu makes no mention of such an important discussion between Luther and Melanchthon. Reu does mention though that in 1521 Melanchthon did urge Luther to follow through with his plan of translating the Bible (Reu, 148). Reu notes an intriguing comment from Luther that Melanchthon forced him to do so: “*Hence Luther’s remark in Tischreden that Melanchthon had forced him to translate the New Testament (I, 487, 11 f)” * (Reu, 351).

Regards,
James Swan


#4

[quote=TertiumQuid]Again Eden & Mickey, take special note that i’m not the one starting all these Luther threads. Indeed, Roman Catholics seem to be obsessed with Luther. I think Catholic Answers should start a “Luther” board for you folks so you can have your own “space”.
[/quote]

You are correct James. I have not been on this forum as long as some, but there has been a drastic incease in Luther Threads. A separate space may be the answer.


#5

Hi James,
I think you should go back and read the original post. Nothing was mentioned regarding Melanchthon’s influence on Luther. You keyed on that yourself and made it an issue. If it is so important to you, perhaps you should start a new thread. (Maybe we can get Steve Ray to visit!) :slight_smile:

Luther had issues with these books. He seriously questioned their canonicity. That is a fact.

Schizm wants to know:

"How do Protestants get past this with regard to their core belief in Sola Scriptura"?


Can you address this?


#6

[quote=Mickey]You are correct James. I have not been on this forum as long as some, but there has been a drastic incease in Luther Threads. A separate space may be the answer.
[/quote]

I have been on the forums for a long time and have only seen maybe one other big surge of Lutheran threads. I agree we should always be careful to remember that authors are only human and are capable of making mistakes and at times put their own opinions in the mix when there are questionable facts or events. If this be the case the author should have been more careful and cited that facts. Whether it be intentional or not, it is good to read various sources on a subject, so that we have a more rounded understanding of a topic. I have been out of the adult academic world for quite awhile what little reading and research have time to do is on my own. With three kids and a husband in the military I am blessed to have any brain cells left at all:) Even reliable authors can sometimes slip. Thanks for pointing this out.


#7

[quote=Mickey]Hi James, I think you should go back and read the original post. Nothing was mentioned regarding Melanchthon’s influence on Luther. You keyed on that yourself and made it an issue. If it is so important to you, perhaps you should start a new thread. (Maybe we can get Steve Ray to visit!)
[/quote]

Hi Mickey,

i’m reminded of the old Monty Python sketch about the man who paid to have an argument with another man. During the “paid” argument, the two men simply disagreed with each other no matter what. Sometimes i wonder if objections are raised with what I write, simply to raise objections with what I write.

Recall, in my initial response I said to schizm, *“this topic has been around here alot, so no need to go through it again.” * Perhaps Catholic folks enjoy the same topic over and over again- I think sometimes its best to move on, or direct the person to previous full discussions on that topic.

Now recall, in my initial response I thanked schizm for the link, and then went on to comment on what Henry G. Graham said. I’m always appreciative for sources, and I try to read through the materials given.

It’s not much of a stretch from Graham’s “Even in regard to the New Testament it required all the powers of resistance on the part of the more conservative Reformers to prevent Luther from flinging out the Epistle of St. James…" * to Steve Ray’s " It was only later that Philipp Melanchthon convinced him to defer to long tradition and place the books back in the New Testament…”*. I don’t know how much you know about Melanchthon, but he was indeed one of the "more conservative Reformers".

I have a curious interest in tracking down this information. Why I was thankful for the link is because Graham’s writing preceeded Steve Ray’s by years. I can probably give Mr. Ray even more of the benefit of the doubt for simply repeating (perhaps) bad information that he got from a previous source. I’m sure none of this matters to you, but it is of interest to me. My hope was that pointing it out again might provoke a response from someone who could help me with this mystery.

[quote=Mickey]Schizm wants to know:
“How do Protestants get past this with regard to their core belief in Sola Scriptura”?Can you address this?
[/quote]

Well of course, I would direct Mr. Schizm to my link on the subject:

Luther’s view of the Canon of Scripture

Secondly, I would point out that Luther was wrong on the canon, however, not because of Roman Catholic views of canonicity. Even if one were to grant the validity of the Roman Catholic Church declaring the contents of the canon, Erasmus, Luther, and Cajetan formed their opinions and debated these issues previous to the council of Trent. The New Catholic Encyclopedia has honestly pointed out,

“According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the Biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church (at the Council of Trent). Before that time there was some doubt about the canonicity of certain Biblical books, i.e., about their belonging to the canon.”

If the New Catholic Encyclopedia is correct, Erasmus, Cajetan, and Luther had every right within the Catholic system to engage in Biblical criticism and debate over the extent of the Canon. All expressed “some doubt.” Theirs was not a radical higher criticism. The books they questioned were books that had been questioned by previous generations. None were so extreme as to engage in Marcion-like canon-destruction. Both Erasmus and Luther translated the entirety of Bible, and published it.

Regards,
James Swan


#8

TertiumQuid,

Here’s a Lutheran reference for you to consider …

Francis Piper, a Lutheran theologian, wrote of Luther’s view of the antilegomena:

**“he will not class them with the ‘right certain chief books of the New Testament.’” **

"Pieper, Francis, “The Witness of History for Scripture (Homologoumena and Antilegomena),” C**hristian Dogmatics, Vol. I [Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1950], pp. 330-38.)

Lutheran’s admit that this means that Luther personally did not consider such books as canonical, and that every person can come to their own judgement on the matter. This remained Lutheran teaching for centuries. In fact, several years ago in a discussion with a Protestant, I quoted from the Epistle of James. He told me that he rejected that epistle as not in his Bible. Where’d he get that idea?

Francis Pieper continues to explain:

the fathers of the Missouri Synod recognized the distinction between the homologoumena and the antilegomena. They did, however, leave it to the individual to form his own views regarding any of the antilegomena, for they were divided in their opinion regarding, e.g., the Apocalypse. In the second volume of Lehre und Wehre (1856, p. 204 ff.) the question regarding the homologoumena and the antilegomena is thoroughly ventilated in the article entitled: “***Is He Who does Not Receive or Regard as Canonical All Books Contained in the Collection of the New Testament to be Declared a Heretic or Dangerous False Teacher?***” Walther writes:

What induces us to discuss this question is the fact that Pastor Roebbelen in connection with the glosses on the Revelation of St. John published in the Lutheraner also stated that with Luther he does not regard the Apocalypse as canonical.

So it seems that per Lutheranism, one can simply pick and choose what chapters and verses of Sacred Scripture they consider canonical, and which parts are not Divinely inspired and so not worthy of our belief.

Pastor Roebbelen was a Lutheran minister in the 19th century, who rejected the Apocalypse as canonical, citing Luther as his authority.

The Lutheran Pieper continues to cite from the Lutheran theologian, Walther:

we believe that it is not fair*…*to stamp an otherwise unimpeachable theologian as a dangerous false teacher, who renders the very Word of God suspect … This would be thoroughly un-Lutheran. For our dear fathers in the faith, with hardly an exception till after the time of the Formula of Concord, regarded and declared all or at least some of the antilegomena as not belonging to the canon (ibid)

Quoting from the Lutheran theologian, Chemnitz, Pieper wrote:

“***This entire dispute, then, resolves itself into the question whether it is certain and indubitable that these books are the divinely inspired Scriptures. The entire antiquity responds that this is not certain, but has been doubtful because of the contradiction of so many.***” (ibid)

I think what is being asked is how does *Sola Scriptura *even pretend to work if every Protestant individual can pick and choose what parts of Scripture they accept as canonical and what parts they don’t?


#9

[quote=itsjustdave1988]TertiumQuid,

Here’s a Lutheran reference for you to consider …

Francis Piper, a Lutheran theologian, wrote of Luther’s view of the antilegomena:…

-snip-

I think what is being asked is how does *Sola Scriptura *even pretend to work if every Protestant individual can pick and choose what parts of Scripture they accept as canonical and what parts they don’t?
[/quote]

Hi Dave,

I remember you from last year. I recall disucssing something with you- was it Luther’s view of the canon? I forget. Anyway.Hello again, and first thanks for offering some material of substance. I do appreciate it.

The problem of course, is that i am not a Lutheran, nor do I know the history and theology of “Lutheranism” that well (i’m much more versed in Luther as opposed to Lutheranism). So, I would reject all those Lutherans you cited. Would Luther? I think he probably would agree with those who kept James out of the inner canon, but would probably disagree with their reasoning for doing so in some of the cases. By and large, most Lutherans (if not the great majority) did not follow Luther’s opinions on the canon. I would have joined you in the disscussion you had in chastising that specific Lutheran who rejected particular books. I run across a similar problem with some of the severe dispensationalists.

Protestant individuals shouldn’t “pick and choose what parts of Scripture they accept as canonical and what parts they don’t”, but not because an infallible Roman Catholic Church declared a list of infallible books. Canonicity is a complicated subject, and of course, the element of faith must always be present. The Protestant position is that the contents of the New Testament were compiled in the same way as the contents of the Old Testament. Men discovered God’s words, they did not decree them to be God’s words.

PS: Here’s an interesting link-

theologyreview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=199

Good talking with you again.

James Swan


#10

[quote=TertiumQuid]Hi Mickey,

i’m reminded of the old Monty Python sketch about the man who paid to have an argument with another man. During the “paid” argument, the two men simply disagreed with each other no matter what. Sometimes i wonder if objections are raised with what I write, simply to raise objections with what I write.
[/quote]

That Python skit was hilarious! No, I don’t single you out James. What I said was correct. You didn’t answer the post, but instead followed your own agenda. I really do try not to offend you. :smiley:

[quote=TertiumQuid]Recall, in my initial response I said to schizm, *“this topic has been around here alot, so no need to go through it again.” *Perhaps Catholic folks enjoy the same topic over and over again- I think sometimes its best to move on, or direct the person to previous full discussions on that topic.
[/quote]

I’m in full agreement here. The subject of Luther has been exhausted.

[quote=TertiumQuid] I don’t know how much you know about Melanchthon, but he was indeed one of the "more conservative Reformers"…
[/quote]

I agree.

[quote=TertiumQuid] I have a curious interest in tracking down this information. Why I was thankful for the link is because Graham’s writing preceeded Steve Ray’s by years. I can probably give Mr. Ray even more of the benefit of the doubt for simply repeating (perhaps) bad information that he got from a previous source. I’m sure none of this matters to you, but it is of interest to me. My hope was that pointing it out again might provoke a response from someone who could help me with this mystery.
[/quote]

If you have done a thorough search on the subject matter, what makes you think someone else could assist you in the matter. But I would like to see Mr Ray respond to your inquiries.


#11

[quote=itsjustdave1988]TertiumQuid,

Here’s a Lutheran reference for you to consider …

Francis Piper, a Lutheran theologian, wrote of Luther’s view of the antilegomena:

Lutheran’s admit that this means that Luther personally
[/quote]

But how far did this personal opinion affect his practice as a pastor and a translator ?

He wrote a preface to James, just as he did for the other books. ##

did not consider such books as canonical, and that every person can come to their own judgement on the matter. This remained Lutheran teaching for centuries. In fact, several years ago in a discussion with a Protestant, I quoted from the Epistle of James. He told me that he rejected that epistle as not in his Bible. Where’d he get that idea?

Not necessarily from Luther - there’s no way for us, here and now, to know where he got it from.

Francis Pieper continues to explain:
So it seems that per Lutheranism, one can simply pick and choose what chapters and verses of Sacred Scripture they consider canonical, and which parts are not Divinely inspired and so not worthy of our belief.

Pastor Roebbelen was a Lutheran minister in the 19th century, who rejected the Apocalypse as canonical, citing Luther as his authority.

And Popes are quoted for all sorts of things too - that doesn’t mean that Catholics are impressed by the quotations. Citations and quotations are only as werighty as one is prepared to allow them to be: were it not so, there would be no Catholic rejection of ecumenism or of the Charismatic movement.

Why should this pastor’s words be treated as having special weight ? He might be ill-informed. Men of the cloth often say silly things - this may be one of them. ##

The Lutheran Pieper continues to cite from the Lutheran theologian, Walther:

Quoting from the Lutheran theologian, Chemnitz, Pieper wrote:

I think what is being asked is how does *Sola Scriptura *even pretend to work if every Protestant individual can pick and choose what parts of Scripture they accept as canonical and what parts they don’t?

The quotation from Chemnitz is a generation later than Luther, and it is not clear that Chemnitz even has Luther’s views in in mind. Unless there is some evidence otherwise, of course.

As to the phrase quoted from Luther - it sounds very much as if Luther was saying that they were deuterocanonical: which is pretty nearly correct - James was not. At all events, one can certainly have:

  1. A canon arranged in recognition that all books have not been equally undoubtedly canonical;

  2. A canon in which some books are more theologically central than others;

  3. A canon which is complete;

  • all at once.

James is hardly as theologically central as the Four Gospels - that’s not to say it is not as truly inspired Scripture. Revelation and Hebrews were not as undoubted as the Four Gospels - that is not saying they are any less truly canonical Scripture.

IOW:

A. Some books are more theologically central than others; and

B. Some were met with readier recognition than others.

Sorry about not addressing the quotations - they were not reproduced in the “Reply” box ##


#12

James- No one said you start Luther threads. They said you were obsessed because you have researched Luther and have written apologist articles for him that appear on anti-Catholic websites. Also, Catholics pinpoint Luther when we discuss Protestantism because he created the divide in Western Christendom. Luther is most likely not a topic of particular interest in Protestant discussion because they are unaware of their history.

“To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.” - John Henry Cardinal Newman

Schizm - Here is the link to another thread about Luther and James “the epistle of straw”.
forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=54544&page=1&pp=100
Luther always considered James to be “dubious” and “unapostolic”. Luther also erroneously believed that this James was the brother of John. This is from TertiumQuid’s article"

“Moreover he cites the sayings of St. Peter [in 5:20]: “Love covers a multitude of sins” , and again [in 4:10], “Humble yourselves under the hand of God” ; also the saying of St. Paul in Galatians 5:17], “The Spirit lusteth against envy.”  And yet, in point of time, St. James was put to death by Herod [Acts 12:2] in Jerusalem, before St. Peter.  So it seems that [this author] came long after St. Peter and St. Paul.”59]Luther makes a genuine mistake at this point. The editors of Luther’s Works correctly point out, “Luther overlooks the fact that the James to whom the book is traditionally ascribed is not the brother of John [Matt. 4:21] martyred by Herod [Acts 12:2], but the brother of the Lord [Matt. 13:55] who became head of the apostolic church at Jerusalem [Acts 15:13; Col. 1:19].”[60]

**James, you feel that one reason that Ray’s credibility is questionable is because he said, "**If it weren’t for his theologian Philip Melanchthon, Protestants would no longer consider James, Revelation, Hebrews, Jude and a few other books as inspired Scripture.”

You said, “I am unaware of Luther ever seriously questioning the canonicity of any other New Testament book other than the four mentioned above”. The four above being: St. James, St. Jude, Hebrew’s and St. John’s Revelations. Ray did not say “New Testament” in that sentence. He said, “inspired Scripture”. There is a difference. Did you not realize your error or were you hoping that Catholics reading it would not notice that you were fooling them into discrediting a Catholic source?

How about: Judith, Wisdom, Tobias, Sirach, Baruch, 1 & 2 Maccabees and portions of Esther and Daniel known as “Apocrypha,” As Luther stated, “Books which are not held equal to the Sacred Scriptures and yet are useful and good for reading.” In publishing the Apocrypha immediately after the OT, Luther affected the Protestant canon." The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Prentice Hall, 1990, p.1042

"In debating purgatory with J. Maier of Eck (1519), it was Luther who broke with Church tradition and began a new era in discussions on the OT canon. (Already in 1518, A. Bodenstein of Karlstadt, arguing against Eck, placed scriptural authority above that of the Church.) Confronted by 2 Maccabees 12:46 (Vg) as “scriptural proof” for the doctrine of purgatory, Luther rejected 2 Maccabees as Scripture." stbenedictsfarm.org/24cath.htm


#13

Don’t let anyone be fooled by anti-Catholic sources, or anti-Catholics quoting Catholic sources out of context. The canon of Scripture is not something that the Catholic Church invented at The Coucil of Trent. The Council of Trent was a definition for the reinforcement of the canon of Scripture.

The first official decision concerning the canon of the Holy Scriptures was given at a Roman synod under Pope Damasus in 382, approving without distinction the entire list of our present canon. In the same manner the Synod of Hippo in 392 and the Third Council of Carthage in 397 accepted the complete canon. In a letter to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, Pope Innocent I in 405 pronounced in favor of all the books. The question of a distinction was again discussed during the Council of Florence, whereupon Pope Eugene IV published a Bull, 1441, in which he attributed the inspiration of the same Holy Ghost to all the books received by the Church. With an appeal to these earlier voices, the Fathers of the Council of Trent in their famous decree of 8 April 1546, definitely declared as “sacred and canonical” all the books of the Old and New Testament contained in the Vulgate, listing them as follows. Of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses; Josue; Judges; Ruth; four books of Kings; two of Paralipomenon; two of Esdras; Tobias; Judith; Esther; Job; the Psalter; Proverbs; Ecclesiastes; Canticle of Canticles; Wisdom; Ecclesiasticus; Isaias; Jeremias with Baruch; Ezechiel; Daniel; the 12 minor prophets; and two books of Machabees. Of the New Testament: the four Gospels; the Acts of the Apostles; 14 Epistles of the Apostle Paul; two Epistles of Peter the Apostle; three Epistles of John the Apostle; one of James the Apostle; one of Jude the Apostle; and the Apocalypse of John the Apostle. The Protestant reformers of the 16th century adhered to the narrower canon of the Hebrew Bible, and in the New Testament rejected Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Apocalypse. Modern Protestant Bibles, however, usually contain all the New Testament books.

New Catholic Dictionary


#14

[quote=Mickey]If you have done a thorough search on the subject matter, what makes you think someone else could assist you in the matter. But I would like to see Mr Ray respond to your inquiries.
[/quote]

Hi Mickey,

I appreciate your faith in my research abilites. However, I don’t under-estimate the folks reading this board. Perhaps someone here has a read a book in which he recalls similar information put forth. Even with the link that sparked my interest in this thread (you know, the one I utilized for my "agenda,"LOL), I was able to see that Steve Ray didn’t simply make it up, he probably utilized an older source.

James Swan


#15

Can you please explain what you mean in the last two sentences. I’m reading it to mean that you do not believe that the authors of the New Testament were inspired by the Holy Spirit. “Men discovered God’s words”?


#16

[quote=TertiumQuid]Hi Mickey,

(you know, the one I utilized for my "agenda,"LOL),
James Swan
[/quote]

Hi James!

I’m glad you could pull yourself out of your exhausting and important Luther research long enough to have a good laugh on my account. Your welcome. :smiley:


#17

How do Protestants get past this with regard to their core belief in Sola Scriptura?

Schizm, have you read the obituary for Luther’s religion?

**catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9108prot.asp

**


#18

[quote=Eden]James, you feel that one reason that Ray’s credibility is questionable is because he said, "If it weren’t for his theologian Philip Melanchthon, Protestants would no longer consider James, Revelation, Hebrews, Jude and a few other books as inspired Scripture.”

“I am unaware of Luther ever seriously questioning the canonicity of any other New Testament book other than the four mentioned above”. The four above being: St. James, St. Jude, Hebrew’s and St. John’s Revelations. Ray did not say “New Testament” in that sentence. He said, “inspired Scripture”. There is a difference. Did you not realize your error or were you hoping that Catholics reading it would not notice that you were fooling them into discrediting a Catholic source? How about: Judith, Wisdom, Tobias, Sirach, Baruch, 1 & 2 Maccabees and portions of Esther and Daniel known as "Apocrypha…
[/quote]

Hi There Eden,

what a pleasure it is to once again engage you in pleasant discussion. Let’s look closely at Steve Ray’s comment, shall we?:

" it weren’t for his theologian Philip Melanchthon, Protestants would no longer consider James, Revelation, Hebrews, Jude and a few other books as inspired Scripture.”

Which Protestants held that the apocrypha are inspired Scripture? Melanchthon did not. How could he have convinced Luther the apocrypha are inspired Scripture and to leave them in the Bible when neither of these Reformers beleived they were inspired Scripture? Ray’s point is simply wrong. There were no “other” books he convinced Luther to leave in the Bible.

[quote=Eden]Did you not realize your error or were you hoping that Catholics reading it would not notice that you were fooling them into discrediting a Catholic source?
[/quote]

Eden, why do you continually slander me?

Hang in there.

                James Swan

#19

Indeed, Roman Catholics seem to be obsessed with Luther.

I asked you this question on a different thread, but got no response.
So here goes again:

Do you think Catholics focus on Luther in the same way Protestants focus on the Pope?


#20

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.