FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-28-2005, 03:07 PM   #1
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New York State
Posts: 440
Default A question for inerrantists about Martin Luther

Martin Luther denied the canonicity of the Epistle of James. He called it "An epistle of straw."

Luther's view was ultimately rejected by the larger Protestant community. James is retained in modern Protestant Bibles.

However, Luther also denied the canonicity of the apocrypha. This was accepted by Protestants in general, and the apocrypha are not considered canonical by Protestants.

A few questions:

1) The inerrantist view is that belief in divine inspiration of the entire Bible is necessary for salvation. Because Luther denied one of these books, does that mean he is unsaved according to the inerrancy doctrine?

2) According to the inerrancy doctrine, are there certain books (a la James) that are OK to question?

3) What about the Christians before the fourth century, who did not have a standardized canon?
rob117 is offline  
Old 09-28-2005, 03:56 PM   #2
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Quezon City, Philippines
Posts: 1,994
Default

I think we drove out the last inerrantist here a long time ago. The ones left are compromisers and heretics.
Secular Pinoy is offline  
Old 09-28-2005, 07:33 PM   #3
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New York State
Posts: 440
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Secular Pinoy
I think we drove out the last inerrantist here a long time ago. The ones left are compromisers and heretics.
We've still got a bunch of them in the E/C forum.
rob117 is offline  
Old 09-28-2005, 07:56 PM   #4
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rob117
A few questions:

1) The inerrantist view is that belief in divine inspiration of the entire Bible is necessary for salvation. Because Luther denied one of these books, does that mean he is unsaved according to the inerrancy doctrine?

2) According to the inerrancy doctrine, are there certain books (a la James) that are OK to question?

3) What about the Christians before the fourth century, who did not have a standardized canon?
There is a paradox in term "Christian believer" since Christians are suppsed to have the mind of Christ and he was no longer a believer after Peter was defrocked when all doubt was removed from him.

So who cares what Christians believe.
Chili is offline  
Old 09-28-2005, 09:56 PM   #5
fta
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Oceania
Posts: 334
Default

Didn't Luther also deny the inspiration of the book of Revelation?
fta is offline  
Old 09-29-2005, 10:19 AM   #6
CJD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: greater Orlando area
Posts: 832
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Secular Pinoy
I think we drove out the last inerrantist here a long time ago. The ones left are compromisers and heretics.
I feel as though I ought to resent that (the former descriptor at least).

For clarification: Luther "came around" on those particular books of the NT that he questioned early on (his final German NT shows this).

The Catholic church (c. 4th century onward) has traditionally understood the books that comprise the Apocrypha (called such only by Protestants) to be "deutero-canonical" (i.e., of a secondary status). Even most Protestants at the time of the Reformation did consider them useful for study and truthful, insofar as they did not directly contradict other portions of the undisputed canon.

Now, on to your questions:

1. I've not heard many inerrantists claim such a thing, though I wouldn't put it past the "KJV only" crowd.

2. Among inerrantists, it is certainly okay to question any book in the canon. However, it is not okay to answer that question in the negative (doesn't really make it much of a question then, huh?).

3. Their simple response would be: progressive revelation. Those before the 4th century didn't have it, and thus won't be judged for it. In other words, one is judged according to what they know.

CJD
CJD is offline  
Old 09-29-2005, 10:41 AM   #7
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: North West usa
Posts: 10,245
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rob117
A few questions:

1) The inerrantist view is that belief in divine inspiration of the entire Bible is necessary for salvation. Because Luther denied one of these books, does that mean he is unsaved according to the inerrancy doctrine?
An odd fundy/inerrantist might say one is not saved for questioning the validity of any particular book. However, the vast majority would say salvation is born out of accepting Christ as ones savior. See 1 John 5:11-12. They may say the person is wrong or confused in their views on this aspect of the Bible.

Quote:
2) According to the inerrancy doctrine, are there certain books (a la James) that are OK to question?
Everyone tolerates various levels of questioning. In the end though they would typically declare the modern Protestant canon to be the correct one. Within the doctrine it is considered a settled debate.

Quote:
3) What about the Christians before the fourth century, who did not have a standardized canon?
What about them? They still had the message of salvation thru Christ.
funinspace is offline  
Old 09-29-2005, 01:32 PM   #8
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London UK
Posts: 16,024
Default

Quote:
What about them? They still had the message of salvation thru Christ
And what then is the point of the NT? What difference does it make if you can be saved without it? What is that comment about groups adding things "better that ye had not been born."?

Sounds like the NT is a stumbling block!
Clivedurdle is offline  
Old 09-29-2005, 01:44 PM   #9
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: North West usa
Posts: 10,245
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clivedurdle
And what then is the point of the NT? What difference does it make if you can be saved without it? What is that comment about groups adding things "better that ye had not been born."?

Sounds like the NT is a stumbling block!
I guess they were worried about phoneline drift... 2,000 years of oral religion would be interesting. Just think of the added divergence, the Davinchi (sp) Code might be taken seriously then by more than 3 people. Mormons could be on equal footing...
funinspace is offline  
Old 09-29-2005, 02:54 PM   #10
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by funinspace
. Mormons could be on equal footing...
No problem. If 20,000 denominations can be wrong there is room for Mormons to be wrong.
Chili is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:59 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.