rob117

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?

Secular Pinoy

I think we drove out the last inerrantist here a long time ago. The ones left are compromisers and heretics.

rob117

We've still got a bunch of them in the E/C forum.

Chili

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.

fta

Didn't Luther also deny the inspiration of the book of Revelation?

CJD

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

funinspace

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.

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.

What about them? They still had the message of salvation thru Christ.

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!

funinspace

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...

Chili

No problem. If 20,000 denominations can be wrong there is room for Mormons to be wrong.