Let us consider it certain and firmly established that the soul can do without anything except the Word of God and that where the Word of God is missing there is no help at all for the soul.
Martin Luther, 1483-1546, The Freedom of a Christian (translated by W. A. Lambert, revised by Harold J. Grim, Luther's Works, Helmut T. Lehmann, Muhlenberg Press, 1957, Vol.31, The Career of the Reformer: I, p. 345)
Is this true? What difference does it make?
Weekend A La Carte (November 23)
3 hours ago
LOL. Gotta wonder if Luther was thinking about the book of James when he wrote this?
ReplyDeleteLuther seems to have had a complicated and not necessarily consistent approach to the book of James. How he would defend it or reconcile it to the above quote I have to leave to him. It is a shame he is not still around for I would be curious to hear it. But since he is not I have to leave it as that.
DeleteAlways helpful to remember that Luther wasa Roman Catholic priest. As such he accepted apocryphal books that modern day Protestants reject. So it is difficult to know what he is referencing when he speaks of "the Word of God".
ReplyDeleteIt is my understanding that Luther questioned the apocrypha at an early point in his career as a reformer. But just because I quote Luther or anyone else, does not mean I am prepared to defend everything they said, did or believed.
DeleteI found this clip from Wikipedia to be interesting:
ReplyDelete"Luther made an attempt to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon (notably, he perceived them to go against certain Protestant doctrines such as sola gratia and sola fide), but this was not generally accepted among his followers. However, these books are ordered last in the German-language Luther Bible to this day."
And I certainly agree with your take on Luther. My point (originally) was to point out that people have different understandings concerning the definition of "the Word of God". When I hear it I think more about the Word of God made flesh than about the bible.
I am well aware of Luther's questioning certain books in the NT canon. There have of course been various contentions as to what books do or do not belong. The fact that there are questions about something does not mean the answer cannot be determined. There after all very few things in life that have not been disputed. And the fact that that the precise contents of Scripture have been disputed does not mean there is no substance there. If you want me to discuss how why I hold to what I hold on the canon I would be willing to to doso. But I do not feel I have a fundamentally different Bible from Luther just because he doubted 4 books. I have no trouble reconciling those books to sola fide and sola gratia. There are issues , but there are always issues in dispute. Nor do I feel my faith would be destroyed if these 4 were somehow proven not to belong. And I remind you we would know virtually nothing about the living Word without the written Word.
Delete