Did Martin Luther Remove Books from the Bible? With James Swan

[@thejerichoconnection3473]

Sure, he didn’t “remove” them. He simply “moved” them to an appendix basically called “not the Word of God but still good to read”. Who gave Luther such an authority?

[@sincerelysarcastic4400]

This is all very useful information! Thank you!

[@clivejungle6999]

The whole point of the Reformation was that we dont have to take the Church as infallible. So if you think Luther is wrong, that is fine. Lutheranism is also the Book of Concord, not the table talk of Luther. The Romans on the other hand made up Mary being sinless and now they all have to believe it.

[@thejerichoconnection3473]

“God has formed the soul and body of the Virgin Mary full of the Holy Spirit, so that she is without all sins.” (Luther, 1532)

[@clivejungle6999]

@@thejerichoconnection3473 Again, you are free to disagree with Luther. We dont have to do all the same sort of mental gymnastics that Romans have to do to preserve papal infallibility.

[@thejerichoconnection3473]

@@clivejungle6999 that’s not the point. The point is: who is right? Luther or Lutherans? Who determines who is right?

[@clivejungle6999]

@@thejerichoconnection3473 You are thinking like a Roman. This need for infallible certainty on every bit of trivia is exhausting. Is Mary’s sinlessness explicitly taught in Scripture? No. So you cant make belief either way mandatory.

[@thejerichoconnection3473]

@@clivejungle6999 that’s not the point either. You accused Rome to have made up Mary’s sinlessness. If you were consistent you should accuse Luther to have made up Mary’s sinlessness too. And if Luther was making up stuff, what else could he have made up? What about sola fide, never explicitly taught in Scripture? What about sola scriptura, never explicitly taught in Scripture. Was that made up too? This is not trivia. This is about doctrines “on which the church stands or falls.” What did Luther get right? What did he get wrong? Who decides?

[@frennynikki2447]

Hello there, I've noticed this among RC's since my early teenage years. Honestly, at first this troubled me but as some years went by, I figured if Luther did intend to remove St. James from the canon, we would have seen a continuation of this from his Bible translation, of course, the opposite is true. It's not only St. James but also the Apocrypha (the deuterocanon). However, his translation also contains those books and it's only near mid-17th century that we start to notice a strong opposition against the Apocrypha. Does this mean the Apocrypha is officially "extinct" from the Protestant world? No, there are still Bible editions with the Apocrypha. Fortunately, the Finnish (Lutheran) Bible a Baptist missionary sent me from the Laestidians contains the Apocrypha (2007 printing). Oh, and did I forget to mention that one of the earliest books I translated into an ancient language was St. James. All 5 chapters and left no verse untranslated. So such accusation does not hit a hole in the wall. Thank you for your patience and God bless you

[@DaveArmstrong1958]

Are you a Genevist or a Wittenberger or Henry VIIist?

[@frennynikki2447]

@@DaveArmstrong1958 Hello there, I haven't heard those designations before though I can get their gists by "Genevist" you mean "Calvinist", "Wittenberger" a Lutheran, "Henry VIIIist" an Anglican but I'm neither. These institutions however insist to rather call them according to their preferred names. As for me, I am a Trinitarian Pentecostal but like them we consider ourselves Catholics. Thank you for your patience and God bless

[@DaveArmstrong1958]

@@frennynikki2447 So I call you a Trinitarian Pentecostal, but you -- for some inexplicable reason -- refuse to call us by our preferred name.

[@frennynikki2447]

@@DaveArmstrong1958 Hello there, To call me a Trinitarian Pentecostal is just another way to call the kind of Pentecostal I'm in but we go by other names too. I do see the point you're making here and I know the preferred name is "Roman Catholic" but unlike the words "Genevist", "Wittenberger", and "Henry VIIIist", the word "Romanist" has historical basis. However, that doesn't mean it's the only one I use, I also use "RC" or just "Catholic". So obviously, I don't make it a dogma to use "Romanist" exclusively. In fact when I refer to the Roman Catholic Church, to shorten things, I do use the "Roman Church" at times. To be fair, the word "Protestant" was not proposed by the Reformers, Luther rather preferred either "Christian" or "Evangelical" while Calvin did not approve of "Calvinist". They both saw their names unfit. Moreover, The name "Reformed Catholic" is preferred among Reformed and Anglican churches. Thank you for your patience and God bless you

[@DaveArmstrong1958]

@@frennynikki2447 Most of us prefer "Catholic" since there are many Catholics (i.e., who believe there is a pope, etc.) who are not Roman rite. The Catechism of the Catholic Church never uses "Roman Catholic" at all. That title was originally a pejorative used by the early Anglicans, who wanted to be Catholic without the pope. So they called themselves "Catholic" and called us "Roman Catholic." "Roman Catholic" is not necessarily pejorative today, but "Romanist" -- like "papist" certainly is, and no serious scholar would ever use it.

[@rjsledz]

As far as purgatory Luther prayed for people who have died and he believed that Mary was ever virgin and he believed in the immaculate conception and he believed in the assumption and should I go on and on ???

[@jamesswan3630]

Not exactly. The basic thrust of Luther's thought is that he won't stop someone for praying for the dead, however sparsely, but linking it to purgatory and the ceremonies and practices that had made it an essential was to be entirely avoided. True Luther believed in Mary's perpetual virginity, though he did say at one point, " Now just take a look at the perverse lauders of the mother of God. If you ask them why they hold so strongly to the virginity of Mary, they truly could not say. These stupid idolators do nothing more than to glorify only the mother of God; they extol her for her virginity and practically make a false deity of her." For the Immaculate Conception, LW 58 points out, "In his later preaching, Luther affirmed that Mary had been both conceived and born in sin and connected her purification from sin with the work of the Holy Spirit at the time of Christ's conception." Mary's bodily assumption? No. The main quote used by Roman Catholics as proof isn't even something Luther stated ["There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know. And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith"]=fake quote.

[@DaveArmstrong1958]

@@jamesswan3630 Lutheran scholar Eric W. Gritsch, who was a major translator in the English set, Luther’s Works (edited by Jaroslav Pelikan), observed: "Luther affirmed Mary’s assumption into heaven but did not consider it to be of benefit to others or accomplished in any special way." (in The One Mediator, the Saints, and Mary, Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VIII, edited by H. George Anderson, J. Francis Stafford, Joseph A. Burgess, Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1992, 241; footnote 44; p. 382: “Sermon on the Festival of the Assumption, August 15, 1522. WA 10/3:269.12-13. Sermon on the Festival of the Visitation . . . August 15, 1522. WA 52:681.27-31.”) In the same book, twelve Lutheran and ten Catholic scholars participated. Their “Common Statement” (a sort of creed-like formulation agreed-upon by all) yielded some very interesting conclusions indeed: "(89) Luther preached on the Assumption . . . There were early Lutheran pastors who affirmed the Assumption as both evangelical and Lutheran. "(101) From the Lutheran side, one may recall the honor and devotion paid to the Mother of God by Luther himself, including his own attitude to the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, which he accepted in some form." (p. 55)

[@DaveArmstrong1958]

test. My last two comments weren't allowed . . . Did I violate some rule here? Please inform.

[@trueoutlaw13]

I see your comments directly under this one🤷🏻‍♂️

[@sincerelysarcastic4400]

I see two other comments from you! Possibly they weren't loading on your device for some reason.

[@DaveArmstrong1958]

@@sincerelysarcastic4400 those two were allowed. I made another one in the sub-thread about the Epistle of James and the Gospel that is not currently posted. I then posted a shorter version of it and it (virtually all Scripture passages) wasn't allowed, either. At that point I made this short inquiry which *was* allowed. It could well be an automatic filter. Never hurts to ask . . .

[@Thatoneguy-pu8ty]

I see both of your comments. Rather lengthy.

[@DaveArmstrong1958]

@@Thatoneguy-pu8ty Again, those were always allowed. Two others weren't. It may have been a spam folder thing. I go through that on my blog. Unless some moderator explains, it'll remain a mystery.

[@iraqiimmigrant2908]

The ENDING! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@rjsledz]

That's a crack he removed everything almost in the New testament that didn't jive with his theological thesis

[@henry.favela]

Yes

[@DaveArmstrong1958]

It's not only Catholics -- by a long shot -- who have criticized Luther's opinion on the canon. His view was so radical that virtually no conservative, traditional, confessional Protestants have ever accepted it, and even his own Lutheran successors (Melanchthon, Chemnitz, C. F. W. Walther, and the confessional Book of Concord) rejected it. Lutheran Paul Althaus wrote: "He thereby established the principle that the early church’s formation and limitation of the canon is not exempt from re-examination . . ." "The canon is only a relative unity, just as it is only relatively closed. Therewith Luther has in principle abandoned every formal approach to the authority of the Bible. It is certainly understandable that Luther’s prefaces were no longer printed in German Bibles. One may characterize his attitude in this way: The canon itself was, as far as Luther was concerned, a piece of ecclesiastical tradition and therefore subject to criticism on the basis of God’s word." (The Theology of Martin Luther, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966, pages 85 and 336). Likewise, Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901), the Anglican bishop and great biblical scholar, was equally direct in his disagreement with Luther: "Such judgments rest on no definite external evidence. They cannot be justified by the ordinary rule and measure of criticism or dogma. No Church could rest on a theory which makes private feeling the supreme authority as to doctrine and the source of doctrine. As a natural consequence the later Lutherans abandoned the teaching of their great master on the written Word." (A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament, 6th edition [1889]; reprinted by Baker Book House [Grand Rapids, Michigan] 1980, 483-484).

[@xxrandmlinksxxbruh2419]

Yes he did

[@DaveArmstrong1958]

Nor should anyone who is acquainted with Luther's life and thinking be in the least bit surprised by his 1522 preface and "epistle of straw" comment. Luther was in his most radical and anti-traditional period during the years 1520-1524. He later tempered his thunderous polemics and rhetoric quite a bit: particularly due to the Peasants' Revolt, and wrote much more "traditionally" (I compiled an entire book of his quotations that read "Catholic"). This easily accounts for the removal or significant revision of several of his Prefaces to NT books. Also, having to do battle with the various sects that quickly arose made him more traditional, and he opposed the Anabaptists (even calling for their execution in the 1530s; yes he did, as Roland Bainton's famous biography, "Here I Stand" sadly admits), precisely due to their anti-traditionalism on the question of baptism. But in the heady days of 1522 he was blasting existing Catholic tradition in no uncertain terms. I documented that he had rejected at least fifty Catholic doctrines and practices by 1520, *before* he was excommunicated. Another remarkable statement of his about his own alleged extraordinary authority and infallibility was made in the same year as the controversial Preface to the New Testament (1522): "I now let you know that from now on I shall no longer do you the honor of allowing you - or even an angel from heaven - to judge my teaching or to examine it. For there has been enough foolish humility now for the third time at Worms, and it has not helped. Instead, I shall let myself be heard and, as St. Peter teaches, give an explanation and defense of my teaching to all the world - I Pet. 3:15. I shall not have it judged by any man, not even by any angel. For since I am certain of it, I shall be your judge and even the angels’ judge through this teaching (as St. Paul says [I Cor. 6:3 ]) so that whoever does not accept my teaching may not be saved - for it is God’s and not mine. Therefore, my judgment is also not mine but God’s." (Against the Spiritual Estate of the Pope and the Bishops Falsely So-Called [July 1522], from Luther's Works, 248-249) This "super-duper 'pope' " mentality is quite consistent with his casual assumption that he was able to subjectively judge on his own, the apostolicity and relative worthiness of New Testament books. But by 1528 he was writing very differently. In his treatise, "Concerning Rebaptism":, written against the Anabaptists in January 1528 (Luther’s Works, Vol. 40, pp. 229-262) he stated: "We on our part confess that there is much that is Christian and good under the papacy; indeed everything that is Christian and good is to be found there and has come to us from this source. For instance we confess that in the papal church there are the true holy Scriptures, true baptism, the true sacrament of the altar, the true keys to the forgiveness of sins, the true office of the ministry, the true catechism in the form of the Lord’s Prayer, the Ten Commandments, and the articles of the creed . . . I contend that in the papacy there is true Christianity, even the right kind of Christianity and many great and devoted saints. . . . "The Christendom that now is under the papacy is truly the body of Christ and a member of it. If it is his body, then it has the true spirit, gospel, faith, baptism, sacrament, keys, the office of the ministry, prayer, holy Scripture, and everything that pertains to Christendom. So we are all still under the papacy and therefrom have received our Christian treasures." (pp. 231-232) James Swan is far more radical than this. He doesn't think that Catholicism is a species of Christianity, as Luther did. He denies that Catholics hold to the gospel, etc., whereas Luther wrote that Catholicism is "truly the body of Christ and a member of it. If it is his body, then it has the true spirit, gospel, faith, . . ."

[@russellmiles2861]

Humm, Christianian leaders oft change, redacted and add to the Bible But to be clear; the Luther Bible has 73 books, the KJV 80 as does the Geneva, and the Ethiopians include Enoch so has 81 There is no such thing as a Protestant Bible; as if Protanstants ageee on everything The 66 book version is provoided by publishers as such is popular. But it has no cannonical standing.

[@justfromcatholic]

There is no single verse in the entire Bible that tells us how many and which books are inspired. Before Trent the canon of Scripture was not dogmatically closed - that is why we had some who rejected apocrypha, not only Luther but even cardinal Cajetan. Whenever there are dispute then the Church meet to make final decision - that is what happened in Acts 15 on the issue whether the Gentile converts must be circumcised or not. There were some who supports either side - that is why we need Magisterium who makes final decision. Using Scripture alone as arbitrator does not work because it is silent on the issue. Luther also separated four books of NT (James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation) from the rest and he placed them at the end of his NT translation - He treated them like he treated apocrypha. The speaker did not mention this in the short video - or perhaps he did in the original longer one.

[@fantasia55]

Catholics follow the original biblical canon, from AD 382.

[@clivejungle6999]

The Church didn’t meet at Trent, just the Roman branch. The canon was originally worked out the basis of historical evidence, orthodox theology and widespread attestation.

[@fantasia55]

@clivejungle6999 The biblical canon was originally worked out at the Council of Rome, in AD 382.

[@clivejungle6999]

@@fantasia55 A) Local Council, not ecumenical therefore not infallible B) Very poorly documented council, the oldest source comes from the 8th century. C) Jerome who is in Rome at the time, doesn’t know it exists and doesn’t mention it.

[@zrayish5164]

1 - The four books you are referring to are antilegomena. Their canonicity was disputed since before the time of Eusebius, so Luther recognized that elements of them that are less clear should be compared to books of universally accepted canonicity (the homologoumena books). They were never removed from the canon used in Luther's translations of the Bible. To act like Luther just chose a few books he didn't like & pulled them out is ignorant at best. 2 - The council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) was overseen by Apostles themselves. The reformers never claimed that only the teachings of Jesus & the apostles that were written down could be true or binding, they said that we no longer have a credible source of the teachings of Jesus & the apostles that can be relied on for the establishment of doctrine except what is recorded in scripture (sola scriptura). Of course the apostles made authoritative declarations while they were alive that Christians would be bound to keep (such as in Acts). It is a very radical claim to say that a council conducted today could be faithfully passing down an unwritten tradition of Christ & his apostles with the same authority as a council that was conducted by those sent out on behalf of Christ himself. The gnostic heretics made the same claims of having unwritten traditions passed down & the orthodox fathers condemned them by appealing to the reliable word of God that contradicted their teachings.

[@Catholic-Perennialist]

Including James while calling it "straw" is probably worse than simply excluding it. James is denigrated because it contradicts Luther's gospel.

[@thomasthellamas9886]

Do you know why Luther called it an epistle of straw?

[@Catholic-Perennialist]

@@thomasthellamas9886 He said it contained nothing of the gospel, which is false.

[@pete3397]

@@Catholic-Perennialist I don't think you know what is meant by Gospel in this context. If you disagree, point out where James does contain the Gospel.

[@pete3397]

No, it doesn't. It only contradicts Roman apologist's ideas of what they think is "Luther's" gospel.

[@thomasthellamas9886]

@@Catholic-Perennialist I don’t mean this disrespectfully. But did you watch the video?

[@thehitomiboy7379]

Yes he did. Anything else is factually wrong and deceptive. You yourself admitted this when he said they weren't scripture. Being in the bible isn't about being between the bindings. Its about what is scripture.

[@infinitelink]

The very earliest canon lists match the Protestant lists and the very earlieat descriptions of various books...match the Protestant lists. Criteria such as in why the Church determined that the Protoevangelium of James isn't Scripture... "The Protestant" lists ARE the view of the Church (and earlier, of Spiritual Israel) in most of history. When I hear Catholic brethren doing the "oh, qell, Jews didn't establish a canon until...", occasionally referencing some ultra-left Jewiah acholar, it's quite the confusion since Jesua uses tge categorical terms used by Jews for books known as Scripture ("the law and the prophets") and none other than the same-era Josephus details that indeed Jews had a count of books (two less than Protestants/historic Christianity, because several books we count as two each are actually single books). This qhole thing gets dogmatic when...history tells otherwise. And when Rome utters "TGE MAJESTERIUM" she claims to be above scrutiny by Scripture when not even the Apostles claimed such authority (as Rome likes to attribute to Peter citing "the keys"), but praised those who scrutinized their teachings by the Scriptures, like the Bereans.

[@thehitomiboy7379]

@@infinitelink Having read those lists, dont lie. I cant even recall 1 that matches prots modified canon. Also the source for the jews not having a canon comes from the jews themselves and their arguments in history. They were debating ecclesiastes well in 500s. Meanwhile the apostles and biblical writers used the LXX almost exclusively. The deuterocanon is cited extensively as well. Rome never claims to be above scrutiny at all. Rather, she claims, as the bible teaches, to be the source and pillar of truth.

[@infinitelink]

​​​@@thehitomiboy7379yes because some are short since they were persecuted and hadn't convened had or access to them all... 😂 Early on even having one complete gospel in a location was a miracle, much less as Christians having access to the Pentateuch and Prophets. A few add a book or two that later all agree was in error and a bishop here or there thought the P. of James was real until in convention they realized the names used were common to Alexandria and not Jerusalem during Jesus' time. 😂 I wasn't speaking to you alone but to anyone who wants to go out and see for themselves. Protestants get accused of "following the Rabbis at Jamnia" all the time when...we know they were re-stating lists already known in an established canon, and the criteria for determining Scripture has not changed through time. Does it contradict God who is eternal or go against His revelations past? It isn't Scripture... Maybe it's edifying or spiritual or a record, but not Scripture. Does it have the wrong details, names, places? (This is many of the early purported gospels, like the Protoev. of James.) Etc? It isn't Scripture! Was it written as a fairy tale to entertain Jewish children...Jews still have ancient records about some books that certain traditions later claim are actually Scripture for want of proof texts. In fact the Torah is the origin of many such criteria (a prophet who prophecies and it does not come to pass... For example.) Any seriously believing Jew in any part of history since Maccabbees was written, as just one example, can explain in detail why it isn't Scripture, by the way, show you why from the Torah, and if they've read the NT, probably from that too (more often than you realize, Jews who are more literate and honest than e.g. a Toviah "Zinger" (names changed to protect identities) often remark that Jesus seems...extremely helpful and healthy (though this can often lead to comversions hence they are usually dissuaded)). The Church doesn't have the authority or power to declare what is and isn't Scripture as she is subject to the Scripture which is the Lord's own words to wash her with. She only examines words to ensure they are consonant with His voice and when they are, submits to His washing. I am sorry your tradition has deceived you.

[@thehitomiboy7379]

@infinitelink there we go. You admit early canon lists disagree with you. And yes thats how we decided scripture in the late 300s. Officially. Its why, at a minimum, all ancient Churchs hold those as scripture. And maccabees, which the Jews DID hold as scripture (at least some of them, the ones relevant to Christianity) was scripture. That much is obvious. Also remember that not only did Luther remove those books (byw secular historians agree he absolutely did) he wanted to remove most of the books in the bible, not just those. His canon was like 25 books.

[@shanekahrs4776]

​@@infinitelinkthanks. Excellent explanation.

[@ji8044]

Why are you still talking about the greatest anti-Semite in history before Hitler?

[@kuhatsuifujimoto9621]

because jews hate Christ

[@piracy22]

I’m not going to defend Luther’s antisemitism, but don’t downplay how there are far more antisemitic people today than him, let alone in history.

[@clivejungle6999]

The Jews were deported from entire countries. England only let them back in over 100 years after Luther. Romans should be careful, the RCC does not have clean hands when it comes to the persecution of Jews.

[@christophertaylor9100]

Overstate much? LOL

[@pete3397]

Luther was not alone in his view and he was not anti-semitic but anti-judaism and that came about because Jews at the time were going around - not all of them, mind you, but enough that it was known - and calling Mary a whore and Jesus a bastard. You'll still actually find these views in some Jewish circles today. You can probably even find a KZbin video or two espousing the viewpoint. Anyhow, that's why Luther got upset: radical Jewish calumnies against Mary and Jesus.