Your donation helps provide answers and spread the gospel. GIVE NOW! Matching gift doubles your donation.

Peer-reviewed explanation of Luther’s canon?


#81

Thank you for that. Is it the sole instance of an echo of any of the deuterocanonicals in the Gospels?


#82

I think I made it clear in my comment which Jewish canon I am referring to. I wrote: It has long been my impression that all Jesus’ OT references are to books that form part of the Jewish canon and hence, also, of the Protestant canon, excluding the deuterocanonicals.


#83

No, we shall not.


#84

I’ve been reading it, and I very much appreciate your consistent defense of Catholic truth against false propaganda.


#85

Thanks.
There are many more.

http://www.defendingthebride.com/bb/deuterocanonical3.html


#86

Thanks for the link, @JohnR77! Hebrews 11:35 is the clearest reference to the Deutercanonicals! :grinning:


#87

I’ll defend it to the death, for the salvation of souls! God bless you, @Spyridon!


#88

False propaganda? Historical fact is “false propaganda?”

Show me the table of contents of Luther’s bible.
Show me the table of contents of Cajetan’s bible.
The only difference you’ll find is that Luther also included the Prayer of Manasseh.

Look, you Roman Catholics can bash Luther on a myriad of topics, but the canon is simply a silly thing to do, since you’re also bashing your own scholars when you do so. Talk about anachronisms and “false propaganda!”


#89

I wish we could, but he never had a bible he translated. Show me a bible he translated where he put books of the inspired canon into an appendix of non-inspired, ‘useful reading’. Did Cajetan also consider James, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation to be separated into an appendix without page numbers?


#90

On a lighter note, OP, when I read “peer-reviewed” in your title, I thought you meant something written about Luther by Jean Calvin or Ulrich Zwingli!


#91

So this is where you draw your line? At “translation?” You do realize Roman Catholic translators plagiarized most of Luthers translation, right? But you draw your arbitrary line at translating. So even though Cajetan held stricter views than Luther, he gets a free pass because he didn’t translate an entire Bible? Do you apply the same standards to Erasmus, who translated? Or to Eusebius, who compiled? Or Jerome, who did the same?

Really? Now it’s “page numbers” that arbitrarily determine whether a bible is up to your standards? (On that note, do you have a photo of Luther’s Die Bibel that shows page numbers were used?)

You’ve asked another loaded question with a false presumption. Cajetan considered those books in an even harsher way than Luther did— Cajetan didn’t even consider them worthy of biblical commentary!


#92

“[C]onsidered” and “viewed” do not equal separated/removed no matter how much you want them to.


#93

Luther never removed them!

Why continue to make such an historically false claim? They are literally in his bible!


I missed this pithy remark earlier. I suppose some find this sort of thing clever, but they may be surprised to learn about other Catholics who’ve added “alone” in the either their commentaries or translations of Romans 3 (or both):
Origen
Hilary
Basil
Ambrosiaster
St. John Chrysostom
Cyril of Alexandria
Bernard
Theophylact
Theodoret
St. Thomas Aquinas
Theodore of Mopsuestia
Marius Victorinius
Abrose
Augustine
And many others…

Furthermore, Catholic translations of the bible had added “alone” for years. The Nuremburg Bible (published the year of Luther’s birth in 1483), the Italian Bible of Geneva (published in 1476, before Luther was even born) and the Italian Bible of Venice (1538) all say “per sola fede.”

If that’s not enough to convince an ultramontanist, consider that even Pope Benedict (a native German speaker) –speaking from his chair in an official Papal Audience– also taught it to be a correct translation, even saying the exact words: “Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true…”

I’d caution Catholics against the temptation to use popular Internet polemics. While they may seem like easy “wins,” history doesn’t find them particularly… well, uh… true. Worse still, those who use them risk coming across as ignorant of history or --even more regretfully-- like some Roman Catholic version of Jack Chick. For the sake of Christ’s prayer that “all may be one” and in keeping with the 8th Commandment not to speak falsely of our neighbors, I’d recommend instead that we find ways to seek truth in love.


#94
  • These are all allusions (at best), not quotes.
  • Most require a significant stretch. Like the Festival of the Dedication, which I mentioned earlier.
  • Many seize on shared cultural phrases and proverbs. For example, “King of Kings” was an Egyptian (“I am Ozymandias…”), Persian (Xerxes, among other rulers), and later, Greek phrase. That it was used by Jews in the area, and later by Christians should be no surprise.

Found one.


#95

“Is true if…”

Care to finish that quote?


#96

Substantiate this claim if you can.


#97

There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with the phrase, ‘faith alone’. There’s something very wrong with how Luther defined and used it. Hence:

“If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema.”

None of those you mentioned used the phrase ‘faith alone’ in that ‘nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification’. Luther did.

Nice try, however. The effort is great! :smiley:


#98

Sure:

Being just simply means being with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Further observances are no longer necessary. For this reason Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love.

And that’s something Luther would agree with entirely.

Glad to see you’ve improved your understanding since the last thread, when you were faced with multiple Roman Catholic sources, including writers for this site, who explained that James 2 did not mean what you purported it to mean.

As for the anathemas of Trent, be sure not to conflate your communion’s conception of “initial Justification” with the non-Lutheran idea of non-cooperation after conversion. The Lutheran could, if rightly understood and defined, find agreement even with that statement.

I did. Did you read the very next sentence?

Tell you what. This sort of snark is unbecoming of Christians. What say we stop doing this going forward, hey?


#99

I remember my grandpa telling me how his dad took a lot of flak from the old German populations on his circuit when in 39 he started preaching only in English.


#100

Oh, I believe it! The transition to English wasn’t easy. In fact, perhaps the only harder one for American Lutherans was moving on from Page 5 / Page 15… then again, many still haven’t. :rofl:

He kept German up through 1939, huh? Interesting. I’ll bet he was in Wisconsin or Minnesota?


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.