Did you know that Luther rejected Revelation?

[xdisciplex]

http://www.bible-researcher.com/antilegomena.html

Isn't this concerning? What if he was right? He was probably more knowledgeable than most of the christians today and also was a sincere christian if he says such things about Revelation (I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.) then what if he was right?
Oh boy. Under all these circumstances it becomes really hard to have this childlike faith in the bible anymore, there are simply so many insecurities. :tear:
Maybe the only ones which can have a childlike faith are those which have no clue of all these problems. When you're ignorant about all these things then believing is much easier.

 

[Rooselk]

Yes, many of us are aware that Luther had questions about several books in the New Testament. This should not be troubling since the Reformation was a time for examination and questioning of all that had been handed down from the Roman Catholic church. However, in the end the Reformers rejected none of the New Testament books and Luther himself taught from from the book of Revelation.

 

[Scarlett O.]

Hmmmm....let's see. Martin Luther didn't like the book of James because he interpreted the "works" that James talked about to be in violation of Paul's "grace" teachings.

All I can say is what a terrible loss for Martin Luther. Obviously he didn't understand what James was talking about.

And he didn't like all of the "imagery" in the book of Revelation. He decided that he couldn't "detect that the Holy Spirit produced it".

Again, what a loss for him.

There is no need for Christians to quiver in fear of losing their faith just because one very learned and important man happened to have a biased view of parts of the bible.

As for staying in ignorance so that you won't lose your faith.....that's EXACTLY the corrupt teaching that Martin Luther tried so hard to stamp out!!

Do yourself a BIG favor. Read the books of James for yourself. The whole thing. Compare it to Paul's teachings in Romans. You'll find that the two aren't in opposition to each, but complement each other.

Martin Luther was so very important for so many reasons. But in this instance of claiming that the book of Revelation was not authored by the Holy Spirit and that the book of James taught salvation by works, Martin Luther was wrong.

My faith isn't shaken when "important" people claim to have all of the answers and when some of their answers are opposed to mine.

You see, I don't take their word for it. I don't ignorantly and blindly believe everything that other humans in authority say just because they are in authority. Not Martin Luther...not Billy Graham....not my parents....not my preacher.

When there is a question.... I take God's Word for it.

 

[J. Jump]

The problem was that the "church" had gotten away from the message of grace and was deep into people being able to save themselves based on their works.

Some of the reformers were so disturbed by this that they went off the deep end the other way instead of finding the balance in the Scriptures.

It was either Luther or Calvin, possibly both, that really struggled, like many of the reformers and even non-reformers alike today, with the book of James. They totally missed the mark as most do today with how to deal with James.

 

[Scarlett O.]

The problem was that the "church" had gotten away from the message of grace and was deep into people being able to save themselves based on their works.

Some of the reformers were so disturbed by this that they went off the deep end the other way instead of finding the balance in the Scriptures.

It was either Luther or Calvin, possibly both, that really struggled, like many of the reformers and even non-reformers alike today, with the book of James. They totally missed the mark as most do today with how to deal with James.

:thumbs: :applause:

 

[xdisciplex]

But if Luther thought James violates Romans then may he not have been right? Was Luther too dumb or narrow-minded? I mean I also find it confusing. When you read Romans it sounds like A and James sounds like B. This confuses me, too. :tear:
The bible might make a statement in one book and you think now you have everything you need pinned down in this statement but then in another book there is an addition which sometimes seems like a contradiction. This is totally annoying. Why does the bible not simply sum everything up at once? How to get saved and all that? But no, it's spreat all over the bible. Here a hint, there are hint....

 

[Not_hard_to_find]

xdisciplex -- I'm new, but I've read several of your posts and it appears to me that you have serious concerns about salvation. It also appears from your writings that you are not comfortable accepting the Bible as a source of spiritual growth. Many of your posts allude to rumors or writers that do not adhere to Biblical doctrine.

The concerns expressed relate to how to be saved, the assurances of salvation and the relationship of good works.

Would you agree, or not, with these assumptions of mine?

 

[xdisciplex]

Yes and what you see is only the tip of the iceberg. I'm concerned about far more things than you just listed.

 

[Kris]

I agree :thumbs: Christians rarely admit the Bible has constant condradictions, most just get used to double talking. This meaning saying one thing AND the exact opposite, sometimes even in the same sentence. Keep in mind, this is my interpretation only.
It's hard for non-christians to understand this language since secular world doesn't usually speak this way. It's either one way or the other (The light is either blue or green).
The only way to understand is to read the Bible for yourself and pray it will be revealed it to you. I believe in doing this it lessens the struggle, or it should. Sometimes Satan can be poweful. It's sometimes hard to have patience but the Lord is with you at all times. He doesn't reveal everything to us, we will not know it all. Bible studies and regular church attendance help

 

[Not_hard_to_find]

Yes and what you see is only the tip of the iceberg. I'm concerned about far more things than you just listed.

And, not so much from the viewpoint of a Christian?

 

[J. Jump]

then may he not have been right?

No Luther was not right in his dislike for the book of James. And no he was not right in saying that it didn't belong in Scripture. I think that was his statement.

Was Luther too dumb or narrow-minded?

Narrow-minded might be a good way to put it. Luther had an agenda and he wanted to make sure that agenda got pushed through and it did. Fortunately in some places and not so fortunately in others.

Like I said he went to the extreme on the other end of what he saw as a problem instead of finding the "True" answer.

He's not any different than a number of people today. They have an agenda and they go to the Bible to "prove" their agenda to be true. That's why we have so many different beliefs is that people have agendas other than Truth seeking.

 

[J. Jump]

Christians rarely admit the Bible has constant condradictions

Kris what do you mean by this statement?

 

[Scarlett O.]

But if Luther thought James violates Romans then may he not have been right?......When you read Romans it sounds like A and James sounds like B.

Alright....let's do a little digging in the Word.

Give us your passages from Romans and your passages from James that you feel are contradictory and let's look at them together. Let's see if we can come up with an answer that relieves your spirit.

 

[LeBuick]

I mean I also find it confusing. When you read Romans it sounds like A and James sounds like B. This confuses me, too. :tear:
The bible might make a statement in one book and you think now you have everything you need pinned down in this statement but then in another book there is an addition which sometimes seems like a contradiction. This is totally annoying..

My Dad taught me never to base a doctorine off one scripture. He insisted using at least 3 passages before you begin to make a conclusion.

Remember, the Bible was written by many men all divinely inspired. Just as we on this board are often mis-understood while saying the same thing, just differently so are the Bible writers sying similar things and mis-understood.

 

[xdisciplex]

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

These verses sound like all you have to do is believe and then you're saved.From reading them you get the impression that all you have to do is believe and then everything is fine.

Jam 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Jam 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Jam 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
Jam 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
Jam 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
Jam 2:22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
Jam 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
Jam 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

But from these verses you get the impression that works are also very important to stay saved because Satan also believes.
2 totally different statements in my opinion. Sure, you can come up with explanations and make them fit to each other but just because you are able to find an explanation for something doesn't mean it's right. Let's say James really is not canonical then all christians are being misled in trying to somehow make James agree with Romans. Even if we had a book in the bible which did not fit to the rest of the bible at all I bet that some theologians would find ways to make it fit to the rest.

 

[Brother Bob]

Happens on here all the time. :Fish:

 

[Scarlett O.]

Rom 10:9-10

James 2:17-24

2 totally different statements in my opinion. Sure, you can come up with explanations and make them fit to each other but just because you are able to find an explanation for something doesn't mean it's right. Let's say James really is not canonical then all christians are being misled in trying to somehow make James agree with Romans. Even if we had a book in the bible which did not fit to the rest of the bible at all I bet that some theologians would find ways to make it fit to the rest.

So.....am I understanding correctly that you have presented the two "conflicting" passages, but you do not want to discuss them nor hear anyone's else "opinion"? You already have your mind made up that James doesn't belong in the bible?

That's fine, if you don't want to. Just let me know if I am reading you right.

 

[xdisciplex]

So.....am I understanding correctly that you have presented the two "conflicting" passages, but you do not want to discuss them nor hear anyone's else "opinion"?

You are not understanding me correctly.
I am simply expressing my frustration with these different statements which really do not seem to fit together very well on the first sight.
Imagine you had lived back then and you did not have a bible because bibles were not out yet, you only had the letter from Paul and you studied it. You only know what Romans 10:9-10 says about getting saved and then somebody shows you the letter of James what would your first thoughts be like? Would you not first of all think: "Wait a minute! Romans said something different."
Or would you directly say:"Oh yes, this adds up totally fine to what Romans said".
I think I would have my problems. And I bet if James for example was only in the catholic bible the christians would say:" Look at James! What a heresy, it teaches salvation by works, these foolish catholics...."
Am I not right? I mean do we not turn everything in a way that it fits to our wishes?
And I also found another verse which does not seem to fit together with James.

Habakkuk 2:4 "The righteous live by faith."

 

[J. Jump]

The context of James again is not eternal salvation. That's why people struggle so much with James. They try to make it fit into eternal salvation. It's like plugging a round peg into a square hole. It will fit, but you will tear up both the peg and the hole by the cramming.

And so it is with salvation by grace alone apart from works and salvation with works in James. They are two separate messages (apples and oranges) and people are trying to make them applanges, thereby tearing up both messages in the process.

 

[Hope of Glory]

Spiritual salvation is by "believe" and it's secure. You cannot lose it.

The book of James is the book for the salvation of the soul, which is by works, and you can forfeit that, although you are still saved.