Saturday, August 25, 2018

Calvin on the Atonement: Limited or Unlimited?

Did John Calvin believe in the "L" of T.U.L.I.P, limited atonement? This has been studied and debated for quite a few years. It's been a while since I've looked at this subject. Some years back I caught Norman Geisler fabricating a Calvin quote on the atonement in his book, Chosen But Free. Back in 2006 I looked at Calvin's comments on John 3:16. Other than that, I don't recall getting into it here. Frankly, it's a complicated subject, and both sides make compelling arguments.

Recently on the CARM boards, a thread was posted entitled, "Jesus Died For Judas Iscariot." In this piece, the following was asserted:

John Gill
"From Luke's account it appears most clearly, that Judas was not only at the passover, but at the Lord's supper, since this was said when both were over"

Also, John Calvin on Mark 14:24, which is part of the Lord's Supper, says this:
"Which is shed for many. By the word many he means not a part of the world only, but the whole human race; for he contrasts many with one; as if he had said, that he will not be the Redeemer of one man only, but will die in order to deliver many from the condemnation of the curse."

This does not mean that Judas was ever "born again", which John 13:10 says he was not; but that Jesus Christ did actually die for Judas, which is even confirmed in 2 Peter 2:1, which clearly says that those who are lost in hell, have been "bought" (same Greek word, ἀγοράζω, used for Jesus' blood shed for sinners, as in 1 Corinthians 6:20; 7:23; Revelation 5:9, 14:3-4, etc)

Granted, Calvin's quote is not the emphasis of the overall argument. I doubt the person posting the quote really cares what John Calvin believed.  Rather, Calvin is being used in a polemical way to demonstrate to Calvinists that even their founder believed in an universal atonement (which would include Jesus atoning for the sins of Judas Iscariot).

Here then is the brief interaction I had with this person on Calvin's view:

Originally posted by Sola_Scriptura View Post
Also, John Calvin on Mark 14:24, which is part of the Lord's Supper, says this:
"Which is shed for many. By the word many he means not a part of the world only, but the whole human race; for he contrasts many with one; as if he had said, that he will not be the Redeemer of one man only, but will die in order to deliver many from the condemnation of the curse."
Words have meaning derived on the context they are in. Calvin explains what "whole human race" means in the next sentence: "...for he contrasts many with one; as if he had said, that he will not be the Redeemer of one man only, but will die in order to deliver many from the condemnation of the curse." There is nothing in the context of Calvin's words that demands a universal atonement applicable to every person who has lived or will live.

Determining Calvin's view of the atonement can be tricky. It's not a clear-cut theological point in his writings, one way or the other. To my knowledge, Calvin did not enter into any significant controversies about the extent of the atonement. There are people who try to argue Calvin's view, limited or unlimited. All there is to work with are snippet statements peppered throughout his written corpus. I've seen the evidence for both sides. The statement you've utilized from Calvin simply does not prove the case that he held to an unlimited atonement.

The extent of the atonement became significantly more important in Reformed theology after Calvin’s death The Arminian controversy that erupted after Calvin did produce definite Reformed statements on the extent of the atonement.

JS


Originally posted by James Swan View Post

Words have meaning derived on the context they are in. Calvin explains what "whole human race" means in the next sentence: "...for he contrasts many with one; as if he had said, that he will not be the Redeemer of one man only, but will die in order to deliver many from the condemnation of the curse." There is nothing in the context of Calvin's words that demands a universal atonement applicable to every person who has lived or will live.

Determining Calvin's view of the atonement can be tricky. It's not a clear-cut theological point in his writings, one way or the other. To my knowledge, Calvin did not enter into any significant controversies about the extent of the atonement. There are people who try to argue Calvin's view, limited or unlimited. All there is to work with are snippet statements peppered throughout his written corpus. I've seen the evidence for both sides. The statement you've utilized from Calvin simply does not prove the case that he held to an unlimited atonement.

The extent of the atonement became significantly more important in Reformed theology after Calvin’s death The Arminian controversy that erupted after Calvin did produce definite Reformed statements on the extent of the atonement.

JS
Here is John Calvin on John 3:16, if this does not show that Calvin held to an unlimited Redemption, then tell me what it does say

"That whosoever believeth on him may not perish. It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction. For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal term whosoeverboth to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life."

Note the phrase that Calvin uses here, "all men without exception", whereas the "Calvinistic/Reformed" say, "all men without distinction".

On Colossians 1:14

"He says that this redemption was procured through the blood of Christ, for by the sacrifice of his death all the sins of the world have been expiated. Let us, therefore, bear in mind, that this is the sole price of reconciliation, and that all the trifling of ******* as to satisfactions is blasphemy"

Nothing about any "limitations" here.

His comments on Mark 14:24 clearly show the extent of which Calvin held the blood of Jesus Christ was shed on the cross,

"Which is shed for many. By the word many he means not a part of the world only, but the whole human race; for he contrasts many with one; as if he had said, that he will not be the Redeemer of one man only, but will die in order to deliver many from the condemnation of the curse. It must at the same time be observed, however, that by the words for you, as related by Luke — Christ directly addresses the disciples, and exhorts every believer to apply to his own advantage the shedding of blood Therefore, when we approach to the holy table, let us not only remember in general that the world has been redeemed by the blood of Christ, but let every one consider for himself that his own sins have been expiated"

Only those who will insist in their theological bias, can conclude that John Calvin did not believe in Universal Redemption.

Originally posted by Sola_Scriptura View Post
Here is John Calvin on John 3:16, if this does not show that Calvin held to an unlimited Redemption, then tell me what it does say

"That whosoever believeth on him may not perish. It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction. For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal term whosoeverboth to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life."

Note the phrase that Calvin uses here, "all men without exception", whereas the "Calvinistic/Reformed" say, "all men without distinction". .
It would be prudent to back up to Calvin's comments on John 3:14. Calvin there explains that the Gospel is to be manifest to “all” by Christ being “lifted up” on the cross. Here we find Calvin’s universalistic notion of the proclamation of the Gospel, rather than the extent of the atonement. Calvin also speaks of Christ dying "that he might cure in us the deadly wound of sin." Who is the “us”? It is those who embrace Christ by faith- those who have been given the miraculous gift of faith by the sovereign choice of God. These are given the ability to be cured of the “deadly wound of sin.”

Then, in regard to Calvin’s comments on John 3:16: Calvin continues to use “us”- that is, those who embrace Christ by faith. When Calvin refers to “all,” here, he is not referring to the extent of the atonement. Calvin has just pointed out earlier that Christ was to be preached to “all” through the Gospel. All are invited to Christ, yet salvation has come to “us”- those given the gift of faith by God. In the snippet of Calvin you've posted, when Calvin says things that sound like Christ died for “all,” Calvin is saying that Christ is proclaimed to “all.” It is not a discussion on the extent of the atonement.


Originally posted by Sola_Scriptura View Post
On Colossians 1:14

"He says that this redemption was procured through the blood of Christ, for by the sacrifice of his death all the sins of the world have been expiated. Let us, therefore, bear in mind, that this is the sole price of reconciliation, and that all the trifling of ******* as to satisfactions is blasphemy"

Nothing about any "limitations" here.
Here is a broader context:

"In whom we have redemption. He now proceeds to set forth in order, that all parts of our salvation are contained in Christ, and that he alone ought to shine forth, and to be seen conspicuous above all creatures, inasmuch as he is the beginning and end of all things. In the first place, he says that we have redemption and immediately explains it as meaning the remission of sins; for these two things agree together by apposition. For, unquestionably, when God remits our transgressions, he exempts us from condemnation to eternal death. This is our liberty, this our glorying in the face of death — that our sins are not imputed to us. He says that this redemption was procured through the blood of Christ, for by the sacrifice of his death all the sins of the world have been expiated. Let us, therefore, bear in mind, that this is the sole price of reconciliation, and that all the trifling of ******* as to satisfactions is blasphemy."

One does not find Calvin describing a hypothetical atonement for the entire world that is only put into effect by man’s free will. What Calvin describes is Christ’s death providing and actualizing redemption: the remission of sins, the remission of transgressions, exemption from condemnation to eternal death, and our sins not being imputed to us. How then is it possible to think that Calvin is saying this of every person who will ever live? If Calvin is implying here that every person who will ever live has had their sin imputed to Christ, then Calvin is proposing blatant universalism. Would it not be more fitting to ascribe a different usage of the word “world” above to Calvin?

Originally posted by Sola_Scriptura View Post
His comments on Mark 14:24 clearly show the extent of which Calvin held the blood of Jesus Christ was shed on the cross,

Only those who will insist in their theological bias, can conclude that John Calvin did not believe in Universal Redemption.
Sir (or perhaps madam), your rejoinder to my previous comments on Calvin and Mark 14:24 amounts to accusing my position of "theological bias." Above, I mentioned "Determining Calvin's view of the atonement can be tricky. It's not a clear-cut theological point in his writings, one way or the other." Does that sort of admission demonstrate theological bias? Hardly. It demonstrates I'm willing to look at the evidence and follow where it leads.

It's more the sort of person like you with "theological bias." I'm willing to look at all the evidence, and grant the incongruities for all the positions put forth for Calvin's view. Perhaps you aren't aware of the debate about Calvin's view of the atonement? I would recommend a number of studies for the different positions if you want to catch up and thus have a meaningful dialog.

Though the main topic still rages on, this aspect of the conversation on Calvin's view appears to have stopped after my last comments above. I was expecting to bombarded with John Calvin snippet quotes, as is the usual tactic of propagandists. With this subject, usually those who argue Calvin's view was unlimited atonement resort to brief snippets from Calvin, while those who take the opposite view argue limited atonement is inferred from his overall theology. As I've stated above, this subject is complicated.  There are cogent arguments from both sides. Unfortunately, there was not any persuading or cogent evidence presented in the CARM discussion that Calvin held to universal, unlimited atonement.

Saturday, August 18, 2018

Calvin: Arrested and Imprisoned Jerome Bolsec, Then Wanted Him “Rotting in a Ditch"?

Here's a tidbit from a blog entry entitled, John Calvin: Heresy Hunter with an Axe to Grind:

In addition to Servetus, Jerome Bolsec was arrested and imprisoned for challenging Calvin during a lecture, then banished from the city. Calvin wrote privately about the matter saying that he wished Bolsec were “rotting in a ditch.”

Documentation
The documentation provided is, "Quoted in History of the Christian Church Volume VIII. p. 137 See online here. " This link doesn't go to the exact spot where Schaff discusses this. Here is the discussion in Schaff. 

Historical Context Via Schaff
Schaff explains that Jerome Bolsec actually interrupted John de St. André who was speaking that day (hence, a public disturbance), and challenged this minister, not Calvin. According to Schaff,
On the 16th of October, 1551, Bolsec attended the religious conference, which was held every Friday at St. Peter's. John de St. André preached from John 8: 47 on predestination, and inferred from the text that those who are not of God, oppose him to the last, because God grants the grace of obedience only to the elect. Bolsec suddenly interrupted the speaker, and argued that men are not saved because they are elected, but that they are elected because they have faith. He denounced, as false and godless, the notion that God decides the fate of man before his birth, consigning some to sin and punishment, others to virtue and eternal happiness. He loaded the clergy with abuse, and warned the congregation not to be led astray.
Calvin was in attendance, though Schaff says he “entered the church unobserved.” Calvin waited until Bolsec was finished, then had an impromptu debate with Bolsec, and refuted him. Schaff does not say Calvin had Bolsec arrested, nor was Bolsec arrested for challenging Calvin. Other church leaders were in attendance (for instance, Schaff says William Farel was also present). Schaff says, “The lieutenant of police apprehended Bolsec for abusing the ministers and disturbing the public peace.

Schaff says the ministers of Geneva "drew up seventeen articles against Bolsec." Yes, Bolsec was eventually banished, but only after a number of other churches were asked to weigh in on what should be done with Bolsec (and not all of those churches were favorable to Calvin). Because of the collected work of all these churches, the milder sentence of banishment was imposed.

Rotting in a Ditch?
I’m not sure where the exact form of "Calvin wrote privately about the matter saying that he wished Bolsec were 'rotting in a ditch'" comes from. It’s similar to this from Called to Communion:
In 1551, Bolsec, a physician and convert to Protestantism, entered Geneva and attended a lecture on theology. The topic was Calvin’s doctrine of predestination, the teaching that God predetermines the eternal fate of every soul. Bolsec, who believed firmly in “Scripture alone” and “faith alone,” did not like what he heard. He thought it made God into a tyrant. When he stood up to challenge Calvin’s views, he was arrested and imprisoned.
What makes Bolsec’s case interesting is that it quickly evolved into a referendum on Church authority and the interpretation of Scripture. Bolsec, just like most Evangelicals today, argued that he was a Christian, that he had the Holy Spirit and that, therefore, he had as much right as Calvin to interpret the Bible. He promised to recant if Calvin would only prove his doctrine from the Scriptures. But Calvin would have none of it. He ridiculed Bolsec as a trouble maker (Bolsec generated a fair amount of public sympathy), rejected his appeal to Scripture, and called on the council to be harsh. He wrote privately to a friend that he wished Bolsec were “rotting in a ditch.”2
2 Letter to Madame de Cany, 1552.
This Called to Communion snippet is fascinating. Notice how the author, David Anders, restates the facts to give off the appearance that Bolsec interrupted Calvin's lecture. It was also not simply "Calvin's view's," but rather, the view of  John de St. André (the person lecturing), and the collective ministers of Geneva. Anders also leaves out that the entire affair was presented to a number of churches to weigh in on. Anders also presents the straw-man argument that Protestants have no right to church authority or discipline without an infallible church.

Anders does though provide a reference, "Letter to Madame de Cany, 1552." This letter can be found here. Calvin writes,
Madame,—I am very sorry that the praiseworthy act which you did about half a year ago, has met with no better return. This is because no good and true servant of God found himself within reach of such help, as that received by as wicked and unhappy a creature as the world contains. Knowing partly the man he was, I could have wished that he were rotting in some ditch; and his arrival gave me as much pleasure as the piercing my heart with a poniard would have done. But never could I have deemed him to be such a monster of all impiety and contempt of God, as he has proved himself in this. And I assure you, Madame, that had he not so soon escaped, I should, by way of discharging my duty, have done my best to bring him to the stake. 
Note the actual English translation is,  “I could have wished that he were rotting in some ditch.”  Note also, Bolsec is not named in this private correspondence. Bonnet, the translator of this letter, says
Who is the personage to whom these words refer, stamped at once by the inflexible spirit of the time and the stern rigour of the Reformer? The historian can only offer conjectures: can it be Jerome Bolsec? But a regular sentence had banished him from Geneva, and Calvin himself does not appear to have called for a more severe judgment against this innovator whom resentment bad transformed into a vile pamphleteer. "That fellow, Jerome, is driven out into perpetual exile by a public sentence. Certain revilers have spread abroad the falsehood, that we earnestly desired a much severer punishment, and foolishly, it is believed."—(Calvin to Bullinger, in the month of January 1552.) In that age of inexorable severity against unsound doctrine, Servetus only appeared at Geneva to expire at the stake, and Gentili only escaped the scaffold for a time, by the voluntary retraction of his opinions. To name Gentili, Servetus, Bolsoc, is to recall the principal victims of Calvinistic intolerance in the sixteenth century, but not to solve the mystery which attaches to the personage designated in the letter of Calvin to Madame de Cany.
Bonnet says that “The historian can only offer conjecture” as to who is meant. Bonnet then goes on to say, "… can it be Jerome Bolsec? But a regular sentence had banished him from Geneva, and Calvin himself does not appear to have called for a more severe judgment against this innovator whom resentment had transformed into a vile pamphleteer.

Conclusion
In this age of "fake news" is it any surprise that the internet is filled with fake history as well? A closer look at the facts show that Bolsec was not "arrested and imprisoned for challenging Calvin during a lecture." Yes, Bolsec was banished, but it was not simply at the whim of Calvin. Nor is it a certainty that Calvin "wished Bolsec were 'rotting in a ditch'.'"

It is shocking to our modern scruples that a person could be banished for a perceived heretical view. Calvin and Bolsec were part of a world in which this happened. There are still churches to today (though few probably few in number!) that practice a form of banishment: excommunication. While a person is not ostracized from an entire society, they could be ostracized from certain aspects of a spiritual community.

Yes, Calvin had an important influence in Geneva, yes he could be intolerant, yes, there were tragedies in Geneva that Calvin played a part in.  While Calvin had his faults, flaws, and sins, this closer look shows there are those who wish to vilify Calvin and make him the tyrant of Geneva. The question though is... why? Why is it so important to characterize Calvin as a blood-thirsty dictator?  That's a topic for a future blog entry!

Addendum
For further reading, see: Robert Godfrey, Calvin, Bolsec and the Reformation. Godfrey says:
Jerome Bolsec, who was a Carmelite monk and doctor of theology in Paris, was drawn to the Reformation and so forced to leave France. By early 1551 he had settled in the canton of Geneva working as a physician. From early on he became a critic of Calvin's doctrine of predestination in a variety of ways and settings.
And also:
The trial of Bolsec proceeded despite such advice, especially charging Bolsec with attacking the religious establishment of Geneva and bringing scurrilous charges against its doctrine. On December 23, 1551 he was banished permanently from Geneva. He eventually returned to the Roman Church and in 1577 wrote a vicious biography of Calvin which propagated many false stories about Calvin. Bolsec died in 1584.

Thursday, August 02, 2018

Luther: "Idiots, the Lame, the blind, the Dumb, are Men in Whom the Devils have Established Themselves"

Here's a Martin Luther quote that appeared on the CARM discussion boards:

“Idiots, the lame, the blind, the dumb, are men in whom the devils have established themselves: and all the physicians who heal these infirmities, as though they proceeded from natural causes, are ignorant blockheads….”

This quote appears to have been posted by someone with sympathies to the Mormon church in response to a Lutheran participant (see my previous entry for details). The point for using it is to defend Mormonism. In another place the same person states, "...demons causing diseases, etc. like much of Christendom used to believe.? I dunno if there is an official LDS doctrine on that. Maybe we are allowed to have opinions on it. But if you wanna talk about Luther, the founder of the Reformation, he certainly believed that demons were responsible for all kinds of stuff that most today would call wacky superstition."

Did Luther think the Devil was responsible for the condition of "idiots, the lame, the blind, the dumb"?  Let's take a look at this Luther quote to determine its authenticity.

Documentation
No documentation was provided, but the same person posted the quote here also claiming, "As quoted by John Mark Ministries." I found two web-pages from John Mark Ministries using this quote. The first page, Quotes From Luther (2003) appears to have been written by the founder of JMM, Rowland Croucher (but I'm not entirely sure). What's interesting is that Croucher(?) listed a number of undocumented Luther quotes taken from someone who had posted them on an open newsgroup. Croucher(?) determined the quotes probably came via this page, from a person that said he "didn't keep track of the exact citations" because he compiled them for his own "amusement." Croucher(?) then goes on to defend Luther, saying at one point, "...we see that these quotes were not collected out of serious or honest interest, but merely for someone’s careless amusement. Thus, the sincerity and reasonableness of both the compilers of the quotes page and the users of these quotes is called into question."  The second JMM page is simply entitled, Martin Luther (2005). This page also contains a number of "shock" undocumented Luther quotes that appear to have been originally posted by someone going by the moniker,"Mark T." The page simply ends with this vague comment, "Despite the previous posts which discredit Martin Luther, all the good that he did for the Christian faith in the first half of the 1500’s. must be remembered." No documentation is provided for the quotes in question from this other web page.

There are a number of books using this quote (simply try a quick Google search).  I contend that the main English source for this quote is William Hazlitt's translation of  Jules Michelet, The Life of Luther Written By Himself, p. 321 . Michelet's English text reads,
Idiots, the lame, the blind, the dumb, are men in whom devils have established themselves; and all the physicians who heal these infirmities, as though they proceeded from natural causes, are ignorant blockheads, who know nothing about the power of the demon." (14th July, 1528.) 
Michelet's text was originally in French:
Les fous, les boiteux, les aveugles, les muets sont des hommes chez qui les démons se sont établis. Les médecins qui traitent ces infirmités, comme ayant des causes naturelles, sont des ignorans qui ne connaissent point toute la puissance du démon. » (14 juillet 1528.) 
The French text provides documentation:  "Il y a des lieux. — Ibid. 212." The "Ibid." refers to the Tischreden, or Table Talk. I suspect Michelet used an early copy. Here is page 212  from the 1568 edition.  The text reads, 


The same text can be found in Sämtliche Werke 60:31 and also in WATR 2:387. To my knowledge, this complete Table Talk comment has not been translated into English. 

Conclusion
A minor issue with the quote is that it is a statement Luther is purported to have made. It is not something he actually wrote as part of a detailed treatise or exposition. The Table Talk is a collection of second hand comments written down by Luther's friends and students, published after his death. Since the statements contained therein are purported to have been made by Luther, they should serve more as corroborating second-hand testimony to something Luther is certain to have written. 

The major problem with the quote is that it appears Michelet took liberties with the text. Certainly Luther is recorded as saying, "Also muß ich auck sagen, daß viel Taube, Lahme, Blinde :c. aus Bosheit des Teufels also seien" in the second paragraph. The next sentence though, "and all the physicians who heal these infirmities, as though they proceeded from natural causes, are ignorant blockheads…" is a little harder to find in the context. Nothing immediately jumps out as this being the context Michelet used in the continuing paragraphs. In fact, in the third paragraph, Luther says  that evil angels inflict the human race with diseases, but God in his mercy provides medicines to alleviate suffering.

The solution appears to be that Michelet utilized the first paragraph for the later part of the quote.  Luther opens by saying that physicians often attribute everything to natural causes, ignoring the fact that the Devil can be behind certain illnesses. They do not know how powerful the Devil actually is.  Luther says physicians even attempt to soothe the conditions with medicines, but do not realize the real cause behind such conditions: the Devil. Luther goes on to point out that this is the testimony of Scripture as well (Acts 10:38) (consider also, Luke 8:26-39; Luke 9:37-40; Matthew 12:22; Matthew 4:23-25).

I do not see in this context where Luther refers to physicians as "ignorant blockheads.  He is recorded as saying, "daß sie nicht wissen, wie mächtig und gewaltig der Teufel ift." This doesn't have the same polemical value as "ignorant blockheads." maybe "blockheads" was an interpretive English rendering from Hazlitt? Michelet's original French text says, "Les médecins qui traitent ces infirmités, comme ayant des causes naturelles, sont des ignorans qui ne connaissent point toute la puissance du démon." Hazlitt seems to have amped up the quote by using the word, "blockheads."

Michelet concocted a quote by taking a sentence from the second paragraph then following it up with a sentence from the first paragraph, and also ignored the entirety of the context. Hazlitt added "blockheads."

Luther was not entirely against medical doctors. Consider the following Table Talk statement:
No. 360: Medicine May Be Used to Cure Disease Fall, 1532
 “I believe that in all grave illnesses the devil is present as the author and cause. First, he is the author of death. Second, Peter says in Acts that those who were oppressed by the devil were healed by Christ. Moreover, Christ cured not only the oppressed but also the paralytics, the blind, etc. Generally speaking, therefore, I think that all dangerous diseases are blows of the devil. For this, however, he employs the instruments of nature. So a thief dies by the sword, Satan corrupts the qualities and humors of the body, etc. God also employs means for the preservation of health, such as sleep, food, and drink, for he does nothing except through instruments. So the devil also injures through appropriate means. When a fence leans over a little, he knocks it all the way down to the ground.
 “Accordingly a physician is our Lord God’s mender of the body, as we theologians are his healers of the spirit; we are to restore what the devil has damaged. So a physician administers theriaca [antidote] when Satan gives poison. Healing comes from the application of nature to the creature, for medicine is divinely revealed and not derived from books, even as knowledge of law is not from books but is drawn from nature. It’s remarkable that a prince is sure to find effective the medicines which he administers to himself but finds ineffective what his physician prescribes. So both electors have eye drops which help when they take them, no matter whether their affliction is caused by heat or cold, but a physician wouldn’t dare prescribe the drops. It’s so in theology too. Philip lifts up my spirit with a mere word. If Eck or Zwingli said the same thing, it would dash me to the ground. It’s our Lord God who created all things, and they are good. Wherefore it’s permissible to use medicine, for it is a creature of God. 
“Thus I replied to Hohndorf, who inquired of me when he heard from Karlstadt that it’s not permissible to make use of medicine. I said to him, ‘Do you eat when you’re hungry?’ (LW 54:53-54) 
Addendum
In researching this quote, I  came across a discussion from 2012. A blogger going by "The Cartesian Theist" called out an atheist for using this undocumented quote in a video. The atheist responded. Neither of these bloggers found the source in their respected entries (though it may be buried in their comments section).