Luther on Hebrews James Jude Revelation

[@Nonz.M]

Very informative. Many Romanists today speak about this matter as if Luther wanted to remove books because they didn't align with his personal theology, but he did not seek to remove them, nor were his doubts on their authorship novel as you've demonstrated. Great video.

[@MRCATWRENCH]

Men added those books to the canon to begin with.

[@michaelpalomba7992]

I would like to know if it is a problem for Martin Luther to take those 4 books and put them in the appendices of the Bible. The back of the Bible as if it were a reference, and he added the word alone in Romans. Chapter 3 verse 28 to faith alone. When you look at the warning in chapter 22 of revelation, and if you believe the warning applies to the whole bible as a book, not just revelation, this would be very alarming.

[@HaMashiachSaves]

He did indeed add the word ‘alone’ to Romans. He loathed ‘The Book of James’, calling it ‘the epistle of straw’. He had many personal demons 😉

[@eclipsesonic]

It's interesting that Luther didn't question the authorship or canonicity of 2 Peter, as that was the most disputed book of the New Testament in the early church.

[@grizztough4091]

Always insightful, and appreciated

[@2012oland]

To “question, canonicity“ is to literally question whether or not something belongs in the canon of scripture. It means that he thought he knew better than all of the church fathers who came before him, and acknowledged the apostolic authority of these books.

[@nemoexnuqual3643]

Not really. Among the early churches there were hundreds of manuscripts, many were not selected for a variety of reasons. Some were overtly blasphemous and like the Book of Mormon were specific to a single sect or like Jehovah Witnesses “bibles” had been so modified as to be unrecognizable, some were from unverifiable authors. In order for books to be cannon they needed to be written by an apostle, widely circulated with matching copies, and non contradictory to verified manuscripts. Some books like 2 Esdras and 3 Macabees are contested as cannon to this day. The Catholics for example have 1 & 2 Macabees as Cannon the Greek Orthodoxy also has 3rd and the Gregorian Orthodox has 4th Macabees. The Orthodoxy has 81 books they claim are canon, the Catholics have 73, Protestant Bibles contain 66. Lutherans typically have the Protestant 66 but a supplemental apocrypha which is considered useful good for context but less than scripture. Added to the other 66 this brings it back up and beyond the Catholic Bible. Part of this was that they were books that were questioned for a long time and earlier Bibles had them separated with a disclaimer. When Luther made his German translation of the Bible in 1521 he copied from a Catholic Latin Bible which itself had the apocrypha separated out and it wouldn’t be added back in until 1536. From the first consolidated Bible James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation were questioned largely due to uncertainty of authorship and apostleship. Had they been removed they certainly would have just been added to the apocrypha which the Church Catholic had already nearly done themselves. All that being said none of those were removed and James is featured heavily in the articles of Concord as well as the response. Catholic priest sometimes joke about us “removing” James by not teaching works based salvation (although works are required as clearly stated multiple times in the articles of Concord) but the Catholic Church still hasn’t seemed to have actually read our letters before confusing Lutherans with anabaptists and worse yet Calvinists. I in response to Catholic jabs like to point out that by their standard “why did they remove everything but James? Then even replace that with a papal bull?”

[@br.m]

No. Did you watch the video? Not all church "fathers" agree on everything. Apostolic authority? How many leaders do you have? I have 1 leader. Christ. James brother of Jesus? A man's enemies will be members of his own household. You can not come to Jesus unless you hate father mother sister brother and your own life. Mary and Jesus' siblings tried to stop him they thought he was mentally ill. They had no faith. Mary got left in the cold like one of the virgins in the parable who ran out of oil. Sorry I'm sure these truths will hurt you? James is a stumbling block. James will be better if a mill stone were tied around his neck and he was thrown in to the sea.

[@Solideogloria00]

You didn’t watch the video, right?

[@kottenfam]

I like this history lesson.

[@johngurlides9157]

James 2:21 "How was our ancestor Abraham put right with God? It was through his actions when he offered his son Isaac on the altar" This is a contradiction of both the Old and the New Testament! In fact, unsaved, nominal Christians use the second chapter of James to deny salvation by faith alone, ignoring that the "faith" that James speaks of is not the saving faith the rest fo the Bible speaks of and the one we testify about.

[@Jordan-th3pr]

Saved by grace through faith. Faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works. I see no contradiction. Grace saves you through faith. Faith can be increased or decreased by works. Works do not save you at all but faith, which has no works, will not justify you. This is what the bible is talking about.

[@johngurlides9157]

Was the thief on the cross not justified based on his repentance, reliance on Jesus and faith alone? Works are a product of the new birth, salvation and justification.

[@br.m]

@@Jordan-th3pr Works are not worth mentioning. Works are like poo poo... If you have to try to do it you need a doctor. Sh.T happens.

[@Jordan-th3pr]

@@johngurlides9157 He had faith enough to repent so he was saved obviously. What James is talking about is mental assent or acknowledgement, which is not enough for salvation.

[@johngurlides9157]

@@Jordan-th3pr Exactly! Like I said, the "faith" James speaks of, is not the saving faith of the rest of the Bible.

[@MortenBendiksen]

I belive any church community which did not contend with these books, would ceize to exist within a century. It is super important to try to harmonize James idea of what a living faith is, to be able to have an image of what it is we are saved unto, namely the ability to live in good works and for each other without a trace of pride or envy, it is the telos of human existence, what gives us joy, salvation is not worth anything without it. But someone who never questioned how these things even fit together, is never going to arrive at anything but empty doctrines for himself, as opposed to growing into a living faith beyond doctrines. He is either going to be angry at those who work, or at those who don't work enough. Questioning is super important. 2 peter and jude basically give more meat to this bone, though they are difficult for our understanding. I think one way to say it is that there is nothing we must do to earn the love of God, but that the love of God enables us to do works outside of any sort of thinking of meriting anything, just like a flower grows without thinking of what will happen to it, and that is what renders it truly alive, as opposed to our half death in scheming for status, riches, recognition, love, etc. Revelation gives us the blueprint for what worship means, by poetic imagery of the unseen qualities of basically everything and everywhere and all times. However this book is a work for the imagination. It can't be simply parsed out and churned through the system in a logical positivist kind of way. Nor can really anything in the Bible, though some things need to be doctine in any community of course.

[@drb8786]

Or….the “hyper dispensationalist” are correct in saying Paul’s epistles are for us and to us Body of Christ and everything else including revelation is for Israel. The body of Christ starts at the conversion of Paul in acts 9. I mean one of their biggest arguments against trying to reconcile Paul with Peter and James is that they don’t seem to jive doctrinally. I’m not saying I believe all this, but it does make scripture easier to understand.

[@josuepizarro5721]

No.

[@josephdennison4890]

Luther called James nothing more than piss straw.

[@br.m]

Mary and Jesus' brothers thought he was mentally ill. James might have been piss straw. What is piss straw?

[@josephdennison4890]

@@br.m Luther was referring to the book of James. Luther said; "The book of James should be ripped out of the scriptures and burnt as piss straw." Piss straw is the straw put down in stalls for the animals or men to urinate on. After the straw was used , the only thing you could do was to burn it as waste. That straw was called Piss straw.

[@br.m]

@@josephdennison4890 Thanks for clarifying. That's what I thought piss straw must be but wanted to make sure. It sounds like a fun way to refer to the little straw man in my pants... Do you agree that James is piss straw? I found nothing of value in reading James. It only seems to ever be used to claim works based salvation. It's seems like nothing more than a stumbling block at best and at worst a tool used by people who do not enter the kingdom and who want to keep others from entering.

[@nemoexnuqual3643]

Silly Catholics, always taking things out of context. It’s been 500 years since we gave you the articles of concord with the attempt to simply reform the Catholic Church and you still haven’t read it. To this day you still confuse us with anabaptists, Anglicans, and worse still Calvinists. That would be like use confusing the Roman Catholic Church with Walmart. Then it seems that the rest of the Catholics just parrot the ramblings of priests who didn’t care enough to even see that the grievances were mostly things that you eventually stopped anyway like selling vials of ducks blood saying it was saints blood and quite literally telling people that for enough money they could buy salvation, or priest giving Latin mass chuckling afterwards because they actually just cussed out the congregation in Latin for an hour but because they said things in the right tone and cadence nobody in the congregation knew it. Of course our point that the Pope is a man and can not overrule the word of God was enough that the Roman church went off like a bomb. They also didn’t like the idea of everyone having access to a Bible. I guess it’s easier to control people when they can’t actually read the Bible themselves.

[@Solideogloria00]

Watch the video first. And cite your alleged reference.

[@renesoucy3444]

I think Luther hated weaknesses just like Judas Iscariote did…