Another venture -
Thus, if 2 Maccabees is part of Scripture, then prayer for the dead is a biblical doctrine: but almost no Protestant holds this doctrine, thus demonstrating for “sola scriptura” the implications of rejecting books of the Bible. It will be shown, then, that the Protestants are the real violators of the written Word of God, having cut out books that did not fit their preconceived notions….
You can read the rest here:
The point, however, here is that too often, Protestants look at aberrant ‘doctrines’ in the Deuterocanon, basing their exclusion of these books on this, but failing to realize that we find other doctrines which we no longer hold, or even very wrong things, advocated in Scripture. Read Job. Or Leviticus.
Further, the praying for the dead bit in 2nd Maccabees is not advocated or accepted in Scripture, and those that believe that an appearance in Scripture solidifies anything doesn’t understand Scripture. In my opinion, a Christology not built upon Wisdom misses the mark.
Joel L. Watts holds a Masters of Arts from United Theological Seminary with a focus in literary and rhetorical criticism of the New Testament. His interests include exploring the role of mimesis in human civilization, specifically in the study of religion and media, as well as science fiction and the way in which it has allowed mythology to be explored in light of scientific discoveries of the past century. He is the author of Mimetic Criticism of the Gospel of Mark: Introduction and Commentary (Wipf and Stock, 2013) and a co-editor and contributor to From Fear to Faith: Stories of Hitting Spiritual Walls (Energion, 2013).
Website: → Unsettled Christianity
Connect
I hadn’t realized that the Maccabees passage didn’t have anything good to say about the prayer for the dead, but merely recorded it. It did congradulate the guy who prayed, however, on remembering the resurrection and on remember that God rewards the godly in the next life. But to my eyes (at first reading) it looks more like a gentle apology for Judas’ behavior than a promotion of the practice.
If interpreted from a Protestant perspective, that passage is way less problematic than some other stuff in Job or James or Ecclesiastes. The cynic in me would suggest that maybe we should have thrown them out instead and kept the deuterocanon . . .
Amen to that, Mitchell!
And didn’t Luther try to throw out James?
If my facts are straight, Luther, when he published his Bible, included Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Revelation, but he put them to the end with a note reading, “Up to this point we have had to do with the true and certain chief books of the New Testament. The four which follow have from ancient times had a different reputation.”
And although some view this as a Protestantism-motivated attack on books which prove Catholics right, a fair look at Luther’s decision will include the fact that Erasmus, who stood barely on the Catholic side of the fence with the reformation, also viewed those books as possibly spurious. Even Cardinal Cajetan, who opposed Luther so strenously as Augsburg, also doubted their canonicity.
So I’d say that the “drunk munk” charicature painted of Luther by the Mystagogue is more a polemic attack on Luther’s reasoning than a reflection of any actual practice of his concerning canonicity. Given that the canon wasn’t fully settled within Catholicism till a bit later, I’d say it’s more likely that Luther was wrestling through what he saw as real difficulties in deciding which books were in and which were ought, rather than simply cutting out whatever he didn’t like.
A bit more on Luther and the canon can be found here: http://www.bible-researcher.com/antilegomena.html
Personally, I’m fully with Protestantism on canon, and I believe Roman Catholicism and the Orthodox to be in error. I’m sure they feel the same way. But that’s no excuse for throwing ridiculous accusations back and forth.
Whoa, Mitchell…no one is throwing out ridiculous accusations about Luther nor has anything here drawn Luther as a ‘drunk munk.’
No, not here. Over at the Mystagogy link you showed. All has been nicely civil here.
Whew… I thought that I had maybe said something.
For me, it is healthy to reexamine canonical issues from time to time. I believe that the Common Canon to be fully inspired, but can we say the same about Judith? Or the Esdras’
Naw, you didn’t say anything crazy. I’m quite good at one-on-one conversation, because me and whoever I’m talking to both know exactly what’s going on and who’s being referred to. Off in cyberspace, however, where there’s all sorts of things all over the place, sometimes I forget how much in gestures and expressions gets missed.
But I’m absolutely with you on examining canonical issues. Light’s good on anything.
I hadn’t realized that the Maccabees passage didn’t have anything good to say about the prayer for the dead, but merely recorded it. It did congradulate the guy who prayed, however, on remembering the resurrection and on remember that God rewards the godly in the next life. But to my eyes (at first reading) it looks more like a gentle apology for Judas’ behavior than a promotion of the practice.
If interpreted from a Protestant perspective, that passage is way less problematic than some other stuff in Job or James or Ecclesiastes. The cynic in me would suggest that maybe we should have thrown them out instead and kept the deuterocanon . . .
Amen to that, Mitchell!
And didn’t Luther try to throw out James?
If my facts are straight, Luther, when he published his Bible, included Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Revelation, but he put them to the end with a note reading, “Up to this point we have had to do with the true and certain chief books of the New Testament. The four which follow have from ancient times had a different reputation.”
And although some view this as a Protestantism-motivated attack on books which prove Catholics right, a fair look at Luther’s decision will include the fact that Erasmus, who stood barely on the Catholic side of the fence with the reformation, also viewed those books as possibly spurious. Even Cardinal Cajetan, who opposed Luther so strenously as Augsburg, also doubted their canonicity.
So I’d say that the “drunk munk” charicature painted of Luther by the Mystagogue is more a polemic attack on Luther’s reasoning than a reflection of any actual practice of his concerning canonicity. Given that the canon wasn’t fully settled within Catholicism till a bit later, I’d say it’s more likely that Luther was wrestling through what he saw as real difficulties in deciding which books were in and which were ought, rather than simply cutting out whatever he didn’t like.
A bit more on Luther and the canon can be found here: http://www.bible-researcher.com/antilegomena.html
Personally, I’m fully with Protestantism on canon, and I believe Roman Catholicism and the Orthodox to be in error. I’m sure they feel the same way. But that’s no excuse for throwing ridiculous accusations back and forth.
Whoa, Mitchell…no one is throwing out ridiculous accusations about Luther nor has anything here drawn Luther as a ‘drunk munk.’
No, not here. Over at the Mystagogy link you showed. All has been nicely civil here.
Whew… I thought that I had maybe said something.
For me, it is healthy to reexamine canonical issues from time to time. I believe that the Common Canon to be fully inspired, but can we say the same about Judith? Or the Esdras’
Naw, you didn’t say anything crazy. I’m quite good at one-on-one conversation, because me and whoever I’m talking to both know exactly what’s going on and who’s being referred to. Off in cyberspace, however, where there’s all sorts of things all over the place, sometimes I forget how much in gestures and expressions gets missed.
But I’m absolutely with you on examining canonical issues. Light’s good on anything.