Friday, October 08, 2004

Is Sola Fide (Faith Alone) a Legitimate Development of Patristic and Augustinian Soteriology?

By Dave Armstrong (24 November 2000)

Heresy can only be defined as the apostles and Church Fathers defined it, according to the ancient principle of apostolic succession. In a nutshell, heresy is that which has not been passed down from the beginning, from the apostles and our Lord Jesus. If something is novel and cannot be traced back, it is heresy, and to be utterly rejected, according to St. Paul in particular. All other definitions are ultimately circular:

X What is heresy?
Y That which is false and wrong according to the Bible (i.e., as interpreted by Calvin/Luther/whomever)
X And where do they get their authority to state that?
Y From God, but they would trace their beliefs to the early Fathers, particularly St. Augustine.
X But Catholics also trace their beliefs from St. Augustine. Who is correct?
Y If you look at Augustine's teachings, you will find that the Reformed are his true legatees.

Applying this oft-stated Protestant principle, I then appeal to Protestant scholars Alister McGrath and Norman Geisler, with regard to the historical basis of sola fide (faith alone and extrinsic, imputed justification), one of the pillars of the Protestant Reformation:

Whereas Augustine taught that the sinner is made righteous in justification, Melanchthon taught that he is counted as righteous or pronounced to be righteous. For Augustine, 'justifying righteousness' is imparted; for Melanchthon, it is imputed in the sense of being declared or pronounced to be righteous. Melanchthon drew a sharp distinction between the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous, designating the former 'justification' and the latter 'sanctification' or 'regeneration.' For Augustine, these were simply different aspects of the same thing . . .

The importance of this development lies in the fact that it marks a complete break with the teaching of the church up to that point. From the time of Augustine onwards, justification had always been understood to refer to both the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous. . . .

The Council of Trent . . . reaffirmed the views of Augustine on the nature of justification . . . the concept of forensic justification actually represents a development in Luther's thought . . . .

Trent maintained the medieval tradition, stretching back to Augustine, which saw justification as comprising both an event and a process . . .

(Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 2nd ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1993, 108-109, 115; emphasis in original)

This spectacularly confirms that sola fide was a novelty and corruption, and that infused, intrinsic justification was the ongoing tradition, and that of St. Augustine, supposedly the great forerunner of Luther's "faith alone." Norman Geisler makes the exact same point:
For Augustine, justification included both the beginnings of one's righteousness before God and its subsequent perfection -- the event and the process. What later became the Reformation concept of 'sanctification' then is effectively subsumed under the aegis of justification. Although he believed that God initiated the salvation process, it is incorrect to say that Augustine held to the concept of 'forensic' justification. This understanding of justification is a later development of the Reformation . . .

Before Luther, the standard Augustinian position on justification stressed intrinsic justification. Intrinsic justification argues that the believer is made righteous by God's grace, as compared to extrinsic justification, by which a sinner is forensically declared righteous (at best, a subterranean strain in pre-Reformation Christendom). With Luther the situation changed dramatically . . .
. . . one can be saved without believing that imputed righteousness (or forensic justification) is an essential part of the true gospel. Otherwise, few people were saved between the time of the apostle Paul and the Reformation, since scarcely anyone taught imputed righteousness (or forensic justification) during that period! . . . . .
(Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, with Ralph E. MacKenzie, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1995, 502, 85, 222; emphasis in original)

Much the same demonstration can be made with regard to sola Scriptura and other Protestant distinctives. To summarize, then: the only (biblical, logical) way to determine heresy and orthodoxy is the historical criterion of apostolic succession. Any other method is circular, with no way to resolve competing claims.

Sola fide cannot be a legitimate development, because it is different in essence from infused justification. If some Reformed Protestants claim that our view is Pelagianism or a false gospel of works, etc. because of its difference from the Reformed extrinsic, forensic, external, imputed righteousness, then how can their view be said to be merely a "development" of ours, via Augustine and others?

A development cannot proceed from an entirely false view to a true one, or change in its essence. This violates the very definition of development, on any coherent theological view of what the word means. It is not simply random evolution or change, but consistent change: consistent with what has come before it, not radically divergent.

That would be like saying that orthodox Chalcedon trinitarianism could have "developed" from Arianism, Sabellianism, or Monophysitism. Therefore, sola fide must be considered as a corruption of Augustinian (and patristic) soteriology, because it is entirely novel in essential aspects, as my two Protestant citations showed.

St. Augustine rejected double predestination, perseverance, imputed justification, and accepted free will, sacramentalism, baptismal regeneration, the Real Presence of the Eucharist, the sacrifice of the Mass, the central authoritative roles of the Church and Tradition, as well as Scripture, the papacy, purgatory, penance, intercession of the saints, an exalted role of Mary, and human merit. In other words, he was a good Catholic. As if this were some amazing revelation . . . .

How, then, can a Reformed Protestant claim on the one hand that his views are descended from St. Augustine, yet on the other hand assert that Catholics are heretics, Pelagians, and adherents of a false, idolatrous gospel, for believing the same sort of things that St. Augustine also held? If I am a heretic and not a Christian, then neither was Augustine. If he was one, then so am I.

Without too much trouble, one can find Catholic distinctives in St. Augustine's classic, The City of God. For example, the great Doctor appears to be talking about purgatory in XX,25-26 (". . . at the judgment those who are worthy of such purification are to be purified even by fire; and after that there will be found in all the saints no sin at all . . . "). Cf. XXI,13.

He clearly rejects the Lutheran/Calvinist "bondage of the will" (V,10 and XII,7). He teaches the sacrifice of the Mass and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (X,5,20; XXI,25), baptismal regeneration (XIII,7; XX,6), development of doctrine (XVI,2), authoritative Tradition (XVIII,38), and prayers for the dead (XX,9; XXI,24).

How is it "outside" of God's working to simply reject His working? This is absolutely illogical and nonsensical. How does a prisoner's refusal to accept a governor's pardon somehow make the pardon null and void, or change the essence of the fact that the governor does all: all pardon comes from him, but a free agent can reject it if he so chooses? This is what Augustine states in City of God, V,10:

It does not follow, because God foreknew what would in the future be in our will, that there is nothing in the power of our will.

He doesn't create a false dichotomy, which is so characteristic of Protestant thought. He accepts the paradox and mystery (not contradiction) of divine sovereignty and human will, as Scripture also does.

Let me put it in capital letters: (in Catholic, Tridentine teaching) GOD DOES THE ENTIRE WORK OF GRACE AND JUSTIFICATION. MAN MERELY GOES ALONG WITH IT, OR REJECTS IT. Even merit is God rewarding His own gifts, as Augustine accurately puts it. God's grace is always primary and initiatory. Once one is walking in that grace, there is merit, yes, but it must also be understood as ultimately initiated and entirely caused by God.

Wednesday, October 06, 2004

"It was twenty years ago today . . . " (High Praise for my Wife Judy on our 20th Anniversary)

By Dave Armstrong (10-6-04)

20 years! It's unbelievable how one's perspective of time changes as you get into your 40s. 20 years now seems like 5 did when I was 20 or 25.

I think it is neat that today it is a sunny, gorgeous fall day in the Detroit area, with temperatures in the low 70s. This is exactly how it was on our wedding day. Then we went down to the Smoky Mountains for our honeymoon and hit the fall colors at exactly the peak. It was truly breathtaking and spectacular, and perfect for Autumn worshipers like we were then and now. We went hiking in the woods today in the middle of writing this. It was glorious. There are some great woods near Henry Ford's mansion, only a few miles from our house.

Where do I begin? This is my "open anniversary card" to my wonderful wife Judy. Usually, private cards are the norm, but once in a while I think it is appropriate to publicly sing praises to one's spouse and to share with the world the love and pride that you feel. I am delighted to do so.

I do love her with all my heart and consider myself a very happy man, and blessed to have such a woman for my wife. This was the second-best decision I ever made in my life (second after the God-ordained choice to become a serious disciple of Jesus in 1977). Judy is, I think, everything that God intended women to be: gentle, sweet, very compassionate towards others (when she hears of some tragedy, she will often start crying, even if it involves a stranger), understanding, exceedingly wise, yet innocent and childlike in exactly the right sense of those words, feminine, patient (after all, she lives with me!), a good listener, sympathetic, a lover of good art and music and nature, romantic (in all senses of the word), fun-loving, a marvelous mother, forgiving and merciful, soft-spoken, passionate and principled about Christian truths and beliefs. The list is endless.

What made me fall in love with Judy back in March of 1984 was (apart from her obvious beauty) the fact that she was a godly, caring woman (as seen in the above listed traits). That, to me, says it all. But there is a story here, and I would like to briefly recount it, because I think it might have some value for young people today who are in the process of selecting a lifelong mate.

Judy and I are very compatible and happily-married. We like so many of the same things, it is amazing. I'm not saying we have the perfect marriage, or trying to claim some great credit for ourselves. We both have faults (I am stubborn, too critical, often compulsive, a workaholic, and a creature of sometimes too-inflexible routine and habit, among many other faults, and my wife has a bit of a temper, though no one seems to know that except me :-), and we fight sometimes. But on the rare occasions that we do, we usually resolve it "before the sun goes down" (as the Bible recommends) and we are very careful not to lash out in those hurtful-type words that can cause long-lasting emotional damage, lodge in one's memory, and erode trust. Our "fights" are what many people would call merely "mild disagreements." We both know how to say we are sorry when we need to.

Our compatibility and happiness are not our own doing, or to our credit. All the glory goes to God. But it is true that we were both very careful in how we chose a marriage partner. Even that is by God's grace, yet God (in some mysterious way) gives us the freedom to choose, in matters of marriage as well as spirituality. As we look back, we think the "secret of our success" are the following factors:

1. We were platonic friends first, for a year-and-a-half.
2. We both prayed very hard for our mate, and didn't rush into a new "rebound" relationship after both of us had been hurt in previous relationships.
3. We both waited on God and for the right person, tried to trust Him, and were very selective; allowing God to guide and confirm the choice that we made. This involved a great deal of loneliness and hardship for both of us (believe me!), but it worked out in the end.
4. We didn't have sex until we were married.
5. A realization that what may appeal at first to our senses or in a purely erotic way may not always be the best choice in the long run.

These are all very difficult paths to follow; make no mistake about it. But we believe that this is how God designed the love and marriage relationship between a man and a woman. If you fall "madly" in love "head over heels" right away (#1), obviously you don't gain an accurate understanding of the nature and character of the person you may eventually intend to marry. You know: "love is blind." This is no way to enter into the possibility of one of the most important and far-reaching choices one makes in life. Now, granted, such things happen sometimes and we have relatively little control over them. Yet we can take steps to avoid a total domination of the powerful instincts of "new love." We have the power to limit time together and so forth, so that a more rational decision-making process can occur. Judy and I didn't have this "animal attraction" right away, as it happened. But as far as we are concerned, that was better. We got to know each other very well, and then the "serious / romantic" feelings and desires started to naturally follow.

The factors of #2 and #3 are related. We think it is supremely important to be willing to wait and suffer for the right person to come along, and to trust God for that eventuality. I KNOW how difficult this is. I lived it for many years (I had hardly any dates between my senior year in high school and age 25; I was so selective). I probably took the principle of "pickiness" too far, in retrospect, but I am still happy that I was too selective rather than not enough, so that I avoided possibly getting "hurt" and "burned" many times, or hurting someone else.

#4 is self-evident (or should be, but is less and less, these days, in our culture), and much has been written about it from a Christian perspective (see, e.g., my paper, "Dialogue: Is Premarital Sex Wrong?"). No one who is having sex with someone else is in any state of mind to make such a serious life-choice as marriage. Sex is too dominant and powerful to allow for rational deliberation. That's precisely why God designed it solely in the context of a lifelong, committed relationship, where it belongs. Apart from that, it is highly dangerous and destructive. Over 40 years of the vaunted sexual revolution has demonstrated that beyond any doubt, for all who care to see.

My only direct advice to young couples is to make sure you pick someone who shares your values in this regard. Otherwise, forget it. The temptation is too strong to be resisted unless both people are in absolute agreement that premarital sex is wrong. We know that very well from our own experience, because abstaining with someone I knew I was going to marry, in the passionate throes of young love, was perhaps the most difficult thing I have ever willingly chosen to do in my life (thus one I am quite proud of). C.S. Lewis wrote that it is the person who resists temptation who understands far more of its power than the one who readily gives into it.

The factor of #5 has caused much misery and unhappiness, I think. It is simply untrue that we can know that we are compatible with a person at first glance. Sexual attraction and "chemistry" and "hitting it off right away" are not the final barometers of "our type" of girl / guy. I know for a fact that the type of woman I am naturally attracted to (the very outgoing, vivacious, "bubbly" type) would not have been the kind of personality that works best with me in a marriage situation. Given the choice on my own, apart from the more serious considerations above, I would have chosen that type of personality, but I am convinced that I wouldn't have been nearly as happy. This holds for me alone, with my own particular temperament and personality and lifestyle. Everyone has to determine this for themselves. But I have often heard that we ought to get to know a person for at least a year until we can conclude that we know them very well at all. After all, everyone "puts their best foot forward" at first in relationships. That is not a reliable guide for what a person will be like 10, 20 years down the line.

I hope my "preaching" is not taken the wrong way. I'm just trying to share a few things that I think I have learned about love and marriage, by God's grace, in order to perhaps help a few young couples avoid needless hurt, misery, and heartbreak. No one seems to talk very much about these things, but I think they are extremely important, because a wrong choice in this area can have the effect of changing one's entire life, and determining whether it will be essentially a "happy" or an "unhappy" one -- at least in terms of the marriage relationship and related family matters. I am convinced, more than anything else, that to achieve such happiness, one must choose the person who is best for their particular personality and compatible in all the important areas: religious commitment (above all), attitude towards children and child-rearing, interests, moral values, attitude towards money and life goals, etc.

Getting back to praising my lovely wife Judy; I want to publicly thank her and express my gratefulness for some things that I appreciate the most about her. First of all, she is wonderfully understanding. This means everything to me, as a person who often felt misunderstood, growing up, and even too often in adulthood. Being misunderstood has always been a heavy cross for me to bear (and I think it is for many). We all need someone who will truly know us (the real "us": with the good and the bad, not just a "yes man" or an enabler), and not have any number of misconceptions and false notions in their head about us. I wouldn't trade that for anything.

No matter what anyone else wrongly thinks (and I get my fair share of bum raps in my line of work, because I oppose a lot of false ideas and people don't care for that), I know that at least one person in the world really does deeply know me and love me as I am, with an unconditional love. God does, too, of course, but we need human beings to also do so. And it is also all the more special when the one who understands you the most is the one who knows you far better than anyone else: the one with whom you share all of yourself and your deepest desires, fears, and aspirations.

The second thing I am deeply grateful for is Judy's correct understanding of the whole vexed issue of the "headship of the husband." This has never been a "big deal" for us because we get along so smoothly and easily. We always do things as partners. We don't force each other to do anything, and we are secure enough to let the other do what they want, without fear and mistrust. It is voluntary cooperation and working together. I understand that some (many?) couples are not as compatible as we are (we are blessed in that way), and that this wouldn't be nearly as easy for them, as more disagreements arise. But that is the case in our marriage, and I am very glad about it. She respects me as the husband, and that is how God designed marriage (as revealed in the Bible); it's how the so-called "male ego" works.

It's not a silly "the guy's always right, no matter what" scenario -- far from it -- but rather (to briefly express a very important aspect of men), a respect that men need in order to be men. There is a reason that the Bible states, "Wives, be subject to your husbands" (Ephesians 5:22), and "Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her" (Eph 5:25). This is not a stupid, rationalized, male chauvinist domination; it is simply an acknowledgement of the reality of God-created gender: men and women are surprise!) ontologically different, and don't have identical needs and strengths. We complement each other and make each other whole and complete.

In the same passage (as Pope John Paul II has often pointed out), Paul also teaches us to "Be subject to one another out of reverence to Christ" (Eph 5:21). After all, husbands and wives are fellow believers in Christ in relation to each other, before they are man and wife. The idea is to approach each other in Christian love and self-sacrifice, with all that that entails (1 Corinthians 13, etc.). Men are not to "Lord it over" their wives. Quite the contrary; St. Paul writes: "Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies . . . For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church" (Eph 5:28-29). So the basis of proper love of a wife rests on the two principles of 1) the analogy of Christ and His Church, and 2) the analogy to the natural love of self.

My friend Al Kresta has a delightful way of expressing how God intends for this to work. He says that if a man foolishly says something to his wife, like, "submit, woman!" that the wife ought to shoot back with "get crucified, buddy!" The man actually has a harder task, since he is commanded to be like Christ, whereas the wife is commanded to simply submit. It comes down to, again, the selection of a mate. No woman would object to a man who acted like our Lord Jesus Christ more often than not. The point is to find the right man, then the often-dreaded and disparaged "submission" is no problem at all. That's how God designed it.

The third area where I deeply love and respect Judy is her skills as a wonderful mother and homeschooler. I see my four children developing every day in godliness and character, and I know this is mostly due to her, since she is with them more than I am, as the teacher. As they say, the father may be said to be the "head" of the household, but the mother is its "heart" and "soul."
Fourth, I admire her strength and perseverance. Judy has a meek and mild temperament (phlegmatic, according to the classic four temperaments). But (like Jesus Himself) this is not to be mistaken for weakness or "being taken advantage of." We have done many things in our married life which were "nonconformist" or considered "radical" (or worse, by some of our critics). These include homeschooling, involvement in the pro-life activism of Operation Rescue (1988-1990), my leaving a full-time job and entering full-time campus ministry in May 1985, as a Protestant, choosing to go on a sugar-free diet (in 1984), and converting to Catholicism in 1990. In each case we were in full agreement.

Apparently, some folks can't comprehend that a couple would agree on such things, and falsely assume that one must be "forcing" the other to do what they really don't want to do. This wasn't the case with Judy (and I am not a person who "forces" anyway: I'm quite easy-going and soft-spoken: I am a melancholy / phlegmatic temperament). She enthusiastically agreed on all these things. It is no "weak" person who would sit at abortion clinics to block the doors so some preborn babies can live and not be slaughtered, or who would go witnessing on the streets of inner-city Detroit (not to mention childbirth!). And when we disagreed for a short time on whether to home-school or not (I wasn't as enthusiastic about it), she didn't try to quarrel and nag in order to get her way. She prayed and waited and used persuasion and I eventually came around.
Lastly, tied into this has been her total willingness to support my vocation as an apologist and evangelist, from the beginning, which has involved tremendous financial sacrifices and insecurities, waiting many years to be published, terrible misunderstandings and even betrayals in some cases, conflict with one Protestant congregation, petty jealousies, slander at times, lack of support when promised it (both by individuals and churches), a few lost friendships, and so forth. It is no picnic. She has always absolutely believed (as I do) that I was called by God to do this work. It may be a cliche, but there is no way I could have endured the frustrations and disappointments and stress that has come with this work without Judy. I would have quit long ago (especially if I knew beforehand what it would entail).

In fact, in 1988 when I was struggling as an evangelical campus missionary and apologist (I finally was basically forced by circumstances to give up in late 1989, and felt that I had been a complete failure with no future to speak of, and no other career aspirations, at age 31), I went through a significant depression. 

I would have certainly thrown in the towel at that time, except for Judy's encouragement and confirmation that I was called to do what I was doing, and had to persevere, no matter what. Little did I know that God's plan for me was to convert to Catholicism and to (slowly, over years) begin my apologetic career anew. Even then it was no bed of roses. We have been through many difficulties and great disappointments. But through it all, Judy has always believed in what I was doing with all her heart. She doesn't do all this because she "has" to, or because of some imagined coercion that I put onto her (as some husbands do). It is her free choice, and she doesn't believe in forsaking a path that has been made clear through God's guidance and discernment of His will by many means. She's not a quitter; she's in it for the long haul.

This is of incalculable, priceless worth for anyone in Christian ministry. You don't have to waste resources of emotion and energy fighting half the time with your spouse. That's all settled, and when trials come, they can be endured together as partners who willingly endure it for the sake of the Kingdom.

These are some of the reasons I love my wife Judy so much. I truly believe she is the best woman in the whole world (at least "for me," if we must qualify that), and I can't imagine being married to anyone else. I am very thankful to God for the privilege and joy of being married to such a woman, and to be able to raise our four precious children and go through life together. Suffering and tribulations will come (and they have in our lives, for sure), but it is a lot easier to endure them with a true partner and soulmate.

I wish my beautiful wife Judy the happiest of anniversaries. I love you with all my heart and soul, and thank you so much for putting up with this poor sinner and all my "shenanigans" (as I half-jokingly say to her), and sharing your life with me.

Thursday, September 30, 2004

The Freedom of the Catholic Biblical Exegete

By Dave Armstrong (9 May 2002). 
Addendum: 14 September 2003.

Contrary to the bogus claims of some Protestant polemicists I have run across (particularly, Frank Turk, aka "centuriOn"), Catholics are not at all obliged to read the New American Bible translation (nor the revised English Vulgate, such as the Ronald Knox translation). My own preferred translation is the Revised Standard Version (RSV), which has been approved in a Catholic edition with extremely few clarifications (I think it is only something like three passages that were deemed too biased to be acceptable to Catholics). I read the whole Bible (twice) as a Protestant in the NASB and KJV. I enjoy Phillips, NEB, Williams, and Barclay for paraphrased versions, and the NKJV is pretty cool too (I like the old KJV style, but purged of archaisms).

Pulling out my (dusty) copy of the NAB with the revised 1986 NT (Nelson, 1987), with the imprimatur (which doesn't, sadly, always mean that much, anymore), I cite the preliminary article, "The Purpose of the Bible" (p. xii):

When Pius XII issued his Encyclical 'Divino Afflante Spiritu' in 1943, the door was opened for new Catholic translations that were not dependent on St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate. Because of the great increase in the knowledge of the ancient biblical languages, official translations directly from them were encouraged . . . The Revised Standard Version is the least interpretative of all . . . The Jerusalem Bible and the New English Bible strive for even more contemporary language . . . The New American Bible . . . is the first American Catholic translation to have been based on the original languages, or on the earliest existing form of the text, rather than on the Vulgate.
Pope Pius XII, in the above-mentioned 1943 papal encyclical, writes:

Nor is it forbidden by the decree of the Council of Trent to make translations into the vulgar tongue, even directly from the original texts themselves . . .

Being thoroughly prepared by the knowledge of the ancient languages and by the aids afforded by the art of criticism, let the Catholic exegete undertake the task, of all those imposed on him the greatest, that, namely of discovering and expounding the genuine meaning of the Sacred Books. In the performance of this task let the interpreters bear in mind that their foremost and greatest endeavor should be to discern and define clearly that sense of the biblical words which is called literal.

(sections 22, end, and 23, beginning)

Likewise, Vatican II, Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum):

Access to sacred Scripture ought to be wide open to the Christian faithful . . . the Church, with motherly concern, sees to it that suitable and correct translations are made into various languages, especially from the original texts of the sacred books. If it should happen that . . . these translations are made in a joint effort with the separated brethren, they may be used by all Christians.

(ch. 6, sec. 22)

So that takes care of use of different translations. Nor do Catholics have to interpret every verse of the Bible according to some dogmatic proclamation of the Church. This is another ridiculous (and highly-annoying) myth that we hear from our esteemed Protestant friends all the time. Indeed, the orthodox, faithful Catholic must interpret doctrines he derives from Scripture in accordance with the Church and Tradition, but so what?

Every Protestant does the same thing within their own denominational tradition. No Five-Point Calvinist can find a verse in the Bible which proves apostasy or falling away, or one which teaches God's desire for universal, rather than limited atonement (and there are many such passages). He can't deny Total Depravity in any text, or Irresistible Grace. We all have orthodox and dogmatic boundaries which we abide by. The Catholic exegete is bound by very little, and has virtually as much freedom of inquiry as the Protestant exegete. The online (1910) Catholic Encyclopedia article on "Biblical Exegesis" states:

(a) Defined Texts

The Catholic commentator is bound to adhere to the interpretation of texts which the Church has defined either expressly or implicitly. The number of these texts is small, so that the commentator can easily avoid any transgression of this principle.

Catholics are allowed to translate from the Greek, according to the latest textual and archaeological knowledge, to use different translations, and to even cooperate in ecumenical translation projects, such as the RSV and NEB. We can do all the stuff that Protestant biblical exegetes do. And I am allowed to freely interpret almost any text on its own, provided I don't go against a dogma of the Church (I couldn't, e.g., say that John 1:1 does not teach the deity and Godhood of Jesus).


(from Catholic Answers)

Scripture Passages Definitively Interpreted by the Church

Many people think the Church has an official "party line" about every sentence in the Bible. In fact, only a handful of passages have been definitively interpreted. The Church does interpret many passages in Scripture to guide her teaching. Other passages are used as the starting point and support of doctrine or moral teaching, but only these few have been "defined" in the strict sense of the word. Even in these few cases the Church is only defending traditional doctrine and morals.

It is important to realize that the parameters set by the definitions are all negative, that is, they point out what cannot be denied about the meaning of a passage but do not limit how much more the passage can be interpreted to say. In other words, the Church condemns denials of a specific interpretation of the text, without condemning meanings over and above but not contradictory to it.

All of the following passages were definitively interpreted by the Church at the Council of Trent, for each has to do with justification or the sacraments, issues that divided Catholics and Protestants.

1. John 3:5 "Unless a man is born of water and Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God."

The Church condemned the denial that the words of Jesus mean that real (natural) water must be used for a valid baptism. At the time, the Anabaptists contended that water baptism was unnecessary because the mention of water was merely a metaphor. Other symbolic meanings in addition to the literal sense of real water can be found in the text, perhaps, but none are acceptable that deny the need for real water at baptism.

2. Luke 22:19 and
3. I Corinthians 11:24-- "Taking the bread, he gave thanks, broke it and gave it to them, saying 'This is my body given for you: do this in remembrance of me."

The Church condemned the interpretation of these passages that denied that Jesus, in commanding his apostles to "Do this in memory of me" after instituting the Eucharist, conferred priestly ordination on them and their successors enabling them to offer His body and blood. More could be understood by the command to do this in remembrance, but that much could not be denied or contradicted by other interpretations.

4. John 20:22-23-- "Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you shall forgive, they areforgiven; whose sins you do not forgive, they are not forgiven," and
5. Matthew 18:18-- "Whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

The Church condemned the denial that in these two passages Jesus conferred a power exclusively on the apostles authorizing them and their successors in the priestly office to forgive sins in God's name, and condemned the proposal that everyone could forgive sins in this sense.

6. Romans 5:12-- "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned..."

The Church condemned the denial of original sin to which all mankind is subject and which baptism remits, citing this passage to be understood in that sense.

7. James 6:14-- "Is anyone of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord."

Definitively interpreting these passages, the Church condemned the denial that the sacrament of the anointing of the sick was instituted by Christ and promulgated by the apostles against those who deemed it a human invention of the later Church.

In addition, the decree of Vatican I about Christ establishing Peter as head of the Church -- which cites Mt 16:16 and John 1:42 -- is a defined doctrine, even though the phrasing about the use and interpretation of the scripture cited is more implicit than explicit, by comparison with the above Scripture passages.

Oral vs. Written Apologetic Debates: Which Format is More Substantive?

By Dave Armstrong (January 2001) 

Elsewhere, I have explained in great detail why I think that public oratorical debates between Catholics and anti-Catholics are unfruitful, unhelpful exercises, for many reasons. I collected my thoughts on the topic in my paper: "Interacting With Sophists: Reflections on "Debates" With Anti-Catholic Polemicists." I think it is possible to overcome these pitfalls in written exchanges. My view of such public debates has remained constant for at least five years now.

I refused "King James" White when he challenged me to a live oratorical formal debate in 1995 (yes, he asked me first -- I have the snail mail letter), and also when he asked me again in January 2001. My reasons are laid out in the paper cited above ("Interacting With Sophists . . . "). I think it is past strange myself that anyone who writes and/or has a book published would frown upon written exchanges, while glorifying these largely farcical, propagandistic, sloganistic circuses which pass for "public debate." Different strokes, though, I guess. Two Protestant researchers who run anti-Catholic "ministries"/websites have expressed this opinion to me; both also declined my invitation to do a "live chat" in an IRC Internet room.

If a person is unwilling to subject their views to scrutiny I am not particularly impressed (to understate it). I think all solid views must be subjected to criticism and analysis, and I am always willing to allow my own writings to be so examined. That's the dialogical spirit; that is being open-minded, and willing to change one's own viewpoint, as warranted (or, at the very least, to modify one's own particular opinions where errors are pointed out -- as I have done many times, to the extent of even removing papers from my website on several occasions).

Imagine if the academic world restricted itself to the "canned" and artificial, self-serving, "anti-humble" atmosphere of oral "debates." Every critique of some new paper would have to be in an oral debate with zealous partisans on both sides "rah-rah"-ing and eating popcorn. LOL In my opinion, that would make a mockery of the very enterprise of the exchange of ideas and the academic undertaking of expanding our intellectual horizons. Yet some now want to frown upon written dialogue (Plato would be surprised to hear that) altogether. I find that very odd. In effect, this means that none of their views can be scrutinized except in a public debate. That is not a willingness to be examined. For my part, I now have 251 debates on my website, where everyone can read the other side of any given issue and make up their own minds. That reaches many thousands more than public debates do, I think.

As a related aside, I have always held that degrees and credentials (though I respect them very much and have a B.A. of my own - sociology/psychology with much history and philosophy) amount to little if one has no coherent case in the first place. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. And anti-Catholicism is nothing if not self-defeating and utterly illogical (and often radically unbiblical as well as a-historical) from A to Z, as I have pointed out at great length, in many ways. Even Einstein wouldn't be able to convince anyone that 2 + 2 did not equal 4. His brilliance cannot overcome the truth. And an imbecile or a trained parrot can say "2 + 2 = 4" and the truth will be just as profound and irrefutable as if a genius had uttered it. Truth is truth, and it has its own inherent power, and glory from God, Who is Truth.

It is said that in a public, oral debate, obfuscation, or "muddying the waters" is minimized by the other person's ability to correct errors immediately, and to "call" the opponent on this, that, or the other fact or argument. But this assumes that immediate, spur-of-the-moment corrections are more compelling than a correction which resulted from hours of careful research with primary sources, Scripture, etc. Weird . . .

Funny, too, that Protestants are the ones so devoted to "written only" in their notion of sola Scriptura, whereas when we jump up to the present day they reverse that principle and wish to switch over to "oral Tradition," so to speak.

It is said that in a live oral debate, factors are present to prevent tangents and rabbit trails. Yet there is not much to prevent various rhetorical tricks and "ambushing" tactics. E.g., in my brief live chat with Bishop James White (though I did think it was a good exchange overall, and I enjoyed it) he immediately confronted me with dense, historically complex claims about the Fathers and what they believed about Mary. I did my best "on my feet," but I replied that if I had to come up with a list of fathers who denied the sinlessness of Mary, that would take a little time, as I didn't have a source at my fingertips (and looking for one would bore the observers). Someone later described this technique perfectly as "quotes without quoting."

That is the sort of tactic and strategy which I find very annoying and unfair, bordering on unethical in some instances. Clearly, spontaneous, unexpected questions about patristic consensus, so-and-so's views on x, y, and z and so forth are much more appropriate either for experts in that area, or for written papers, where the non-expert and non-historian has the time to look up the sources from people who do study this for a living.

It is said that live oral debates are a better use of time; that things can be said quicker than they can in writing. But I respond that truth takes time to find and communicate. Propaganda, on the other hand (such as the norm of today's political rhetoric) is very easy to quickly spout. Evangelicalism lends itself far more easily to shallow rhetoric and slogans; Catholicism does not. It is complex, nuanced, and requires much thought and study. And thought takes time, no matter how you slice the cake. Again, truth and the acquisition of knowledge and wisdom requires time. I understand if someone doesn't have that time: we all struggle with prioritizing. We all do what we can do, hopefully devoting time to theology as our Lord makes a way, within the pressures of daily living (turning off the idiot box as much as possible, etc.). But that is a separate issue: time pressures vs. the relative constructiveness of writing vs. speaking. Apples and oranges.

It is claimed that there is more interest in oral public debates. I'm not so sure about that, especially with the advent of the Internet, but perhaps this is true. In any event, that has no bearing on my own objections. It is not public debate per se I am opposed to, but the perversion of it by unworthy tactics and methods, which is the usual result when one is dealing with anti-Catholics. So I am actually supporting what I consider to be true debate, not the pale imitations of it which pass for "debates."

It is asserted that it's harder to get away with lies and half-truths in the public arena. Quite the contrary, I would maintain; it is much easier to disinform and misinform, because one can put up an appearance of confidence and truth very easily, through rhetorical technique, catch-phrases, cleverness, playing to the crowd, etc. (like Jesse Jackson or "slick" Bill Clinton habitually do, or guys like Hitler, who were quite spectacular orators). These things are by no means as "certain" as avid proponents of oral debate make them out to be.

It is said that evasion and switching topics occurs much more in written exchanges, and cannot be pulled off in oral debates. Well, I do admit that this happens, and indeed I looked forward to that aspect in my "live chat" (in my opinion, more like a public oral debate than a written exchange, even though carried on in writing) with Bishop White. I asked him to name me one Church Father who knew what all 27 New Testament books were, in the first three centuries. He could not, and cited Athanasius, whom -- I pointed out -- came to the age of reason in the 4th century (c. 296-373), as I am sure he is well aware.

This was an analogical response to his demand of me to name names of fathers who believed Mary was sinless. He named me four eastern fathers who denied this and claimed this proved a patristic consensus. I challenged him (he being supposedly far more versed in the fathers than I, and a credentialed scholar) to give me some western fathers. First he cited St. Anselm (c. 1033-1109), who, of course, though western, was not a Church Father. More rhetorical and desperate silliness . . . .

Later he came up with Hilary and Tertullian, and expected me to respond on the spot, as if I were a patristic scholar (so much for the inherent superiority of oral debate). So I asked if this was from Tertullian's Montanist period. He did not answer, but cited his work The Flesh of Christ as the primary source. Later, I looked it up and, sure enough, it is from his semi-Montanist period. Hilary made his claim once and very mildly, according to Luigi Gambero (a priest with background in philosophy and also author of a 4-volume work on Marian thought), in his book Mary and the Fathers of the Church (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999, 186).

So we have one western father in a very subdued fashion, and another in his heretical period, plus four eastern fathers. This is what James White considers a "patristic consensus." I find that a pathetic argument, and I think I did pretty well, given the ridiculous limitations of the situation I was in, forced to name a bunch of names when I had already made it clear that I couldn't cut-and-paste while in his chat room. But names there assuredly are. I believe I did pretty well, given that White is considered a master of live debate, and I confine myself almost exclusively to writing (but I think fast on my feet, I think). He was trapped by the facts of history, not any rhetorical brilliance on my part. This example, in my opinion, demonstrates clearly the limitations of this "spontaneous exchange" -- supposedly so superior to writing and hard, well thought-out and documented research.

It's true that people abuse written dialogue just as they do oral. I have no problem agreeing about that (it's self-evident). Good dialogue, in whatever form, is always a rare thing, to be treasured when found. But in public oral debate the debater always has to be right; he can never admit he is wrong because that would not "go with the program." But there's no shame in that.

I attended a debate between Dave Hunt and Karl Keating, have listened to other similar ones, and have also attended political debates and creationist-evolutionist ones. I know the atmosphere very well. I am also thoroughly familiar with how anti-Catholics conduct themselves on lists and bulletin boards. These opinions do not arise from nothingness; they are backed up with scores of experiences (and wounds, in some extreme cases).

It is stated (by anti-Catholics) that Catholics don't fare well in public oral debates. Under my thesis, I could readily agree with that. It is true that the Catholic faith is not conducive to an environment where sophistical carnival-barker, used-car salesman types try to distort, twist, and misrepresent it at every turn (and this need not be deliberate at all: it matters not -- the end result is the same). Nor is it required of us to engage unworthy, uninformed opponents. Bishop James White (on his website) recounted how R.C. Sproul told him that he thought all Catholics were unworthy to debate. If one such as Sproul (whom I admire and like very much, by the way) can take such a view, why can we not take precisely the same view with regard to anti-Catholic debaters?

Wednesday, September 29, 2004

The Importance of Studying Luther / The Inevitability of Protestant Tradition and "Human" Authority

By Dave Armstrong (9-29-04)

Steve (Catholic -- words in red) wrote:

This seems to be the summary of the argument between Catholic and Protestant views of Luther:

C: Luther was a flawed and complex character therefore one should not trust his theological pronouncements and certainly not follow him out of the Church

That's not my perspective (but there is some overlap). First of all, I am interested in Martin Luther, because I am interested in Church history, and particularly history of doctrine, and Luther is obviously a key figure in that regard. He is an influential figure; therefore it is worthwhile to better understand his reasoning and viewpoints. He's also the founder of Protestantism. In my mind, it is self-evident why it is important to study Luther.

As to the sainthood bit, the Bible has definite, rigorous requirements for being a bishop. Luther in effect claimed much more for himself than that. He claimed to be a Reformer of the whole Church and restorer of the primitive purity of the gospel of the early Church. My Bible (over against the attempt of many Protestants try to rationalize and dismiss Luther's flaws as irrelevant) tells me that wisdom and righteousness go hand in hand. This is why Catholic reformers are almost always saints as well, because a great deal of truth and wisdom is accompanied by strength of character, virtue, and sanctity, which God grants by His grace along with the truths that a person brings to light.

This being the case, I do think a certain problem needs to be faced. Luther founded Protestantism and gave it most of its distinctive doctrines and approaches. If we can show that he had a lot of kooky and untrue views, and curious reasoning, this is highly relevant, because (again, whatever Protestants say), he was the one who started the wheels of Protestantism in motion, and if the foundation is weak, chances are that the superstructure built upon it will be also.

P: Luther was a flawed and complex character as we all are therefore we can take heart and learn from his struggles for sanctity and the solutions he came up with.

Protestants are so often blind to the pedigree of their own ideas. Studying Luther and Calvin (and Zwingli and Bucer and Bullinger and the early Anglicans, and the Anabaptists) helps all of us to better understand why and how Protestantism got to where it is today. Many Protestants like to play the game that they have no tradition at all, and that they are simply returning to the Bible, etc., etc. I could write for days about the resulting absurdities of this tunnel vision outlook.

The Catholic will play up Luther's flaws to press his point while the Protestant will acknowledge the flaws but place them in the context of a greater interior spiritual struggle.

If they do it in the more sophisticated way I have been arguing, it is valid, I think. One can't say, "see, Luther was a scoundrel; therefore, Protestantism is false." That's ridiculous. I don't even argue that he was a scoundrel. I don't believe it (though I have huge problems with some things he did and said). But it is a sound argument to say that "Luther had some goofy ideas which cannot be squared with the Bible, the early Church, or reason; therefore, we can question whether his views are automatically superior to the Catholic ones, a return to the early Church, more biblical, etc." That moves the discussion to another more complex, nuanced (and I would say, "real") plane, forcing the Protestant to re-examine his presuppositions (which they are rarely challenged to do).

In my opinion this argument will never go anywhere.

As you characterize it, you are right. But my own treatment of Luther is based on a much different rationale and premise.

To quote Louis Bouyer:

It is a typical mistake of Catholics to think that Protestants, particularly those most attached to their heritage, look on Luther as a saint… Luther is not looked on as a model in every detail of his life and teaching, but only in the manner which, at a certain period of his life, he resolved a particular spiritual problem.
Of course they don't think he was a saint. They don't get into saints, because they see that as a detraction from a focus on God, the giver of all holiness and sanctity (it isn't, of course, anymore than appreciating a great painting is an insult to the painter). I used to be a Protestant, so I know this full well.

Luther was a great hero of mine. Many Protestants think the same (they do believe in heroes, if not saints). And he is the hero precisely because they think (to more or less degrees, depending on whether they are anti-Catholic or ecumenical) that he "rescued" Christianity from the darkness of Catholicism. He stood up to the great Beast and told it the truth. So he is very highly regarded by those who have any historical sense at all and sense of their own spiritual heritage.

For example, in my recent research, I recall a quote by a Protestant scholar who said that it was good that Luther had so many faults, because he was in danger of idolizing him -- he admired him so much. This hit the nail on the head. It's not a "veneration of the saint" thing, but it is most definitely a "tremendous admiration for the reformer of [so-called] corrupt Catholic Church" thing.

And because of this there is a lot of mythology and misinformation about Luther. This is another reason I do what I do. If the situation is such that all you hear about is all this wonderful stuff about Luther and hardly any criticisms, then there must be some balance.

My papers provide that by giving the other "side" of the story: the perception of the same man and the same life through Catholic eyes. That is a service to folks who care about these issues in the same way that a conservative political commentary balances a liberal one (this was expressed to me, in fact, by a Baptist pastor friend of mine who had a large impact on my spiritual life in the early 80s -- he appreciated my work even though he disagreed because he wanted to hear how a Catholic thought about Luther, and why). Both sides have their natural biases, but by carefully considering both, one can perhaps figure out where the truth lies.

So again, the issue isn't whether Luther was a saint or not (he clearly wasn't! And he would be the first to admit that), so much as it is his basis for his radical innovations, and whether it is plausible to simply believe a man like him (indeed, any man) when he is in confrontation with a lot of received Christian tradition (and literally change Catholic dogmas because he denounced them). In any event, the bottom line is the ideas, not him. Are they true or false, and on what basis?

So in my paper on Luther and the canon, I tried to demonstrate that it was outrageous to accept what he said over against tradition, and that he hardly had any reasoning in the first place to do so, other than the fact that he held the views as some quasi-prophet with a particular line to God and the truth (which he did claim at times; I can document that, too). He did not have adequate reasoning and support at all, and that is part of the Catholic critique of the whole notion of so-called Protestant "reformers."

They did NOT have any authority to overturn Catholic Tradition. They were not reformers in the sense that they simply returned to views of the early Church that had supposedly become corrupted by Catholicism [i.e., those where the two parties differ]. Rather, they were revolutionaries when they introduced doctrines that had never historically been held (e.g., symbolic baptism and Eucharist, faith alone, sola Scriptura, imputed justification, denial of apostolic succession, denigration of Church authority and Sacred Tradition, rejection of five of seven sacraments and communion of saints, purgatory, penance, the papacy, episcopacy, etc., etc. ad nauseam). Thankfully, they also retained the "basics" of Christianity, where we can agree, but there was a lot of radicalism indeed in the early days.

Alexander (Calvinist -- words in blue) wrote:

I second the Louis Bouyer quote above. Protestants don't care about personalities, we care about the Word of God.

Yeah, so do we. That's precisely why I have examined Luther and found him wanting on many levels and areas. Not only by biblical standards does he fall short, but also on an historical and rational basis. All Christians love the Word of God, but we can't manage to agree as to what doctrine and theology it teaches, can we?

In the case of my discussion of the canon, that is a problem that cannot be resolved by the Bible at all, because the Bible never lists its Table of Contents. The canon is logically prior to the Bible, because it determines the extent and specificity of what books are in what we call "the Bible" in the first place. So the "Word of God" doesn't do much good there, does it? Christian Tradition has to decide. And for a Christian worldview that does not allow for an infallible Tradition, that is a HUGE problem indeed, and at the level of the very fundamentals of Protestantism: you can't have sola Scriptura if you don't have a non-circular, non-traditional rationale to determine what the Bible is that is to have sole infallible authority. I've always said that sola Scriptura and the canon issue are the two "Achilles' Heels of Protestantism.

Our authority doesn't come from a human personality but from the Word of God.

That's impossible to do (in a practical sense). The book doesn't interpret itself (though Protestants claim that it does). Furthermore, this "Bible vs. authoritative human beings in the Church" mentality is not the view of the Bible itself, which refers to Church authority and a binding tradition. So (ironically) to claim to be following simply the "Bible Alone" is to land right back into a Catholic notion of ecclesiology and authority. It's inescapable.

For Roman Catholics authority comes from humans, so they assume a Luther or Calvin to be a rich target to exploit when attempting to discredit Protestant beliefs or doctrine.

Every Christian tradition is passed down through men. We freely acknowledge this. You and many Protestants want to play the silly game of pretending that you rely on no human authority. You certainly do. I can trace every belief you have back through some theological and/or denominational tradition. It always breaks down at a certain point. The question always reduces to: which Christian tradition has the most plausible claims of authority (because everyone has to choose some humanly-mediated tradition, or their own new tradition-of-one)?

Due to the Protestant experience of effectual calling and belief in the Word of God as sole authority

This is a distortion of the classic Protestant understanding of sola Scriptura (and is more accurately described as SOLO Scriptura). In the former conception, Scripture was the sole infallible or ultimate authority, but not the sole authority, period.

most every 'attack' from Roman Catholics can usually only be met with a bemused grin.

Go ahead, try to avoid this discussion and grin if you must. That won't give anyone any confidence in your position who doesn't already accept it on some other basis.

God has His elect. All we can say to those who don't understand what Protestants know is faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. Humble yourself before the Word of God. Engage it, absorb it, don't negotiate it down to your level. Leave your self-will, vanity, and worldly pride aside when you open the pages of Scripture…

Thanks for the platitudes. It doesn't move the discussion along one whit. People on my blog cannot get by simply on preaching. Their premises and presuppositions will be challenged and I expect folks to be able to defend themselves or else have the honesty to question their own belief-system if it can't withstand scrutiny.

I as a Protestant don't care what Luther said about this or that, including his opinion - historically accurate or not - of any one book of the Bible.

That's typical of the rampant a-historicism in Protestantism. I could even argue that I have far more respect and admiration for Luther than you do, because I care enough about him to grant him his historical importance and do a great deal of research about him (which is, by the way, not always critical; many times it is in agreement or a defense of Luther). But if you claim you don't care about Luther, it is still true that you got your own particular tradition from somewhere, just like everyone else. There is that famous saying, "the most dangerous philosophy is the unacknowledged one." Substitute "theology" for "philosophy" and we have what you and many Protestants try to do: pretend that theological truth descended from on high right from God to them in their atomistic bubble: completely immune from all historical, traditional, or personal influences. It's sheer nonsense and a pipe-dream.

When a Calvin or a Luther were right they was elucidating pure Biblical doctrine.

How do you know when they are right and wrong? By what criterion do you decide? The Bible? How do you know who is right about the Bible when different Protestants disagree? By the "inner witness" of the Spirit? Now we are back to pure subjectivism again . . . But that was where Calvin was ultimately coming from, so we expect it from one who writes in his name; from his particular Christian tradition.

When they were off (as in Calvin's case in his ecclesiology as many Protestants discern) Protestants, the many who disagreed with him there, followed their understanding and conscience.

Yes, exactly. Well, the Bible you and I both love and desire to accept and to model our Christian lives after, tells me that the devil is the father of lies. Whenever two Protestant traditions contradict each other, someone MUST be wrong, by simple logic. They may both be wrong, but they can't both be right, so someone is in serious error. Now that (error) is from the devil, who is the father of all lies and falsehood, and that ought to trouble you. But instead you can bask in the sunny seclusion of exclusive "certainty" and possession of truth, and "know" that you are right and they are wrong. That's not the biblical view of authority and spiritual certainty, needless to say, and certainly not how the Body of Christ is supposed to work, according to that same Holy Bible.

Saturday, September 25, 2004

Luther's Outrageous Assertions About Certain Biblical Books (Protestant Scholars' Opinions and "Debate" With John Warwick Montgomery)

By Dave Armstrong (9-25-04)

Martin Luther's words will be in either blue (first portion) or red (second portion)

* * * * *


Historian Preserved Smith writes (emphasis added):
But Luther was not the man to be bound by his own rule; few of his followers have ever interpreted, commented on, and criticized the Bible with the freedom habitual to him. The books he judged according as they appealed to his own subjective nature, or according to his spiritual needs. He often exercised his reason in determining the respective worth of the several books of the Bible, and in a way which has been confirmed to a surprising degree by subsequent researches. He denied the Mosaic authorship of part of the Pentateuch; he declared Job to be an allegory; Jonah was so childish that he was almost inclined to laugh at it; the books of Kings were "a thousand paces ahead of Chronicles and more to be believed." “Ecclesiastes has neither boots nor spurs, but rides in socks, as I did when I was in the cloister."
(Smith, 268)
The Lutheran scholar and Luther expert Paul Althaus, observed, similarly:
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.

(Althaus, 85, 336)
The latter paragraph is, of course, circular reasoning. "God's word" presupposes certain books in the Bible which make up its contents. The Bible doesn't list its own books. Therefore, any canon must necessarily involve "ecclesiastical tradition" (whether Luther likes that or not) and the Bible alone cannot resolve the question. Luther chooses to ditch longstanding apostolic Tradition regarding the canon, and substitutes his own judgments as to the sub-canonicity or quasi-canonicity of four New Testament books.


This was so radical that virtually no Protestants have ever accepted it, and even his own Lutheran successors (Melanchthon, Chemnitz, and the confessional Book of Concord) rejected it.
Lutheran Mark F. Bartling (WELS), in his informative paper, Luther and James: Did Luther Use the Historical-Critical Method?, although unwilling to grant that Luther's view amounted to subjectivism, arbitrariness, and liberal higher criticism, nevertheless, stated:
It must be admitted that Luther did develop a personal criterion of canonicity that took its place along side of apostolicity and universality (those books unanimously accepted by the early church, homologoumena) . . . It was, of all people, Carlstadt who condemned Luther for this criterion. Carlstadt said: "One must appeal either to known apostolic authorship or to universal historical acceptance as to the test of a book’s canonicity, not to internal doctrinal considerations." [De Canonicis Scripturis libellus, Wittenberg, 1520, p. 50]. This position of Carlstadt was also the position of Martin Chemnitz and of C. F. W. Walther [Compendium Theologiae Positivae, Vol. I. p. 149].
(Bartling, 3)
Carlstadt rhetorically asked Luther about his opinion of James:
Why, if you allow the Jews to stamp books with authority by receiving them, do you refuse to grant as much power to the Churches of Christ, since the Church is not less than the Synagogue?

(in Westcott, 486)
In this instance, Carlstadt's reasoning is exactly correct, as to the general Christian and Catholic (and Church) understanding of canonicity prior to Luther. Martin Chemnitz (1522-1586), the great Lutheran theologian, is cited in footnote 14 (Bartling, 5-6) at length, contra Luther:
Of the books of the New Testament which lacked sufficiently reliable, firm, and harmonious testimonies of their certainty and authority in the first and ancient church, these are listed: (Eusebius, Bk, 3, chr. 25) The writings which are not considered to be undoubted but which are spoken against, although they were known to many, are these: The Epistle of James, that of Jude, 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John; the Apocalypse of John some reject, while others number it with the certain and undoubted writings. It also must not be ignored that some in the Roman church rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, asserting that it was spoken against as not being Paul’s…The Epistle of James, it is asserted, was published by some other person under his name…The epistle which is put down as the first among the general epistles is said to be by that James who was called the Just and Oblias. But we must know that it was not judged to be genuine and legitimate but spurious and counterfeit. Therefore not many of the ancients make mention of it, as also of that of Jude.

Since some of the most ancient writers had ascribed some of these books to apostles, others, however, had contradicted, this matter, even as it was not indubitably certain, was left in doubt. For this whole matter depends on sure, firm, and harmonious testimonies of the first and ancient church, and where these are lacking, the later church, as it cannot make genuine books out of spurious ones, so also it cannot make certain writings out of doubtful ones without clear and firm proofs.

(Examination of the Council of Trent, Part I, p. 100-150 and 168-196)
Amen! This view is not merely a Catholic one, but also the mainstream Protestant opinion on the canon. Bartling also provides further relevant commentary from another Lutheran theologian:
One must distinguish well between the extent of the Canon and the inspiration of the books which are canonical with question. Here Wilhelm Walther says correctly that for Luther the extent of the Canon was an open question, but the books that were canonical were absolutely authoritative for him as the inspired Word of God. But this distinction is always being overlooked. Modern theologians always want to draw conclusions from Luther’s remarks concerning individual books as to his attitude towards the Word in general and its inspiration and thus make Luther share their liberal views regarding inspiration." Cf. also Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, Vol. I, p. 276-98.
(Bartling, 4; footnote 11)


According to Bartling, Luther's very view of the inerrancy of Scripture led him to adopt a radical position regarding James' canonicity:
Luther, when thus faced with what he believed to be an error or a contradiction between James and Paul, rejected James as canonical since the canonical Scriptures can never err or contradict. We might well question this approach. Instead, we might offer ways of harmonizing Paul and James [footnote 18: "Apology Augsburg Confession" Art III, 123]. We can say Luther was wrong, but we must admit he was wrong for the right reasons.

(Bartling, 3)
One might reply that it is better to be right for the wrong reasons. But whatever the reasons, they must be regarded as secondary. In any event, Luther was wrong about the NT canon. Our concern is with what such a huge error tells us about the mindset of the man who made it, and especially the relationship of this error to the larger question of Christian authority.

Bartling also notes that it is not only Catholics who regard Luther's view of the NT canon as subjective and prone to liberal tendencies of destructive higher criticism of the Bible. He cites two "liberal Bible scholars" Heinrich Voigt: "Luther could not have regarded Holy Scripture word for word the product of the Holy Ghost, since he felt at liberty to express the most liberal views on whole books of the Bible" (Fundamentaldomatik, p. 536), and Edgar Krentz:

"Some feel that Luther here introduced a subjective element as justification for present day content criticism" (Historical-Critical Method, p. 9-10).

And on the same web page that includes Bartling's article, a 1963 paper from Lutheran scholar Elmer J. Moeller, "The Authority of a N.T. canonical book," delves into the relationship between apostolicity, inspiration, and canonicity. Note how Luther diverges from these, and the implications for those books (Hebrews, James, Jude, Revelation) that he regarded as "lesser":
10. The distinction between homologoumena and antilegomena which the early church made, and which has been followed in our own Church, indicates three
criteria which on investigation are found to be echoes of Scriptural requirements for imposition of authority in doctrine:
a. Authenticity. Cf. 2 Th 2,2.3-15;3,14.17; 1 Co 14,37.
b. Authorship by an apostle. Cf. John 14, 26;15, 19.20, 26;16, 12-14; 17,20 and Ro 1,1.2.5. et al.
c. Authorship by someone whose person and message were commended to the Church by apostles. For the apostles were normative to 1) N.T. prophets. Eph 3,5; 2 Th 2,2; 1 Co 14, 37.38. 2) Co-workers of apostles.
Col 4,7. 10-11. 17; 1 Ti 3, 14-15; 4,11-12;6,2; 2 Ti 1,12; 1 Co 16,10; 2 Ti 4,11; Eph 6,21; Co 8,6.23; Tit 2,15.
11. The homologoumena meet criteria a and b. In the instance of Mark and Luke a and c apply. The Church indicates that Mark and Luke held unique positions to Peter and Paul, and that living apostles, particularly John, approved the writings of Mark and Luke.
12. To deny that such criteria applied to and were fulfilled in the homologoumena is to deny any Scriptural reason for accepting them as authoritative. Doubt as to the fulfillment of any of these criteria in the early church caused a book to be antilegomenon, therefore not absolute authority (cf. 9 above.)
13. N.T. books themselves, therefore God the Holy Spirit, indicated these criteria and through them imposed themselves on the early church as indicated by the evidence. To deny these criteria is to assume instead a process of canonization which predicates an inspired choice of authoritative books, something which Scripture knows nothing about. Cf. 2 Th 2,2,2,15; 3,14. To uphold inspired canonization is to uphold a false doctrine of inspiration. . . .
. . . 15. Canonics and inspiration are inseparable related. God inspired known apostles to write known books which were accepted as inspired; or (Mark, Luke) God inspired known men, whom the church knew from apostles to be inspired, to write known books which were accepted as inspired under apostolic authority.
Catholic Luther biographer Hartmann Grisar wrote:
. . . his criticism of the Bible proceeds along entirely subjective and arbitrary lines. The value of the sacred writings is measured by the rule of his own doctrine. He treats the venerable canon of Scripture with a liberty which annihilates all certitude. For, while this list has the highest guarantee of sacred tradition and the backing of the Church, Luther makes religious sentiment the criterion by which to decide which books belong to the Bible, which are doubtful, and which are to be excluded. At the same time he practically abandons the concept of inspiration, for he says nothing of a special illuminative activity of God in connection with the writers' composition of the Sacred Book, notwithstanding that he holds the Bible to be the Word of God because its authors were sent by God. As is well known, during the age of orthodox Lutheranism its devotees fell into the other extreme by teaching so-called verbal inspiration, according to which every single word of the Bible has been dictated by God. Catholic theology has always observed a golden mean between these extremes.
 . . . It is a fact that must not be overlooked that parts of the Bible which Luther retained were taken over from the tradition of the past. By way of exception and as a matter of necessity, he thus conceded the claims of tradition. Though otherwise opposed to it, he took it as his guide and safeguard in this respect without admitting the fact. Thus his attitude towards the Bible is really burdened with 'flagrant contradictions,' to use an expression of Harnack, especially since he 'had broken through the external authority of the written word,' by his critical method. And of this, Luther is guilty, the very man who elsewhere represents the Bible as the sole principle of faith!
If, in addition to this, his arbitrary method of interpretation is taken into consideration, the work of destruction wrought by him appears even greater. The only weapon he possessed he wrested from his own hand, as it were, both theoretically and in practice.

His procedure regarding the sacred writings is apt to make thoughtful minds realize how great is the necessity of an infallible Church as divinely appointed guardian and authentic interpreter of the Bible.
(Grisar, 263-265)

How does a Protestant have certainty on any book apart from authoritative Church tradition (something most Church Fathers never attained to)? What gives Luther any authority to decide apart from that tradition? Lutheran scholar John Warwick Montgomery makes a very similar point. Though he was not applying it to Luther, I would surely do so:
A most dangerous method of resolving arguments is the appeal to human authority. A disagrees With B; A Cites great man C in his behalf; B Claims that great man D supports his view; and the discussion degenerates into an attempt on the part of A to show that his authority is superior to B's, While B endeavors to demonstrate the superiority of his authority. In the course of such discussions the protagonists generally forget the real point at issue, namely, the relative value of the evidence marshalled by the authorities appealed to. In the final analysis, it is not the judgment of the alleged authority that determines the question, but the value of his evidence. Why? because, God excepted, authorities are like the rest of us: they can make mistakes.
(Montgomery, first paragraph)
I would only disagree insofar as there is such a thing as Church authority which can be protected by God from error. It is precisely because of the guidance of the Holy Spirit that errors can be avoided. In other words, more is at play than simply fallible man. The supernatural protection of God is the crucial factor. Catholics believe this in faith. Luther and Protestants deny it, with regard to any human institution, and apply it only to the Bible. That being the case, Luther's own opinions can be questioned, rather than accepted as from some oracle on high, as he often demanded, if not in so many words, then by the practical effect of his demeanor when disagreed with. Many Protestant scholars fully accept Christian tradition in this matter. I've cited several above and below.

Luther says ridiculous things about various biblical books, as if he is some sort of prophet or oracle from heaven. It it weren't such a serious issue, it would be utterly laughable as a farce of the first order: the hubris of man writ large, even onto Holy Writ.


Luther's view of the canon was dealt with in Luther's Works (the 55-volume standard set of Luther writings in English, edited by Jaroslav Pelikan):
In terms of order, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation come last in Luther’s New Testament because of his negative estimate of their apostolicity. In a catalogue of “The Books of the New Testament” which followed immediately upon his Preface to the New Testament… Luther regularly listed these four—without numbers—at the bottom of a list in which he named the other twenty-three books, in the order in which they still appear in English Bibles, and numbered them consecutively from 1–23 . . . a procedure identical to that with which he also listed the books of the Apocrypha.

(LW, 35, 393, footnote 43)
[emphasis added]
As books of secondary rank come Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation.
(LW, 35: 231-232)
Note that Luther denied the apostolicity of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation. Now, how can a book be included in the NT if it were not written by an apostle?

Paul Althaus wrote:
Luther did not intend to require anyone to accept his judgment, he only wanted to express his own feeling about these particular books.

(Althaus, 84)
But this is part of the point. It is obvious that Luther carried no authority of his own in this regard, because he is not the Judge of the Bible (nor of Christian received Tradition, as far as I am concerned, though he, in effect, assumes that he can judge and modify that, too). It's not up to him to decide. Our concern is with the absurdity of his opinions, period, and what they tell us about his own state of mind, his rash presumption, and his illegitimate Christian epistemology.

The Church determined that James' book was canonical. If Luther wants to start re-questioning the ancient Church's judgment on such matters as biblical books, why not also in matters of the Holy Trinity, and Christology, which were hammered out for many centuries, too? I understand that James was late to be included in the canon, but the fact remains that eventually it was considered canonical. Luther, then, has to explain why he rejects this ancient determination by the Church. On what grounds? It is ultimately decided on the basis of his own subjective opinion, as so often . . .

What Luther has to also account for is the fact that the canonicity of 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John (books he accepted as fully canonical) were also questioned very late: as late as the Council of Nicea in 325. If he wants to make an historical argument, he will lose every time, due to such inconsistencies with his own opinion. Bible scholar F.F. Bruce made the same point in his book on the canon (I discovered these words after I wrote the above):
Luther knew that those books had been disputed in earlier days: that, however, is not his main reason for relegating them to a secondary status. He appears to have had no difficulty with 2 Peter or 2 or 3 John, which had also been disputed. His main reason is that in the four relegated books he could not find that clear promotion of Christ which was the principle note of holy scripture.

(Bruce, 244)


Here is Luther's famous (or infamous) comment from his original Preface to the New Testament, 1522 version (my emphasis):

In a word St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw,  compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it. But more of this in the other prefaces.

(LW 35:362)

Luther dropped the "epistle of straw" insult passage from his 1545 revision of this preface. But even renowned Protestant Bible scholar F.F. Bruce not only did not mention that Luther later dropped the phrase "epistle of straw"; he also incorrectly stated which preface it was from:
It is in his preface to James in his 1522 New Testament that he calls it 'an epistle of straw'.
(Bruce, 243)


But seriously, Luther may have changed his mind about this description, but that doesn't mean his overall opinion of James changed all that much. This was only one negative description among many. I see no indication that Luther's opinion of the book's apostolicity or its theological content (supposedly contrary to his false faith alone soteriology) was ever modified. Hartmann Grisar, S.J. author of a six-volume biography of Luther, stated in his additional one-volume biography, after citing the "epistle of straw" comment (which he noted was from 1522):
Luther always adhered essentially to his opinion of the Epistle of St. James as quoted above.
(Grisar, 264)
Paul Althaus writes:
In the Preface to James in 1522 and still in 1543 Luther speaks of the "really main books." He cannot include the Letter of James among them because James preaches the law instead of the gospel . . .

After 1530, he even omitted the sharpest phrases in the Preface to James (for example, "Therefore I do not want to have him in my Bible"). Luther therefore did not intend that the congregations should continue to read these judgments. For himself and in speaking before his theological students he maintained his judgment of James even later. In this, however, he was for the most part concerned with preventing his Roman opponents from continually using James as an argument against the Reformation gospel than he was about the letter as such.

(Althaus, 84-85)
Luther wrote in 1520:
I will say nothing of the fact that many assert with much probability that this epistle is not by James the apostle, and that it is not worthy of an apostolic spirit; although, whoever was its author, it has come to be regarded as authoritative.
(LW 36:118)
In 1542 Luther stated (as recorded in one of the versions of Table-Talk):
We should throw the Epistle of James out of this school [Wittenberg], for it doesn’t amount to much. It contains not a syllable about Christ. Not once does it mention Christ, except at the beginning [Jas. 1:1; 2:1]. I maintain that some Jew wrote it who probably heard about Christian people but never encountered any. Since he heard that Christians place great weight on faith in Christ, he thought, ‘Wait a moment! I’ll oppose them and urge works alone.’ This he did. He wrote not a word about the suffering and resurrection of Christ, although this is what all the apostles preached about. Besides, there’s no order or method in the epistle. Now he discusses clothing and then he writes about wrath and is constantly shifting from one to the other. He presents a comparison: ‘As the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead’ [Jas. 2:26]. O Mary, mother of God! What a terrible comparison that is! James compares faith with the body when he should rather have compared faith with the soul! The ancients recognized this, too, and therefore they didn’t acknowledge this letter as one of the catholic epistles.
(LW 54:424)
Preserved Smith includes the prior paragraph:
Many sweat to reconcile St. Paul and St. James, as does Melanchthon in his Apology, but in vain. "faith justifies" and "faith does not justify" contradict each other flatly. If any one can harmonize them I will give him my doctor's hood and let him call me a fool.
(Smith, 269)
Mark Bartling cites the same passage, but states that it is from 1532, not 1542:
Luther, in a Table Talk in 1532, however still believed Paul and James could not be harmonized. He says, "Many have tried hard to make James agree with Paul, as also Melanchthon did in his Apology, but not seriously (successfully). These do not harmonize: Faith justifies, and faith does not justify. To him who can make these two agree I will give my doctor’s cap and I am willing to be called a fool." Weimar, "Tischreden" (3), p. 3292.

(Bartling, 6; footnote 18)
Smith also documents some of Luther's "marginal notes in one of his own Bibles":
To James i, 6 (But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering), he remarks, "That is the only good place in the whole epistle"; to i, 21 (Receive with meekness the engrafted word), "Others engrafted it, not this James"; to ii, 12 ff., "What a chaos!" and to ii, 24 (Ye see then that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only), "That is false."

(Smith, 269-270)

By what authority does Luther deign to make such judgments at all, and how does he prove that his own opinion carries more weight than (or even equal weight with, as an opinion) the determination of the ancient Church to proclaim definitively on the canon (including the book of James)? Luther acts much like the "higher critics" and liberal Bible scholars today. Preserved Smith made a similar observation:
Luther's attitude to the Bible contains one striking contradiction. He insisted that it should be taken as a whole and literally as God's inerrant Word; and at the same time he was himself the freest of "higher critics."

(Smith, 267)
It's interesting to note in passing that Smith seems to have also labored under the same misconception concerning the 1545 version of the Preface of the New Testament, viz., that it contained the "epistle of straw" remark, since on page 268 he introduces the larger passage which contains it, with "In the preface of 1545 he says . . ." But Smith was writing in 1911 and perhaps had less information than we do now.


Another rather silly Luther utterance is also from 1542:
That epistle of James gives us much trouble, for the papists embrace it alone and leave out all the rest. Up to this point I have been accustomed just to deal with and interpret it according to the sense of the rest of Scriptures. For you will judge that none of it must be set forth contrary to manifest Holy Scripture. Accordingly, if they will not admit my interpretations, then I shall make rubble also of it. I almost feel like throwing Jimmy into the stove, as the priest in Kalenberg did.
(LW 34:317)
Mark Bartling cites something similar to this:

Only the papists accept James on account of the righteousness of works, but my opinion is that it is not the writings of an apostle. Some day I will use James to fire my stove.

(Bartling, 2; Weimar, Tischreden [5], p. 5854)
Without further context, we cannot be sure of the exact meaning, but Bartling seems to have assumed that Luther was referring to the book of James.


Whatever he meant, we have his clear opinions about James in his Preface to James and Jude. The following citation is the complete preface. Luther revised the second to last paragraph, which I will present in both versions (emphasis is added):
Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle, and my reasons follow.
In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works (2:24). It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac (2:20); Though in Romans 4:22-22 St. Paul teaches to the contrary that Abraham was justified apart from works, by his faith alone, before he had offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15:6. Although it would be possible to "save" the epistle by a gloss giving a correct explanation of justification here ascribed to works, it is impossible to deny that it does refer to Moses' words in Genesis 15 (which speaks not of Abraham's works but of his faith, just as Paul makes plain in Romans 4) to Abraham's works. This fault proves that this epistle is not the work of any apostle.

In the second place its purpose is to teach Christians, but in all this long teaching it does not once mention the Passion, the resurrection, or the Spirit of Christ. He names Christ several times; however he teaches nothing about him, but only speaks of general faith in God. Now it is the office of a true apostle to preach of the Passion and resurrection and office of Christ, and to lay the foundation for faith in him, as Christ himself says in John 15[:27], "You shall bear witness to me.? All the genuine sacred books agree in this, that all of them preach and inculcate [treiben] Christ. And that is the true test by which to judge all books, when we see whether or not they inculcate Christ. For all the Scriptures show us Christ, Romans 3[:21]; and St. Paul will know nothing but Christ, I Corinthians 2[:2].
Whatever does not teach Christ is not yet apostolic, even though St. Peter or St. Paul does the teaching. Again, whatever preaches Christ would be apostolic, even if Judas, Annas, Pilate, and Herod were doing it." (ibid).

But this James does nothing more than drive to the law and its works. Besides, he throws things together so chaotically that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took a few sayings from the disciples of the apostles and thus tossed them off on paper. Or it may perhaps have been written by someone on the basis of his preaching. He calls the law a "law of liberty" [1:25], though Paul calls it a law of slavery, of wrath, of death, and of sin.

Moreover he cites the sayings of St. Peter [in 5:20]; Love covers a multitude of sins" [1 Pet. 4:8], and again [in 4:10], "Humble yourselves under he had of God" [1 Pet. 5:6] 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.

1522 version: In a word, he wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without works, but was unequal to the task in spirit, thought, and words. He mangles the Scriptures and thereby opposes Paul and all Scripture. [PE version: "rends the Scriptures and thereby resists Paul and all Scripture] He tries to accomplish by harping on the law what the apostles accomplish by stimulating people to love. Therefore I will not have him in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him. One man is no man in worldly things; how then, should this single man alone avail against Paul and all Scripture.

1545 version: In a word, he wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without works, but was unequal to the task. He tries to accomplish by harping on the law [PE version: "insisting on the Law"] what the apostles accomplish by stimulating people to love. Therefore I cannot include him among the chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him.

Concerning the epistle of St. Jude, no one can deny that it is an extract or copy of St. Peter's second epistle, so very like it are all the words. He also speaks of the apostles like a disciple who comes long after them [Jude 17] and cites sayings and incidents that are found nowhere else in the Scriptures [Jude 9, 14]. This moved the ancient Fathers to exclude this epistle from the main body of the Scriptures. Moreover the Apostle Jude did not go to Greek-speaking lands, but to Persia, as it is said, so that he did not write Greek. Therefore, although I value this book, it is an epistle that need not be counted among the chief books which are supposed to lay the foundations of faith.

(LW, 35:395-398; cf. PE, 6:477-479)

Another translation of the preface by Bertram Lee Woolf, from The Reformation Writings of Martin Luther, vol. II, The Spirit of the Protestant Reformation (London: Lutterworth Press, 1956, 306-308), can be read in the paper, Did Luther consider James Scripture?: A look at the preface to James and Jude, by Catholic apologist "Matt1618." Here are a couple of Woolf's more notable renderings of Luther's pungent language: "in direct opposition to St. Paul and all the rest of the Bible, it ascribes justification to works" (1545), and "He does violence to Scripture, and so contradicts Paul and all Scripture" (1522). This was also reprinted in Dillenberger, pages 35-37 (see sources).

Readers can make up their own minds what all this means, and whether it is acceptable. I trust that my own opinion of such utterances has been made very clear by now.


We have seen Luther's opinion of the book of Jude in the last paragraph of the preface above. Luther denies its apostolicity, too. Some argue that because Luther cited Jude in sermons, therefore he thought it was okay and fine and dandy. But the latter is not in question; rather, we are concerned with its canonicity and inspiration as a fully biblical book (not a secondary book, less than "chief"). Luther denies this on arbitrary grounds, against the witness of the ancient Church. I want to know how and why he thought he could do this. Luther wrote, in introducing his sermons on Jude:
But this letter does not seem to have been written by the real apostle, for in it Jude refers to himself as a much later disciple of the apostles. Nor does it contain anything special beyond pointing to the Second Epistle of Saint Peter, from which it has borrowed nearly all the words.

(LW 30:201)

Turning to Luther's opinion of the book of Revelation, here is an excerpt of his original 1522 preface:
About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own ideas, and would bind no man to my opinion or judgment; I say what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and this makes me hold it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic . . .

And so I think of it almost as I do of the Fourth Book of Esdras, and can nohow detect that the Holy Spirit produced it . . .

. . . It is just the same as if we had it not, and there are many far better books for us to keep.

. . . Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit gives him to think. My spirit cannot fit itself into this book. There is one sufficient reason for me not to think highly of it, -- Christ is not taught or known in it; but to teach Christ is the thing which an apostle is bound, above all else, to do, as He says in Acts i, 'Ye shall be my witnesses.' Therefore I stick to the books which give me Christ, clearly and purely.

(PE, 6:488-489)
The later 1530 revision was infinitely more positive (and we Catholics are delighted that Luther seems to have had a change of heart), but I want to know why that is, and why Luther wrote the ridiculous nonsense of the first preface. As I noted in my earlier paper, this was a year after he expected the Church to accept his novel teachings (Diet of Worms, 1521: "Here I stand," etc.). He could write this sort of radical, subjective material, and yet everyone was simply to bow down and accept everything he taught? So I think it is a valid question to pursue, as part of an overall analysis of the mind of Luther and implications for the Protestant rule of faith and rejection of the apostolic authority of the Catholic Church. Paul Althaus and John Warwick Montgomery describe Luther's opinion of Revelation (along with Jude, James, and Hebrews):
But for the rest of his life, he continued to put a different value on the books which he had put together at the end of his Bible than on the "main books."

(Althaus, 85)
True enough, all the editions of Luther's German Bible - right to the last one he himself supervised (1545) - retain the classification by which the four antilegomena are grouped together, in a kind of bibliographical ghetto, after the other books. Comments remain in the Prefaces (e.g., Romans) indicating that Luther always held to a hierarchy of biblical books, with the Gospel of John and Romans constituting the empyrean. A careful study of Luther's remarks on and treatment of James throughout his career has shown that, wholly apart from the Prefaces, the Reformer consistently held a low view of the book's utility.
(Montgomery, comments preceding footnotes 54 and 55)


Luther wrote in his 1522 Preface to this book:
The fact that Hebrews is not an epistle of St. Paul, or of any other apostle, is proved by what it says in chapter 2[:3], that through those who had themselves heard it from the Lord this doctrine has come to us and remained among us. It is thereby made clear that he is speaking about the apostles, as a disciple to whom this doctrine has come from the apostles, perhaps long after them. For St. Paul, in Galatians 1[:1], testifies powerfully that he has his gospel from no man, neither through men, but from God himself.

(LW 35:394)
Luther concludes: ". . . to be sure, we cannot put it on the same level with the apostolic epistles" (LW, 35, 394).


John Warwick Montgomery makes some curious remarks (prior to his footnote 56) that will serve as a springboard for a general critique of Luther's attitude towards the canon:
We must admit that in one sense Luther does reevaluate the Canon, though haltingly, tentatively, sensitively - not at all like a modern radical critic and certainly not as a spokesman for the church (we have already noted his hesitancy to influence others at this point). As for his reasons for reopening the canonical question, they were not at all as subjective, arbitrary, and cavalier as they are often made to seem.
This is easy to say, but much harder to demonstrate and to defend under scrutiny. It smacks too much of a "distinction without a difference."
Luther appeals not to subjective considerations but objectively to the judgments of the early church, specifically to what Jerome says in his De viris illustribus, chap. 2. and to what Eusebius reports in his Ecclesiastical History, Bk. II, chap. 23 and Bk. III, chap. 25. The negative evaluations of antilegomena by certain church fathers were certainly unjustified, as history proved, but Luther had every right to raise the question in terms of the fathers.
One wonders where to begin in replying to this: so full is it of muddled thinking and illogical assertions! The bottom line is the inconsistent notion that Luther "had every right" to question the canon by appealing to certain fathers, yet (by implication) Catholics have no right to accept the traditional canon by appealing to the ancient Church in council. History shows -- nay, even "prove[s]" -- that these negative judgments of certain NT books were "certainly unjustified" yet it was okay for Luther to again bring them into question.

One must ask, then: how does "history" prove anything? By what criteria was the canon established? How is it that Luther can appeal to fallible Church fathers who happened to agree with him in particulars, but Catholics may not appeal to the authoritative Church; you know: the same body that did things like clarify the doctrine of the Holy Trinity at the Council of Nicea in 325, and the Two Natures of Christ at the Council of Chalcedon in 451?

That same Church authoritatively proclaimed (as opposed to "creating") the books of the canon. But we mustn't listen to the ancient Church -- the Church of the Fathers -- when it does that. Instead, we must dredge up some dissenting voices of individual Fathers or even historians like Eusebius. St. Jerome, it should be noted, yielded to Church authority when his views conflicted with it. He did so with regard to the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament. Luther lacked this quality of submitting to the Church, as we all know.
Unless one is going to make the fatal error of accepting the content of Scripture because the institutional church has declared it such (which necessarily subordinates Scripture to Church and brings the Protestant back to his Romanist vomit),
How is it "fatal"? It seems to me that it is the only plausible, non-subjective choice. One either accepts the ancient canon, or they fall back on the subjective judgments of individuals like Luther, based on the subjective judgments of other men like Jerome and Eusebius. The Fathers disagreed amongst themselves about the canon. It was only when the Church declared the matter as settled, in the late 4th century, that the differences ceased. But for some reason, Luther wanted to reopen the canon. Thus, even the question of "what books are in the Bible?" must be an open question, as with so much else in Protestantism.

Moreover, accepting the traditional canon (I speak primarily of the NT, in the context of dealing with Luther's opinions of it) does not at all entail "subordinating" Scripture to the Church. It is simply a practical reality that, since men differed in their opinions, the corporate Church had to settle the matter. Does it subordinate God to men, for men to merely describe the nature of God as One God in Three Persons? Do men now define and create God because they declared His Nature (i.e., engaged in what is called "theology proper") and bound Christians to hold to this definition? Of course not. God is Who He is, no matter what we say about Him.

Likewise, Scripture is infallible, inspired, and the sum total of a certain set of books, no matter what we say. It is what it is, and men do not make it what it is; God does. This is the position of the Catholic Church, as stated in Vatican I and Vatican II (see my paper, "The Canon of Scripture: Did the Catholic Church Create It Or Merely Authoritatively Acknowledge It?") . This doesn't "necessarily" put Scripture "under" the Church, but it does put men under the authority of the Church, whose function is to protect them from believing errors and falsehoods. This is true regarding the canon.

History bears this out, by illustrating how the fathers disagreed in the early centuries about which books were in the canon (often thinking books were in it which are not in fact, such as The Shepherd of Hermas or the Epistles of Ignatius and Clement). This shows us that we cannot rely on the fathers and must rely on the dogmatic pronouncements of the Church. But Montgomery absurdly defends the reliance on individual fathers while characterizing reliance on the traditional canon as (in a most delightful phrase) returning to "Romanist vomit". This is sheer Protestant polemics, which, as usual, is found wanting as soon as it is closely examined.
there is no choice but to refer canonicity questions to the earliest judgments available historically concerning the apostolic authority of New Testament books.
If we do that then we are doomed to "canonical relativism," as the "earliest judgments" could not resolve the question of the canon. It is the "later" judgment of the Church (late 4th century) which resolved the question.
Christ promised to the apostolic company a unique and entirely reliable knowledge of His teachings through the special guidance of His Holy Spirit (John 14;26), so the issue of the apostolicity of New Testament writings has always been vital for the church. As a theologian, Luther had the right, even the responsibility, to raise this issue, and did not become a subjectivist by doing so.
An individual doing this, over against the judgment of the ancient Church is not only subjective indeed, but outrageously arrogant and absurd. The guarantee of doctrinal truthfulness was given to the Church, not atomistic individuals who were not subject to the Church. The reliance on individualism and private judgment is precisely what has created the mess of doctrinal relativism and ecclesiological chaos that is Protestantism today.

Montgomery continues:
One of his favorite sayings was that he did his best theological work when angry!) Is it not indicative that the Revelation of St. John gains in stature for him as he sees its apologetic possibilities vis-à-vis the papacy ("the whore that sitteth on the seven hills," etc.)?
This makes perfect sense to me: that Luther would mull over whether a traditionally-accepted biblical book was fully canonical based on anger and its polemical utility in his never-ending slanderous opposition to the Catholic Church. It's entirely subjective (and quite ridiculous and offensive). Montgomery agrees to a large extent, though for somewhat different reasons. Though continuing to distance himself from the charge that Luther was a subjectivist, he bolsters one of my main points and even goes very far towards admitting it, offering some valuable and cogent insights into this question:
Here, if anywhere, those arguing against Luther's biblical orthodoxy have a point. Though it is unfair to call him a subjectivist on the canonical question, there is no doubt that he developed a personal criterion of canonicity that took its place alongside of apostolicity and perhaps even swallowed it up . . .

The dangers in such an approach to canonicity are legion, and they were fully recognized by Luther's own contemporaries - not only by his theological opponents but also by his colleagues and supporters . . . As is well known, the church that carries Luther's name has never adopted his canonical judgments.

Though it is understandable that, passionate reforming spirit that he was, Luther would reintroduce the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith everywhere, it is unfortunate that he misused it as a canonical criterion. One must first establish the Canon and then set forth all that the canonical books teach: canonicity before doctrine. If one reverses the procedure, personal doctrinal emphasis, however commendatory, may turn into weapons by which genuine Scripture is rejected or down-played unnecessarily. Had Luther begun with a purely historical view of the Canon, he would have been forced to discover the entire compatibility between James and Paul; his misleading criterion of canonicity opened the floodgates to subjectivity - in spite of his best intentions - and short-circuited the kind of exegesis of James that would have revealed its harmony with Pauline teaching and its vital complementary place in the corpus of New Testament doctrine.

. . . Let us learn from Luther both positively and negatively. His experiential criterion of canonicity shows how even a great theologian committed to the objective, theocentric authority of God's Word can slip into subjective, anthropocentric thinking. If this was possible for Luther, is it any wonder that the lesser theological lights of our own day easily fall victim to the parallel temptations of using their spiritual experience to create a "canon within the canon" and a Bible that is not indefeasible in its own right? We should remember how readily the experiential pietism of the late 17th century became the rationalism of the 18th century, and see the dangers in our own revivalistic heritage . . .
(Montgomery; sections preceding footnotes 56-59 and 75)

Luther opined on the book of Esther:

I am so great an enemy to the second book of the Maccabees, and to Esther, that I wish they had not come to us at all, for they have too many heathen unnaturalities.

(Table-Talk, #XXIV, p. 13)

Esther…which despite their [the Jews] inclusion of it in the canon deserves more than all the rest in my judgment to be regarded as noncanonical.

(LW 33:110)
The great evangelical biblical scholar F.F. Bruce, commented on the first statement:
It is noteworthy that he shows his exercise of private judgment here by including Esther under the same condemnation as 2 Maccabees: Esther is one of the books which Jerome acknowledged as acceptable for the establishing of doctrine . . .

(Bruce, 101)

I would like to close by citing three Protestant critics of Luther's approach to the NT canon:
F.F. Bruce (citing another scholar) observes:
If those who adhere to the principle of an inner canon concentrate on that inner canon to a point where they neglect the contents of the 'outer canon' (as they might call it), they deny themselves the benefits which they might derive from those other books. N.B. Stonehouse gave as his 'basic criticism' of Luther's viewpoint 'that it was narrowly Christocentric rather than God-centred, and thus involved an attenuation and impoverishment of the message of the New Testament . . . formulating his criterion in narrow terms, and insisting upon the same manifestation of it in each writing of the New Testament', Luther 'missed much of the richness of the revelation of the New Testament organism of Scripture' . . .

In short, it must be acknowledged that the churchmen of the age after Marcion were right when they insisted on a catholic collection of Christian scriptures in opposition to his sectarian selection.

(Bruce, 273-275; citing from N.B. Stonehouse, 'Luther and the New Testament Canon', in Paul Before the Areopagus and Other New Testament Studies [Grand Rapids, 1957], pp. 196 ff.; earlier, Bruce had noted, contra Luther's mentality: "the catholic church, and the catholic scriptures, made room for both Paul and James and for other varieties as well" -- p. 152)
Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901), the great biblical scholar, was equally direct in his disagreement with Luther:
The freshness and power of Luther's judgments on the Bible, the living sense of fellowship with the spirit which animates them, the bold independence and self-assertion which separate them from all simply critical conclusions, combined to limit their practical acceptance to individuals. 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.
(Westcott, 483-484)

Althaus, Paul, The Theology of Martin Luther, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966.
Bartling, Mark F., Luther and James: Did Luther Use the Historical-Critical Method?

Bruce. F.F., The Canon of Scripture, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988.

Dillenberger, John, editor, Martin Luther : Selections From His Writings, Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1961.

Grisar, Hartmann, Martin Luther: His Life and Work, translated by Frank J. Eble, edited by Arthur Preuss, Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1930.

Luther, Martin, Luther's Works (LW), American edition, edited by Jaroslav Pelikan (volumes 1-30) and Helmut T. Lehmann (volumes 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (volumes 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (volumes 31-55), 1955.

Luther, Martin, Works of Martin Luther (PE), Philadelphia edition (6 volumes), edited and translated by C.M. Jacobs and A.T.W. Steinhaeuser et al, A.J. Holman Co., The Castle Press, and Muhlenberg Press, 1932.

Luther, Martin, Table-Talk, translated By William Hazlitt, Esq. Philadelphia: The Lutheran Publication Society, no date.

Montgomery, John Warwick, Lessons From Luther On The Inerrancy Of Holy Writ, Westminster Theological Journal, Volume 36.

Smith, Preserved, The Life and Letters of Martin Luther, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1911

Westcott, Brooke Foss, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament, 6th edition (1889); reprinted by Baker Book House (Grand Rapids, MI) 1980.