Legalism

[RadMan]

I've seen it commented in here that conservative/confessional are legalistic. I'm curious why this statement is made. Some people say that we have a legalistic nature because we stress what the Bible teaches us. It seems with that accusation that just about anything mentioned in the Bible can be put under the umbrella of Law and said to be legalistic. It doesn't make sense because I feel we are the freest group bound to no Law except the Bondage of the God's Will as Luther puts it.

Hope I made sense here.

[LilLamb219]

Since Lutherans rely solely on God's grace for our salvation, I don't consider any of us to be legalistic (for salvation). Now, maybe they think we are law-filled...I've heard us described as that before.

[seajoy]

I've seen it commented in here that conservative/confessional are legalistic. I'm curious why this statement is made. Some people say that we have a legalistic nature because we stress what the Bible teaches us. It seems with that accusation that just about anything mentioned in the Bible can be put under the umbrella of Law and said to be legalistic. It doesn't make sense because I feel we are the freest group bound to no Law except the Bondage of the God's Will as Luther puts it.

Hope I made sense here.
Yes, you made lots of sense here. I've seen this thrown at we conservative/confessional folks by the liberals here in TCL. By telling us we are legalistic, I think it's supposed to make us have a more "anything goes" mentality. The latest thing I've seen around here is that besides being legalistic, we are also less intelligent and have less knowledge...tactics also used by democrats...but that's for another thread. Sorry to get off topic.

Anyway, I should let the folks who feel this way about us, answer the question. Should make for some interesting dialog. So.....what makes liberal Lutherans think we are legalistic? :confused: We believe in Jesus as our only source for salvation.

[LutheranMafia]

I hadn't even notice the term being used so I don't know what the context was and I'm not sure what it is supposed to mean. Clearly it is not referring to an overly intellectual approach since that makes no sense in the context of the LCMS, although that is what the term would lead me to suspect in abstract. The only theological argument I can think of that makes me think of an excessively legalistic approach is when I hear salvation talked about in terms of being "forensic", as if a criminal were on trial. I think that is mainly a Calvinist/Reformed argument.

I suspect you may be right, Rad, that this is just a blanket negative characterization of strong conviction of faith.

[Korah]

Yes, you made lots of sense here. I've seen this thrown at we conservative/confessional folks by the liberals here in TCL. By telling us we are legalistic, I think it's supposed to make us have a more "anything goes" mentality. The latest thing I've seen around here is that besides being legalistic, we are also less intelligent and have less knowledge...tactics also used by democrats...but that's for another thread. Sorry to get off topic.

Anyway, I should let the folks who feel this way about us, answer the question. Should make for some interesting dialog. So.....what makes liberal Lutherans think we are legalistic? :confused: We believe in Jesus as our only source for salvation.
Well, I've had two threads closed on me against my will, so I guess this leaves me this to comment upon.
Not that I've called anyone legalistic, just narrow-minded.
So, belief in Jesus for salvation is not legalistic, I would agree, not unless it's tied to Federalism and forensic justification. Not at issue here with Lutherans.
But then you add on, "You must believe the Scriptures." Not just the gospels (about Jesus). Not just the New Testament (in which Paul tells us Lutherans what Christ's life and death mean), but the Old Testament as well, in spite of it being irrelevant for our Christian belief and practice.
Not just the Bible, but the ecumenical councils. "Well, the first four, anyway, we don't like the iconophile 7th Ecumenical."
Plus the Augsburg Confession. Of course.
(To this point I'm "guilty", I call for all the above as well.)
Plus the Book of Concord, even though that divides as more sharply away from our Roman Catholic brothers in Christ.
Plus you have to believe that only Christians are saved.
Plus you have to believe that everyone else goes to be tortured eternally in Hell.
(Of course even some so-called "Liberals" might carry it this far.)
No contemporary worship, that's of the Devil.
No communion every week. That's too Catholic.
And of course you've got to believe the Earth was created in exactly six days about 6,000 years ago.
Legalistic? I don't know. It's certainly very involved, very narrow, and not at all a clear deduction from what people heard Jesus say during His Incarnation.
Korah

[dinkime]

i have seen what some are saying, though not in as many words, but if believing that what the Bible is the true, unfailing, WORD OF GOD makes me a legalist, so be it...



as my dad has said -- if what i believe (i.e. the Bible) is wrong, then i lose NOTHING, but those who do NOT believe, they lose EVERYTHING because of their unbelief...

[Till]

But then you add on, "You must believe the Scriptures." Not just the gospels (about Jesus). Not just the New Testament (in which Paul tells us Lutherans what Christ's life and death mean), but the Old Testament as well, in spite of it being irrelevant for our Christian belief and practice.


I think you are creating a tension between faith in Christ and believing the Scriptures which does not exist.

To be a Christian means to believe in Christ Jesus. To believe that he is the promised Messiah and the incarnated God who came to earth, suffered and died for the salvation of all creation. To believe that he was resurrected by God and was raised to Heaven.

Now how do we know all these things? They are the testimony of the early Church which was written down in the NT and was based on the OT. We do not believe in Scriptures but in Christ! But we believe Scriptures as they tell us of Christ. How can you for instance say the old testatement is irrelevant for Christian belief? How can we understand who Christ is his and what his "mission" was without the OT?

The question is: Are all Scriptures the same, are they all on the same level? And the answer of course is no. Christ is at the heart of Scriptures and therefore you are right of course that the Gospels are the centre - not that is NOT a typo. This word is spelled this way - of Scriptures and it must be through the lenses of the gospels' testimony about Christ that we must understand all the rest of Scriptures. Can you see anyone failing to do this?





Not just the Bible, but the ecumenical councils. "Well, the first four, anyway, we don't like the iconophile 7th Ecumenical."
Plus the Augsburg Confession. Of course.
(To this point I'm "guilty", I call for all the above as well.)


As you say: You subscribe to them yourself. So what do you want?


Plus the Book of Concord, even though that divides as more sharply away from our Roman Catholic brothers in Christ.

Even though painful, it is sometimes necessary to point out differences. On another foum I am having discussions with hard-core calvinists who are absolutely convinced that God does not love everyone and does not want everyone to be saved and that Christ did not die for everyone. A horrible error! Should we for unity's sake ignore such errors? The confessions and condemnation of the 16th century of often written in a harsh tone. Luther himself often used a very harsh tone. It was a different time in which people were less polite but probably more honest. We nowadays say things differently but when reading 16th century texts we have to focus on the essence of their meaning and if we find it to be true than we have to uphold it. For it is only the truth that sets free.


Plus you have to believe that only Christians are saved.


No! But Scriptures clearly call us to faith in Christ Jesus and his work and command us to spread the word of the reconcellation of the whole world with God in Christ. The question as to who gets saved and who not is to be left to God. I would even dare to say: The question what it really means to get saved is to be left to God as Scriptures do not speak much about life after death or life after this world has come to an end.



Plus you have to believe that everyone else goes to be tortured eternally in Hell.


See above. Let us focus on what Jesus told us to do:

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:

No contemporary worship, that's of the Devil.

Who on this forum has said that contemporary worship is of the Devil? Some like it, some don't. Generally it is often dotrinally faulty and way to emotional and therefore not regarded as suitable by many. But you are free to see this differently.



No communion every week. That's too Catholic.

I think you got something completely wrong there.



And of course you've got to believe the Earth was created in exactly six days about 6,000 years ago.


Again: Who said that belief in a young earth is required or is at the centre of Christian faith? Actually I think you are being narrow-minded here in ridiculing everyone who holds such a view.

[Flipper]

I was told on another message board that law and grace go together like oil and water.

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I've seen it commented in here that conservative/confessional are legalistic. I'm curious why this statement is made. Some people say that we have a legalistic nature because we stress what the Bible teaches us. It seems with that accusation that just about anything mentioned in the Bible can be put under the umbrella of Law and said to be legalistic. It doesn't make sense because I feel we are the freest group bound to no Law except the Bondage of the God's Will as Luther puts it.

Hope I made sense here.

Thanks Rad,

The last few days I have been contemplating this exact subject of freedom and legalism.

I have observed in myself and others that the more familiar and oriented we become with Scripture, the more free we become.

God created the world and everything in it, including us. Everything is His.
Our salvation is a gift of God, given through Christ. Our faith is a gift of God, given through the Holy Spirit. Legalism implies that we can participate in the attaining of these gifts. We can't.

We do have free will to defy God though; which we do frequently because we are sinners. When we do keep the law as we should, it's because of the faith which God has freely given to us. This keeping of the law is also a gift of God's grace given to us, not something that we do!

I have been accused of being legalistic, and have responded that God IS legalistic so we don't have to be. After all who gave us the 10 commandments? The same God who tells us in Scripture that He knows we cannot keep them.

Blessings and Joy in the freedom that God has given to us!:clap:

Mark:)

[Melethiel]

Again: Who said that belief in a young earth is required or is at the centre of Christian faith? Actually I think you are being narrow-minded here in ridiculing everyone who holds such a view.
As far as that particular note goes, I can see where he's coming from...I've been told on this forum before that I have no faith because I'm not YEC.

[Korah]

Till wrote:
The question is: Are all Scriptures the same, are they all on the same level? And the answer of course is no. Christ is at the heart of Scriptures and therefore you are right of course that the Gospels are the centre - not that is NOT a typo. This word is spelled this way - of Scriptures and it must be through the lenses of the gospels' testimony about Christ that we must understand all the rest of Scriptures. Can you see anyone failing to do this?
I'm glad you acknowledge this. That gives you a defense against the further "legalism" I forgot to mention. Unlike all the other apostolic churches, Lutheranism (along with all the Protestants) accepts a canon of 66 books, no more, no less. So a further criticism of Lutheran legalism is that it rejects the extra seven books RC dogmatized at the Council of Trent and also the further three books that Anglicanism accepts (which includes the awful Second Esdras, which I am quite happy Lutheranism rejects), and Lutheranism disagrees with Eastern Orthodoxy with its similar list of "extra" books. The other apostolic bodies (Miaphysitism and Nestorianism) have their own lists, the Ethiopian Church even including Enoch. Yes, it's fine to put the extra books on a lower level, particularly if you acknowledge as Till has that some of the 66 books are not on as high a level. All the Lutheran synods I have visited give the gospels a higher place (read by the priest only), same as observed by RC, EO, and Anglicanism.
Korah

[Melethiel]

*sigh* The deuterocanonicals aren't rejected. They're just placed on a lower level (as they are in the other churches as well).

[Till]

As far as that particular note goes, I can see where he's coming from...I've been told on this forum before that I have no faith because I'm not YEC.

Well, repent then!! :D:D

Sorry, Melethiel, stupid joke.


Hm, don't know what to say. Do many here believe that in order to be a Christian one must hold to the idea of a young earth? I hope not, because if so me, being farily ignorant in the fields of geology and palaeontology, could not be a Christian. Scriptures are not a science text book.

[RadMan]

Well, repent then!! :D:D

Sorry, Melethiel, stupid joke.


Hm, don't know what to say. Do many here believe that in order to be a Christian one must hold to the idea of a young earth? I hope not, because if so me, being farily ignorant in the fields of geology and palaeontology, could not be a Christian. Scriptures are not a science text book.Not really for instance I believe in Creationism but over a longer period of time. I also look at all scientific analysis through the eyes of the Bible and not the other way around. I am always tickled at how over the last 60 years that science has actually been inadvertently supporting the historical Bible more every day.

[Korah]

Well, repent then!! :D:D
Sorry, Melethiel, stupid joke.
Hm, don't know what to say. Do many here believe that in order to be a Christian one must hold to the idea of a young earth? I hope not, because if so me, being farily ignorant in the fields of geology and palaeontology, could not be a Christian. Scriptures are not a science text book.
You have to to be WELS.
They have a great local pastor, I told him I would recommend him for the call at my local ELCA parish. I attended their service and liked it (even though the congregation is so small they had to settle for a teen-age girl as acolyte). But you have to be YEC.
(Needless to say, he wanted no part of applying for ELCA pastor!)
Korah

[Korah]

*sigh* The deuterocanonicals aren't rejected. They're just placed on a lower level (as they are in the other churches as well).
Glad to hear that, Melethiel,
And as a baby Lutheran, I know very little one way or the other.
I know there's nothing about the Bible in the Augsburg Confession, and I'm pretty sure Melanchthon didn't define the Bible in the Apology either. It's not in Luther's Small Catechism. I don't own a Book of Concord--I assume the canon and the place (or lack thereof) of the deuterocanonicals is there somewhere.
Korah
Added: I just ran a search on the internet Book of Concord. It said there were no matches for Judith, Tobit, or Baruch, and I didn't find anything in it that seemed to be the deuterocanonicals for Maccabees, Wisdom, or Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) either.
Edited again: Running a further search, I find citations for important verses in Genesis, Isaiah, Ezekiel, but no inclusion in a list of canonical scriptures. Can we say then that it was only after 1580 that Lutherans reached whatever position they have on the relative importance of the Tanach (Old Testament Jews and Protestants recognize) as against the deuterocanonicals? And just what books are included by Lutherans as deuterocanonical (and not pseudipigraphia)? Do they agree with the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Anglicans (that adds an extra three books)? The Septuagint? Which edition of the Septuagint?

[Edial]

As far as that particular note goes, I can see where he's coming from...I've been told on this forum before that I have no faith because I'm not YEC.
Some old potatos sack would make a great sackcloth ... and once you put your belief in non-YEC on paper and burn it, it would make enough ashes to complete the procedure.

Ed

[Edial]

All Scriptures are equally inspired by God. All 66 books of them.
So, what should we do Korah, not to believe them?

I think a true sense of legalism applies to people who put theology above the plain Scriptures.

Just yesterday I heard of a person being interviewed for membership in a Baptist Calvinistic church.
She does not believe Calvinism and was freely questioning it with people.
She attended that church for 8 years and is well liked and respected there.
During this time they noticeably ceased preaching Calvinism.
So, that woman thought it is OK now to apply for membership.

At the interview the Pastor and an elder told her that once she is a member she must cease talking against Calvinism. She was surprised and asked him if he knows the Calvinism is Scripturally true.
He admitted "No". But, in this church she will not speak against Calvinism even while using Scriptures.

Also, in order for one to become a member, one also needed to read a book on discipline and sign a church discipline paper that one agrees with it and the disciplinary power of the church if she causes division.

This is legalism - theology above Scriptures; denial of even using Scriptures to question the church's theology.

TCL is not legalistic.
We invite our guests to debate us using Scriptures alone.

Even our internal Mod system is designed that way.

Thanks,
Ed

[dinkime]

well, I am WELS and nowhere does it state that you MUST be YEC....please check the FACTS before posting about a group

[DaRev]

The law does not come into play when one believes. That is by grace. When one rejects, that when they place themselves under the law.

[Edial]

The law does not come into play when one believes. That is by grace. When one rejects, that when they place themselves under the law.
I think this is very well said.

Thanks, :)
Ed

[Till]

Glad to hear that, Melethiel,
And as a baby Lutheran, I know very little one way or the other.
I know there's nothing about the Bible in the Augsburg Confession, and I'm pretty sure Melanchthon didn't define the Bible in the Apology either. It's not in Luther's Small Catechism. I don't own a Book of Concord--I assume the canon and the place (or lack thereof) of the deuterocanonicals is there somewhere.


Korah, you do know that Luther translated and published the Bible in German, do you? He also translated the apocryphs but placed them between OT and NT to make clear that they are not a part of the canonical books of the OT. He specifically wrote about their role in saying that they are useful and should be read but are not canonical and are not to be regarded Scriptures. The Lutherbible does contain these books til this day.

Hope that helps,
Till

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Korah, you do know that Luther translated and published the Bible in German, do you? He also translated the apocryphs but placed them between OT and NT to make clear that they are not a part of the canonical books of the OT. He specifically wrote about their role in saying that they are useful and should be read but are not canonical and are not to be regarded Scriptures. The Lutherbible does contain these books til this day.

Hope that helps,
Till

As a Lutheran I find it frustrating that we do not have an English Bible with the apocrypha available through any of our publishing houses. Many years ago I bought a NAB Catholic Edition so I could finally read them. I do have an old German Lutheran Bible that does contain these books, but I can't read German. It would appear that we "lost" these books with the transition to English. It was just easier to grab a Protestant KJV off the shelf. Isn't it time Concordia and/or Augsburg-Fortress got off their keesters and did something about it? (I do believe that Concordia did at one time publish these books in a separate volume but I have only ever seen one copy.) Mark

[RadMan]

As a Lutheran I find it frustrating that we do not have an English Bible with the apocrypha available through any of our publishing houses. Many years ago I bought a NAB Catholic Edition so I could finally read them. I do have an old German Lutheran Bible that does contain these books, but I can't read German. It would appear that we "lost" these books with the transition to English. It was just easier to grab a Protestant KJV off the shelf. Isn't it time Concordia and/or Augsburg-Fortress got off their keesters and did something about it? (I do believe that Concordia did at one time publish these books in a separate volume but I have only ever seen one copy.) MarkYep---Douay Version

[Flipper]

I think this is very well said.

Thanks, :)
Ed


Agreed. Wow.

[Till]

As a Lutheran I find it frustrating that we do not have an English Bible with the apocrypha available through any of our publishing houses. Many years ago I bought a NAB Catholic Edition so I could finally read them. I do have an old German Lutheran Bible that does contain these books, but I can't read German. It would appear that we "lost" these books with the transition to English. It was just easier to grab a Protestant KJV off the shelf. Isn't it time Concordia and/or Augsburg-Fortress got off their keesters and did something about it? (I do believe that Concordia did at one time publish these books in a separate volume but I have only ever seen one copy.) Mark


You can give it to me! :D

Just joking. I guess it is a valuable part of family heritage. Do you know which revision it is though?

To be honest I also use a Catholic bible translation for reading the apocrypha. The editions of the Lutherbible that contain them are big, expensive ones with pictures in them. You know the stuff to be put on a book shelf rather than to be read. The Catholic bible was much cheaper.

I bought the Catholic bible a couple of years ago after speaking with a person who is very educated in history and culture and this person mentioned the archangel Raphael. I did not know whom she meant. Till I learnt that it is in the book of Tobit.

What I do not like about the Catholic bible though is that the OT books and the apocrypha are mixed. I know what is OT and what is apocrypha but other readers don't.

[Edial]

...

What I do not like about the Catholic bible though is that the OT books and the apocrypha are mixed. I know what is OT and what is apocrypha but other readers don't.
And this is a big problem to an average Catholic Bible reader.
The whole OT becomes kind of diluted.

[Tofferer]

I'm just glad that I have never seen a bible with pseudopigraphia in it.

[Edial]

I'm just glad that I have never seen a bible with pseudopigraphia in it.
I know what you mean.

When someone gave me a Bible when I was already an adult, I just believed the whole book without even reading the whole thing.
Can't explain how.

God had mercy on me.

If I would have had the other books in it, I don't know ... I really feel for people who never had pure canonical Bible in the beginning of their Christian life and were taught or learned for themselves these other teachings.

A new believer believes about anything.

And even when now I still have to shed some incorrect theologies that I was taught, I could just imagine how much "shedding" people who believed these other books need to do.

Incorrect beliefs in the beginning of one's Christian life are so hard to discard.

Thanks,
Ed

[IowaLutheran]

As a Lutheran I find it frustrating that we do not have an English Bible with the apocrypha available through any of our publishing houses. Many years ago I bought a NAB Catholic Edition so I could finally read them. I do have an old German Lutheran Bible that does contain these books, but I can't read German. It would appear that we "lost" these books with the transition to English. It was just easier to grab a Protestant KJV off the shelf. Isn't it time Concordia and/or Augsburg-Fortress got off their keesters and did something about it? (I do believe that Concordia did at one time publish these books in a separate volume but I have only ever seen one copy.) Mark

One of the problems is that some modern translations haven't even bothered to translate the apocrypha. There is no such thing as a NIV or ESV version of the apocrypha. So for those who don't like the NRSV, you have to scrounge around for an old RSV with the apocrypha, or go with a Catholic version.

[BigNorsk]

As a Lutheran I find it frustrating that we do not have an English Bible with the apocrypha available through any of our publishing houses. Many years ago I bought a NAB Catholic Edition so I could finally read them. I do have an old German Lutheran Bible that does contain these books, but I can't read German. It would appear that we "lost" these books with the transition to English. It was just easier to grab a Protestant KJV off the shelf. Isn't it time Concordia and/or Augsburg-Fortress got off their keesters and did something about it? (I do believe that Concordia did at one time publish these books in a separate volume but I have only ever seen one copy.) Mark

Link to Augsburg Fortress Bibles with Apocrypha http://www.augsburgfortress.org/store/searchresults.jsp?searchType=all&searchstring=apocrypha&classificationID=-1&x=16&y=12

Marv

[Korah]

Link to Augsburg Fortress Bibles with Apocrypha http://www.augsburgfortress.org/store/searchresults.jsp?searchType=all&searchstring=apocrypha&classificationID=-1&x=16&y=12

Marv
All I saw there were Oxford, NRSV, and such with Apocrypha.
Even when I add the RSV Common Bible with all most of the various apocrypha, I don't remember that it designated what Lutherans include in the Apocrypha.
So will someone please tell me the books in the Lutheran Apocrypha? The German from the Lutherbibel will do, as I read German.
Korah

[Korah]

I'm just glad that I have never seen a bible with pseudopigraphia in it.
The pseudopigraphia are technically books not included in the Apocrypha. In ordinary language the two terms are often used (improperly) interchangeably.
So the Lutherbibel in German contains Apocrypha, but it does not include any pseudopigraphia.

[Korah]

All I saw there were Oxford, NRSV, and such with Apocrypha.
Even when I add the RSV Common Bible with all most of the various apocrypha, I don't remember that it designated what Lutherans include in the Apocrypha.
So will someone please tell me the books in the Lutheran Apocrypha? The German from the Lutherbibel will do, as I read German.
Korah
OK, admit guys--
You're all good Catholics! You don't have a complete Bible that you read!
No one here has a Lutheran Bible (complete with Apocrypha) that he can read--anyone who does have a Lutherbibel can't read it (because he doesn't know German). You don't even have any bibles with apocrypha that say what the Lutheran version is of what books are in the apocrypha.
(Side note--I became a Roman Catholic in 1969 because I read the Bible and didn't find Protestantism in it--except in Romans. By 1992 I took the Bible too seriously and couldn't stay Roman Catholic and became Episcopalian. Can someone tell me that I made the right decision in 2004 to become Lutheran when no one here can tell me what the Lutheran Bible is?)

[Till]

OK, admit guys--
You're all good Catholics! You don't have a complete Bible that you read!
No one here has a Lutheran Bible (complete with Apocrypha) that he can read--anyone who does have a Lutherbibel can't read it (because he doesn't know German). You don't even have any bibles with apocrypha that say what the Lutheran version is of what books are in the apocrypha.
(Side note--I became a Roman Catholic in 1969 because I read the Bible and didn't find Protestantism in it--except in Romans. By 1992 I took the Bible too seriously and couldn't stay Roman Catholic and became Episcopalian. Can someone tell me that I made the right decision in 2004 to become Lutheran when no one here can tell me what the Lutheran Bible is?)

The Lutheran Bible is the 66 canonical books of OT and AT.

Because they are worthy to be read as well Luther also translated the Apocrypha. Those books you can also find in a Catholic bible. I can compile a list but I think you know which they are.

But they are not part of the bible. They are not canonical.


Anyway, what is the heck? You made clear you do not accept all of the canonical books or not all parts. Why you worry about Apocrypha?

[Melethiel]

OK, admit guys--
You're all good Catholics! You don't have a complete Bible that you read!
No one here has a Lutheran Bible (complete with Apocrypha) that he can read--anyone who does have a Lutherbibel can't read it (because he doesn't know German). You don't even have any bibles with apocrypha that say what the Lutheran version is of what books are in the apocrypha.
(Side note--I became a Roman Catholic in 1969 because I read the Bible and didn't find Protestantism in it--except in Romans. By 1992 I took the Bible too seriously and couldn't stay Roman Catholic and became Episcopalian. Can someone tell me that I made the right decision in 2004 to become Lutheran when no one here can tell me what the Lutheran Bible is?)
Lutheran deuterocanon is the same as the Catholic. Lutherans came from Catholics, remember.

[Korah]

Lutheran deuterocanon is the same as the Catholic. Lutherans came from Catholics, remember.
So you're saying that Lutherans accept the Roman Catholic Council of Trent in defining the Lutheran Apocrypha, that you differ from the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles in rejecting Third Esdras, Fourth Esdras, and the Prayer of Manasses?
I'm still without a straight answer from any of you as to what constitutes the Apocrypha that's in the Lutherbibel and used to be in all Protestant Bibles until the middle of the 19th Century. Apparently Lutheran usage determines what Protestants follow, so it's strange that Lutherans know so little about this matter.

[DaRev]

Perhaps if you came in here and discussed things with decorum and courtesy, people would be more apt to converse with you. You're arrogance and pompous attitude will not take you very far with the majority of people here.

[Korah]

Perhaps if you came in here and discussed things with decorum and courtesy, people would be more apt to converse with you. You're arrogance and pompous attitude will not take you very far with the majority of people here.
Let's get this straight. You're an LCMS minister and you don't know either?
I take it Lutheran seminaries don't teach German, then.

[LilLamb219]

Let's please speak to each other as Christian brothers and sisters. I'd hate to see yet another thread closed because of rule violations.

[DaRev]

Let's get this straight. You're an LCMS minister and you don't know either?
I take it Lutheran seminaries don't teach German, then.

I never said I didn't know.

[Melethiel]

So you're saying that Lutherans accept the Roman Catholic Council of Trent in defining the Lutheran Apocrypha, that you differ from the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles in rejecting Third Esdras, Fourth Esdras, and the Prayer of Manasses?
I'm still without a straight answer from any of you as to what constitutes the Apocrypha that's in the Lutherbibel and used to be in all Protestant Bibles until the middle of the 19th Century. Apparently Lutheran usage determines what Protestants follow, so it's strange that Lutherans know so little about this matter.
If you're so curious, why don't you look up the Lutherbibel online? It's not so difficult.

[seajoy]

Let's get this straight. You're an LCMS minister and you don't know either?
I take it Lutheran seminaries don't teach German, then.
Let's get this straight. You only like to ruffle feathers...ok, got it. :doh:

[seajoy]

If you're so curious, why don't you look up the Lutherbibel online? It's not so difficult.
:)

[Flipper]

Do we need to go over the care and feeding of Trolls again?

If you feed a Troll, it will Grow.

[seajoy]

Do we need to go over the care and feeding of Trolls again?

If you feed a Troll, it will Grow.
Remind me to behave on the day we go to the zoo. :blush: :)

[LutheranMafia]

Perhaps if you came in here and discussed things with decorum and courtesy, people would be more apt to converse with you. You're arrogance and pompous attitude will not take you very far with the majority of people here.And you thought *I* was bad! :D

[seajoy]

And you thought *I* was bad! :D
What I was thinking. ^_^

[Flipper]

Remind me to behave on the day we go to the zoo. :blush: :)


You're not a troll, you're just short. ;)

[seajoy]

You're not a troll, you're just short. ;)
No, but I like to feed them sometimes :sorry:

Watch it, I'll punch out your kneecaps. :P

[Flipper]

No, but I like to feed them sometimes :sorry:

Me too.

Watch it, I'll punch out your kneecaps. :P

You'll have to catch me first. :runcry:

[seajoy]

You'll have to catch me first. :runcry:
I lose. ^_^

[seajoy]

Sorry Rad.....we've gotten a tad off topic. :sorry: And what was all the apocrypha talk??? :preach: Are we Lutheran, or what??????????? :confused:

[Melethiel]

I've ordered a separate printing of the Apocrypha off Amazon, since I want to have them in hard copy, and don't want to buy an entire new Bible. While the books aren't fully canon, they are good for reading...I've seen early printings of the Catechism that had pictures illustrating such stories as that of Susanna.

[filosofer]

The RCC revised the RSV (like Isaiah 7:14) in 2002 and included the apocrypha. It is in a few places better than the ESV. Mrs. filo and I use it for our nightly devotional reading.

[seajoy]

Wow, I've never heard of Lutherans even reading the apocrypha. Have things changed? I've never had a pastor even refer to it, except to say it's not the bible. I have had both LCMS and WELS pastors my whole life.

[RadMan]

Sorry Rad.....we've gotten a tad off topic. :sorry: And what was all the apocrypha talk??? :preach: Are we Lutheran, or what??????????? :confused:Yea from "legalism" to "apocrypha" in one easy lesson. :)

[IowaLutheran]

Wow, I've never heard of Lutherans even reading the apocrypha. Have things changed? I've never had a pastor even refer to it, except to say it's not the bible. I have had both LCMS and WELS pastors my whole life.

What hopefully is changing is that Lutherans are no longer rejecting things simply because of an assumption that "only Roman Catholics do (or believe) that." The use of the apocryphal books is a classic example - despite their noncanonical status, Luther's writings encourage us to read them and use them during worship, but we have ignored his advice on this issue for a long time. Although this is speculation, my assumption is that modern Lutheran ignorance of the apocrypha is another example of the infiltration of Calvinism and/or American evangelicalism (where the apocrypha is completely rejected for all purposes) into Lutheranism.


http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2526

"Q. What is the Lutheran Church's position or teaching regarding the Apocrypha as found in Roman Catholic Bibles?
A. Martin Luther regarded the Apocrypha as "useful historical" writings which Christians should be familiar with and which should even be read in public worship from time to time. But neither Luther nor the Lutheran church has ever regarded these writings as canonical--i.e., as part of the inspired and inerrant Word of God--since they do not meet the criteria discernible from the Scriptures themselves regarding what constitutes those books belonging to the canon of Scripture."

[seajoy]

I'll stick to the bible, thanks.

[Korah]

If you're so curious, why don't you look up the Lutherbibel online? It's not so difficult.
It is that difficult.
My internet search brought up ten I tried, none got me to a text of the Lutherbibel including Apocrypha. Even had I paid $19.95 to logos....1912 for just a download, I most likely would have gotten only the 66 books.
Only 66 at godrules, quod.lib.umich.edu (auf Deutsch), only searchable (no text) at lib.uchicago, requires libronix 3.0 at logos 1545. No good at biblegateway and bibleworks, lutherbibel only a title page (I guess a website under construction. I even read the Wikipedia article in German about the Lutherbibel.
Back to you, young lady.

[Korah]

Do we need to go over the care and feeding of Trolls again?
If you feed a Troll, it will Grow.
I ask a legitimate question, and no one tries to answer it besides Iowa Lutheran (and even he failed), and I'm the troll?

[Korah]

I never said I didn't know.
And you havn't said you do.

[Edial]

What hopefully is changing is that Lutherans are no longer rejecting things simply because of an assumption that "only Roman Catholics do (or believe) that." The use of the apocryphal books is a classic example - despite their noncanonical status, Luther's writings encourage us to read them and use them during worship, but we have ignored his advice on this issue for a long time. Although this is speculation, my assumption is that modern Lutheran ignorance of the apocrypha is another example of the infiltration of Calvinism and/or American evangelicalism (where the apocrypha is completely rejected for all purposes) into Lutheranism.


http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2526

"Q. What is the Lutheran Church's position or teaching regarding the Apocrypha as found in Roman Catholic Bibles?
A. Martin Luther regarded the Apocrypha as "useful historical" writings which Christians should be familiar with and which should even be read in public worship from time to time. But neither Luther nor the Lutheran church has ever regarded these writings as canonical--i.e., as part of the inspired and inerrant Word of God--since they do not meet the criteria discernible from the Scriptures themselves regarding what constitutes those books belonging to the canon of Scripture."
Some years back I read Maccabees 4 (I believe) online.

In it was a description of a woman whose all 7 sons were mercilessly tortured in front of her eyes. And the description of tortures were quiet graphic. Skin coming off ...
And through all this the point was that the woman never rejected God although they were telling her to and she could have stopped the tortures. So, she watched these tortures of her sons, one at a time.

I was a new believer while reading this.

I was sick to my stomach yet read the whole thing and got deeply disturbed. I knew very little about the Bible, yet I knew that there was something deeply wrong with the Maccabean message.

To me that wrong message was clear as a bell.
It also told me that I might not be smart enough in distinguishing more subtle wrong messages from non-Scriptural literature that talked about God.

Concerning God I just read the Bible.

Thanks, :)
Ed

[Till]

I'll stick to the bible, thanks.

I agree with you here to some extent.

We can read the Apocrypha as Luther said, but Luther also said that it is fittable for a Christian to know the Epistle to the Romans by heart!!

Once we have such a firm grip on the caninical Scriptures as not only Luther but many people in former centuries had, we might as well spend time studying the Apocrypha. Till then - while they make for a good read from time to time as they contain cool stories - I will limit studying to Scriptures.

[Till]

It is that difficult.
My internet search brought up ten I tried, none got me to a text of the Lutherbibel including Apocrypha. Even had I paid $19.95 to logos....1912 for just a download, I most likely would have gotten only the 66 books.
Only 66 at godrules, quod.lib.umich.edu (auf Deutsch), only searchable (no text) at lib.uchicago, requires libronix 3.0 at logos 1545. No good at biblegateway and bibleworks, lutherbibel only a title page (I guess a website under construction. I even read the Wikipedia article in German about the Lutherbibel.
Back to you, young lady.



For the online version of the 1984 revision of Luther's bible translation INCLUDING the Apocrypha please see:


http://www.die-bibel.de/online-bibeln/luther-bibel-1984/lesen-im-bibeltext/


Hope that helps. There is a drop-down with the title "Buch wählen" where you can choose which book you want to read. It is all the books between Maleachi - the last book of OT - and Matthaeuse - the first book of NT.

You will see that there are other translations which have them as well:

1. Menge - very, very good translation. If you understand German, this is one of the best translation you can read
2. Gute Nachricht


The KJV, which is linked there as well and the more Refomed, Swiss translations Die Zürcher Bibel and Neue Genfer Übersetzung do not have them.

[Melethiel]

.

[Korah]

.
I don't have a Russian dictionary handy since the early 1960's when I studed Russian in college, so I don't know what that middle word means. The first word "gospodin" usually means "gentlemen", but you're probably intending "Lord" here. The last word is "us". So I would guess the translation is something like "Lord, help us". I don't know why you chose the perfective instead of the imperfective, but maybe you think I won't be around long and you need protection from me only briefly.

[Korah]

For the online version of the 1984 revision of Luther's bible translation INCLUDING the Apocrypha please see:


http://www.die-bibel.de/online-bibeln/luther-bibel-1984/lesen-im-bibeltext/


Hope that helps. There is a drop-down with the title "Buch wählen" where you can choose which book you want to read. It is all the books between Maleachi - the last book of OT - and Matthaeuse - the first book of NT.

You will see that there are other translations which have them as well:

1. Menge - very, very good translation. If you understand German, this is one of the best translation you can read
2. Gute Nachricht


The KJV, which is linked there as well and the more Refomed, Swiss translations Die Zürcher Bibel and Neue Genfer Übersetzung do not have them.
And the answer is--"none of the above"
Wow!
The Lutherbibel includes all the Roman Catholic seven plus the bits of Daniel and Esther, but it also includes the Prayer of Manasseh. But it does not include the other two books the Anglicans went with, the two books of Esdras. All this was unsettled until the Council of Trent a little later defined (its) Apocrypha.
I suppose Lutherans never felt a need to define the canon. Luther had done the job for them, specifying the canonical 66 plus his version of 8 in the Apocrypha. That or later Lutherans could never come to any agreement as to which books to list in which.
So it's all a matter of practice, of Tradition. That's fine with me, it's an extension of my old Prayer-Book-Anglicanism (usually called Anglo-Catholicism) that believes whatever it is that we've been doing.
Thank you, Till. I finally found my answer with your help.

[Korah]

Some years back I read Maccabees 4 (I believe) online.

In it was a description of a woman whose all 7 sons were mercilessly tortured in front of her eyes. And the description of tortures were quiet graphic. Skin coming off ...
And through all this the point was that the woman never rejected God although they were telling her to and she could have stopped the tortures. So, she watched these tortures of her sons, one at a time.

I was a new believer while reading this.

I was sick to my stomach yet read the whole thing and got deeply disturbed. I knew very little about the Bible, yet I knew that there was something deeply wrong with the Maccabean message.

To me that wrong message was clear as a bell.
It also told me that I might not be smart enough in distinguishing more subtle wrong messages from non-Scriptural literature that talked about God.

Concerning God I just read the Bible.

Thanks, :)
Ed
I've heard radio preachers cite that story as an admirable martyrdom.
Be that as it may, it's irrelevant to the point about "the" Apocrypha. Third and Fourth Maccabees are not included in any Western Apocrypha. To us in the West (RC, Anglicans, Lutherans) these are just pseudipigrapha.

[filosofer]

One of the problems is that some modern translations haven't even bothered to translate the apocrypha. There is no such thing as a NIV or ESV version of the apocrypha. So for those who don't like the NRSV, you have to scrounge around for an old RSV with the apocrypha, or go with a Catholic version.


Perhaps there is a little confusion going on here. Lutherans do not have an apocrypha, separate from what the early and medieval church (later eastern [Greek texts] and western [Latin] churches) used/had available. The Lutheran Confessions do occasionally reference the apocrypha, but that does not establish a "Lutheran canon" regarding the apocrypha.

Likewise there is no "Lutheran translation of the canonical books" even though some Lutherans (is Luther a Lutheran? ;) ) have produced translations (i.e. German - Luther, English - Beck...)

The Lutheran position, reflecting Luther's view, is to understand and accept the historical conditions and development regarding the canon for both the OT and NT, since they are separate, but closely related issues. The apocrypha were written in Greek and were not part of the Hebrew canon as historically demonstrable, nor were they included (obviously) in the NT. "The" Septuagint (a confusing use of the definite article) came into being by Jews, in Alexandria, Egypt between the 3rd and 1st century BCE, who translated the Hebrew texts into Greek. In the 1st century CE, because most Jews could not speak/read Hebrew and most Christians couldn’t either, both Christians and Jews used the Septuagint as their primary Scriptures.

Controversies between the two groups in the 1st and 2nd century CE, however, led some Christians to claim that the Jews changed some of the Hebrew texts (based on a comparison with the Septuagint translation) to avoid any Christological implications (i.e. Psalm 96:10). As the second century ended most Jews no longer accepted the Septuagint translation as authoritative. Almost by default, the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew became the standard OT text used by many Christians in their dispute with Jews. Thus, from that era we see evidence that they began to include the extra writings in a few copies of the Greek OT/NT (classic examples include B [codex Vaticanus], א [Codex Sinaiticus]) in the 4th century and later, but even that was still not definitive of canonicity for the apocrypha.

Ultimately, however, the books included in the RCC canon came from the Latin translation (Vulgate) by Jerome, even though he advocated not including the apocrypha. See further discussion (standard text studies of the OT) about Jerome and his view of the translation from the Hebrew vs. Greek into Latin and the contents of the canon and Augustine’s opposition. For a good summary and overview of all this in studying the Septuagint, see Invitation to the Septuagint by Karen H. Jobes and Moises Silva, Baker Academic, 2000.

Also, visit Bible researcher (http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon2.html) and check out the table (about half way down) for an informal description and comparison of RCC, EO, and “Protestant” views of what is in the Apocrypha. Note: I don’t accept everything Marlowe writes, but it is a handy summary.

Sadly, this sketchy overview only scratches the surface, but it should at least be acknowledged that phrase "canon of apocrypha" or “Lutheran apocrypha” are not Lutheran terms nor uniquely Lutheran historical phenomena.

==========

Actually, Till, the RCC revised the RSV in 2002 that is very similar to ESV and includes the apocrypha. My wife and I use it for our nightly devotions.

[DaRev]

Actually, Till, the RCC revised the RSV in 2002 that is very similar to ESV and includes the apocrypha. My wife and I use it for our nightly devotions.


That might be interesting to look at. I once emailed GNP to ask if they had any plans of including the deuterocanon for the ESV, but they indicated that there were no plans to do so.

[Melethiel]

I don't have a Russian dictionary handy since the early 1960's when I studed Russian in college, so I don't know what that middle word means. The first word "gospodin" usually means "gentlemen", but you're probably intending "Lord" here. The last word is "us". So I would guess the translation is something like "Lord, help us". I don't know why you chose the perfective instead of the imperfective, but maybe you think I won't be around long and you need protection from me only briefly.
You must be referring to my signature, which I've had the entire time I've been here...it reads "Lord have mercy on us."
Although I speak fluent Ukrainian and can understand Russian some, my knowledge of formal grammar is zilch, so I have no clue about the rest.

[Korah]

Excellent, Filosofer,
And what you don't cover the Bible Researcher link does. Thank you.

[filosofer]

Glad to help. Wish you well on your study.

[Edial]

I've heard radio preachers cite that story as an admirable martyrdom.
Be that as it may, it's irrelevant to the point about "the" Apocrypha. Third and Fourth Maccabees are not included in any Western Apocrypha. To us in the West (RC, Anglicans, Lutherans) these are just pseudipigrapha.
They did quote it in positive light? Interesting.

It is my opinion that Apocrypha should not be within the binder of the Bible.
Even today's accepted Apochryphal books have clear historical inaccuracies (Daniel supposedly destroyed the temple of Bel in Bel and the Dragon), misleading theologies (praying for the dead, forgot in which book).
These are clear ... to us.
But what about the majority of people who open such Bibles? They do not know a difference between inspired text and non-inspired ones. Which books are which?

And what about the inaccuracies that are not clear?
What about hidden trains of thoughts?
What about incorrect impressions?
What about subtle inuendos?

From reading the non-Biblical texts I learned how easily one might get swayed from the consistent train of thought of the Scriptures.

I do not want to read anything about God that is not inspired by God.

I am not that smart nor that brave.

Thanks,
Ed

[Korah]

They did quote it in positive light? Interesting.

It is my opinion that Apocrypha should not be within the binder of the Bible.
Even today's accepted Apochryphal books have clear historical inaccuracies (Daniel supposedly destroyed the temple of Bel in Bel and the Dragon), misleading theologies (praying for the dead, forgot in which book).
These are clear ... to us.
But what about the majority of people who open such Bibles? They do not know a difference between inspired text and non-inspired ones. Which books are which?

And what about the inaccuracies that are not clear?
What about hidden trains of thoughts?
What about incorrect impressions?
What about subtle inuendos?

From reading the non-Biblical texts I learned how easily one might get swayed from the consistent train of thought of the Scriptures.

I do not want to read anything about God that is not inspired by God.

I am not that smart nor that brave.

Thanks,
Ed
I have lots of trouble with Judges 17-21. It's the prime reason I left the Roman Catholic Church in 1992.
I have problems with Joshua. With I Samuel 15. There are ways I can rationalize these, but they require abandoning the conventional orthodoxy "everyone" here believe, like creation ex nihilo and no pre-existence.
And I do believe in prayers for the dead. I never could stand orthodox Protestantism. Still can't.
Did you ever notice that the Augsburg Confession does not denounce Purgatory, or even mention it?
Melanchthon's Apology does mention Purgatory negatively many times, but implies belief in its existence.

[IowaLutheran]

T

I do not want to read anything about God that is not inspired by God.

I am not that smart nor that brave.



You don't read any books about God at all besides the 66 books of the Bible? No commentaries on the Bible? No Book of Concord? No biographies about the way God has influenced people's lives?

[seajoy]

You don't read any books about God at all besides the 66 books of the Bible? No commentaries on the Bible? No Book of Concord? No biographies about the way God has influenced people's lives?
Although I can't speak for Ed, my guess is that he doesn't want to read things that, in some circles, claim to be inspired word, when it is not. Commentaries are one thing, but claims that something is canonical, is another.

Take it away, Ed....... :)

[Melethiel]

The Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus are well worth reading.

[LutheranMafia]

The Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus are well worth reading.Not to be confused with the canonical Ecclesiastes.

[Edial]

You don't read any books about God at all besides the 66 books of the Bible? No commentaries on the Bible? No Book of Concord? No biographies about the way God has influenced people's lives?
I usually refer to commentaries which make valuable points concerning the time period of the text, meanings of words, and Biblical cross-references.
Some commentaries however, are plainly saying this means this with no Biblical support. These I skip.

I did not read the entire BoC. Just parts of it as they came up in TCL.

I read some biographies where people are reflecting how God worked in their lives. But not too many. Some salvation type of biographies. But personally speaking, I am not a biography reader.

I do not read books about God which are presenting doctrinal statements, ways of God, which historically speaking were claiming a way into a canon yet were rejected.

Thanks,
Ed