Posted on 11/30/2013 9:41:51 AM PST by Gamecock
1. The New Testament Books are the Earliest Christian Writings We Possess
2. The New Testament Books are the Earliest Christian Writings We Possess
3. The New Testament Books Are Unique Because They Are Apostolic Books
4. Some NT Writers Quote Other NT Writers as Scripture
5. The Four Gospels are Well Established by the End of the Second Century
6. At the End of the Second Century, the Muratorian Fragment lists 22 of our 27 NT books
7. Early Christians Often Used Non-Canonical Writings.
8. The NT Canon Was Not Decided at Nicea—Nor Any Other Church Council.
It was settled by committee, with disagreements remaining.
And yet Luther is excoriated for his doubts on James, which contrary to the belief of some he didn't take out of the canon.
Is that why Luther added to/took away words from the Bible? A serious sin.
Actually, no meeting or single committee “decided” or “settled” anything. Any such notion yanks the authority of Scripture from the One who is the authority. Jesus decided, and authenticated the cannon. Afterwards, His Word was recognized by the church congregations. This fulfilled a very important prophecy by itself (as to canonicity). The best that could be said about the councils of the 4th century, were that they acknowledged the reality of what the church congregations had accepted as Scripture. That is about it.
And like Luther, Origen was excommunicated. Luther, however, didn’t cut his own whatchamacallits off.
There were disagreements, but nothing close to extent that Herr Luther disagreed with the canon
From "Martin Luther Changed and/or Discounted 18 Books of the Bible":
Although Protestants like to think positively about Martin Luther because of his supposed belief in sola Scriptura (the Bible alone), the truth is that Martin Luther changed parts of the Bible and discounted the value of many books.
Notice a change he admitted to regarding Romans 3:28:
You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word alone in not in the text of Paul…say right out to him: ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,’…I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word ‘alone’ is not in the Latin or the Greek text (Stoddard J. Rebuilding a Lost Faith. 1922, pp. 101-102; see also Luther M. Amic. Discussion, 1, 127).
This passage strongly suggests that Martin Luther viewed his opinions, and not the actual Bible as the primary authority–a concept which this author will name prima Luther. By “papists” he is condemning Roman Catholics.
Regarding the New Testament Book of Hebrews Martin Luther stated,
It need not surprise one to find here bits of wood, hay, and straw (O’HarePF. The Facts About Luther, 1916–1987 reprint ed., p. 203).
He also wrote,
St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw…for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it” (Luther, M. Preface to the New Testament, 1546).
Perhaps none of Martin Luther’s writings on the Bible are as harsh as what he wrote about “The Revelation of Jesus Christ” (Revelation 1:1). Specifically he wrote,
About this book of the Revelation of John…I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic…I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it. Moreover he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly-indeed, more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important-and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will take away from him, etc. Again, they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there are many far better books available for us to keep…My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it” (Luther, M. Preface to the Revelation of St. John, 1522).
As the following quotes show, Martin Luther did not care for several books in the Old Testament either:
“Job spoke not as it stands written in his book, but only had such thoughts. It is merely the argument of a fable. It is probable that Solomon wrote and made this book.”…
“Ecclesiastes ought to have been more complete. There is too much incoherent matter in it…Solomon did not, therefore, write this book.”…
“The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe. I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist, for it Judaizes too much…”
“The history of Jonah is so monstrous that it is absolutely incredible.” (as quoted in O’Hare, p. 202).
Furthermore, Martin Luther had little use for the first five books of the Old Testament (sometimes referred to as the Pentateuch):
Of the Pentateuch he says: “We have no wish either to see or hear Moses” (Ibid, p. 202).
========================
Without a doubt, "Scripture Alone" began as nothing less than Luther throwing out any Scripture that didn't suit Luther. The totally lame rationale Luther used for shedding seven books of the OT is just the best excuse Marty could come up with for throwing out at least some of the OT Scripture that clearly shows he is a heretic. A heretic who knew full well that his invented doctrines were unBiblical and anti-Biblical.
Of course, if someone denies the power of the Holy Spirit by asserting that for over fifteen hundred years the Holy Spirit could not and did not protect the Word of God from the inclusion of error, it's no big deal for such a person to elect their Self as the only true authority on what should included in the canon and what should be thrown in the slop bucket.
Interpreting Scripture one way one day and a different way on another is small potatoes for folks who have no problem denying the power of the Holy Spirit. That's why while every one of the thousands of "Scripture Alone" groups have reversed what they teach as the Truth on at least a few major points in the past century they all still claim to base what they believe on Scripture.
ROTFLOL
No, he just moved it to an Appendix prefaced with Luther's statement that what was in the Appendix wasn't inspired and was unworthy of being considered to be on par with the rest of the New Testament.
Ping worthy
It's just a smear tactic that is used to discredit anyone you disagree with.
The divisions amongst non-Catholics are highly emphasized while what unifies us is de-emphasized, by Catholics.
Yet when the same is pointed out to Catholics, they emphasize what unifies them and de-emphasize what discredits or divides them.
It's a classic example of hypocrisy. Do as I say, not as I do.
bkmk
Of course by Luther’s time, the West had gunpowder and cannons had been created; thus the disagreement over canons took place with cannons.
How was this accomplished?
Ever heard of King James?
If you study Christology, you learn that Jesus is the Word of God. He is God (in the flesh). And if you go to the authentication passage, then you get it: the Word of God was never left up to man. So during the time in which Jesus was not on the earth, it was the superintendency of the Holy Spirit (I think that is what you are asking). Man was used as a vessel, yes, but man didn’t “decide” anything. Roy Zuck has a pretty decent treatment of that, among others.
If the kjv was good enough for Christ and Paul than it is good enough for me. BTW I have an autographed copy I might be interested in selling if the price is right.
Impossible and just plain ridiculous! The New Testament was not written until after he ascended into heaven. The embarrassing fact for those who hold on to sola scriptura is that the canon of the Scriptures is not self authenticating. If anyone other than the Church can decide the canon then sola scriptura becomes ego solus ipse (only me myself)!
Which church?
Just read your bible and don’t worry about what’s in my Bible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.