Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude, Martin Luther (1522)
"Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, 1 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. It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac; though in Romans 4 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. Now although this epistle might be helped and an interpretation 2 devised for this justification by works, it cannot be defended in its application to works of Moses' statement in Genesis 15. For Moses is speaking here only of Abraham's faith, and not of his works, as St. Paul demonstrates in Romans 4. This fault, therefore, proves that this epistle is not the work of any apostle."
Christ
"We are his body."
13 comments:
What say you to Martin Luther's quote? I find that interesting!
(a friend)
Minimally, that Martin Luther was a self-appointed judge of the writings of the Apostles (and, implicitly, of all earlier Christians who approve the book, those "ancients" to whom he seems to pay lip service just before opposing.)
Maximally, that Luther had fallen out of the straight way, did not fully have the Mind of Christ, through separation from the living vine and branches, the life of Christ and the Church.
Either way, it makes me leery.
That said, I think the same was true of many other Roman Catholics at that time in the 16th century. So some response and reformation was needed from somebody, but the above two options give me reason to question Luther's particular response as the wisest, most prudent, most godly, most Christian.
It's no coincidence that Luther has not been called a saint by anyone, Catholic, Orthodox, or even Protestant.
What is the footnote referring to?
"....epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, 1..."
(dthompson)
1. Luther's statement that the epistle was "rejected by the ancients" is only partly true. Its canonical status was doubted by some. Eusebius (died 339) in his Ecclesiastical History (II, xxiii, 25) writes "Such is the story of James, whose is said to be the first of the Epistles called Catholic. It is to be observed that its authenticity is denied, since few of the ancients quote it, as is also the case with the Epistle called Jude's." Eusebius also includes both epistles in his list of 'Disputed Books' (History, III, xxiv, 3). See also the statement by Jerome (d. 420) in his Liber de Viris Illustribus (II) concerning the pseudonymity ascribed to the epistle of James and its rather gradual attainment of authoritative status."
http://www.bible-researcher.com/antilegomena.html
Even disputation of a now-considered-canonical book opens the can of worms... How are the Books of the Holy Book to be determined? If "by the Church," individually or corporately, were they thus determined authoritatively? Can such determinations be revoked, added, subracted?
Can we publish a Gay Lesbian Bible? If not, why not? After all, "The biblical authors are silent about homosexual orientation as we know it today. They neither approve it nor condemn it."
We need an ongoing source of divine authority in addition to the Bible, an authority which divinely understands, interprets, and applies the Bible.
nice blog. Anaheim, huh? Small world. I grew up in OC, went to Calvary Chapel of Westminster, now CCHB. dig up my email off my blogger profile and send me an email.
"Can we publish a Gay Lesbian Bible? If not, why not? After all,
How much have you studied that canon? This is a friendly question by one in search of random people to chat with about it.
"The biblical authors are silent about homosexual orientation as we know it today. They neither approve it nor condemn it."
Just a tangent from your original post, but doesn't Romans speak against it and doesn't the view of sexual immorality in the OT carry over where the writers address an audience very familiar with the OT ?
"How much have you studied that canon? This is a friendly question by one in search of random people to chat with about it."
Appreciate the friendly question.
The answer is, I haven't studied it at all. The fact that it exists should frighten us traditional Christians. I only assume, given the climate of loose sexual ethics and the deep spiritual rebellion that is its bedfellow, that it is a Bible by the unrepentant for the unrepentant.
Have you read it? Can you (please) prove me wrong?
"Just a tangent from your original post, but doesn't Romans speak against it and doesn't the view of sexual immorality in the OT carry over where the writers address an audience very familiar with the OT?"
That is irrelavent (so the argument goes from my gay friends, or my straight pro-homosexuality friends).
The Old Testament also speaks about not eating pigs and not walking too far on Saturdays and many other things you don't care about.
Paul is very comfortable (and even vehement) about discarding Old Law traditions when the New Law, the Law of the Spirit of Life (cf Romans) updates, outdates, or fulfills it. So should we be.
The liberation of love from irrational and unscientific homophobic restrictions is just the continuation of the Pauline pursuit of truth over and against past traditions. The condemnation of (some kinds) of homosexual behavior may have been OK in the 1st century patriarchal society. So was the advocation of slavery (cf Philemon). But now we know better.
We know that homosexuality is not something you do, it's who you are. We know that love, which is the greatest commandment of Christ after all, overcomes merely social stigmas. We know that persons are more important than precepts (Jesus heals on the Sabboth, the disciples eat on the Sabboth, David eats the showbread, and so on). So homosexual persons ought to be allowed into the Church, allowed salvation, allowed a personal and loving relationship with God and their life-partner, as long as it is monogamous and faithful. Everything else in the New Testament still applies perfectly well... Yada yada yada... Do you see how this argument goes?
I have normally heard it from people who do not care much for preserving a divinely inspired authoritative and infallible Written Word, but from those who do, I think it goes something like the above... I find refuting this not at all easy.
Thoughts?
“That is irrelavent (so the argument goes from my gay friends, or my straight pro-homosexuality friends).”
Dietary laws are not the same as moral laws, but this is not what I am talking about.
When those in the NT speak against sexual immorality, what would these Jews have in mind? It seems sensible to look at what the OT has to say since this is the cultural perspective they are coming from (Paul in 1 Corinthians or the Jerusalem Church in Acts 15 or even Jude 7).
“Paul is very comfortable (and even vehement) about discarding Old Law traditions when the New Law”
Is stealing, adultery or murder also a tradition? In the OT, verses against homosexuality are seen as abominations before God and evil acts. Lev. 18:22 and 20:13.
“The liberation of love from irrational and unscientific homophobic restrictions is just the continuation of the Pauline pursuit of truth over and against past traditions.”
What do they do with Romans 1:26-27? Paul is pretty explicit here.
Would you mind if I just stayed in character? It makes things clearer:
(Ahem)
"Dietary laws are not the same as moral laws. But would you call the Sabboth a moral law? Do you keep it? Do you worship on Saturdays?
You're right and I agree with you about the Jewish context of Paul's 1st century comments about sexuality.
What I wish to emphasize, however, is that these are 1st century comments. The letter of the law kills. It is the Spirit of Paul to which we must adhere. And though he speaks of some reprehensible "affections," (which we are not sure what they were, by the way) he does not say that if a man and a man love each other they cannot be godly, blessed, and healthy Christians.
Even if he did say that, we would have to be aware that his statements are culturally sensitive and contextually true. At the time, this was a problem, or a concern.
After thousands of years of reflection and gradual self-examination, however, things have changed. Science has made it clear that you are who you are. And if you love someone, should God hold you back from expressing that love? Or doesn't he value love above all else?
So even if Paul is "pretty explicit", we can be even more explicit now. The Church and God is for all people, red and yellow, black and white, straight and gay!"
"And though he speaks of some reprehensible 'affections,' (which we are not sure what they were, by the way) he does not say that if a man and a man love each other they cannot be godly, blessed, and healthy Christians."
Romans 1:26-27 is pretty clear.
"Even if he did say that, we would have to be aware that his statements are culturally sensitive and contextually true. At the time, this was a problem, or a concern."
This would be the route they would have to go, but at this point, they are not arguing over what Scripture says anymore, but are departing from it. Their claim that Scripture does not speak against homosexuality has no more grounds and they must go outside of it. At that point, different arguments are needed in order to bring them back (if wanting to bring them to Christianity) or if only the behavior is to be addressed, then arguments appealing to reason or benefit could be used.
"Romans 1:26-27 is pretty clear."
'So is 1 Corinthians 11:1-16; Do you cover your head when you pray in church?'
Post a Comment