tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-197957072024-03-17T23:04:24.936-04:00Beggars All: Reformation And ApologeticsJames Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comBlogger3031125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-2516821365241219382024-02-28T00:16:00.003-05:002024-02-28T00:17:49.915-05:00Catholic Answers vs. Clement of Alexandria (and Eusebius) on Peter's Marriage <p>Here's an interesting compare and contrast between Catholic Answers and Clement of Alexandria (and Eusebius) on whether or not Peter was married. The biblical text which fuels this comparison is 1 Corinthians 9:5. Paul says that the Apostles have particular "rights," and one such right is taking a wife along when ministering... just as the Apostle Peter did! Here is the passage from the NAS:</p><p></p><blockquote>3 My defense to those who examine me is this: 4 Do we not have a right to eat and drink? 5 <b>Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas</b>? 6 Or do only Barnabas and I not have a right to refrain from working? 7 Who at any time serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat the fruit of it? Or who tends a flock and does not use the milk of the flock?</blockquote><p></p><p>Out of curiosity, I consulted the North American magisterium, <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/did-peter-have-a-wife">Catholic Answers</a>, to find out what this verse <i>really</i> means (read: sarcasm). What intrigued me about their answer was that they included a quote from Clement of Alexandria to substantiate their answer. Here's what Catholic Answers stated, </p><p></p><blockquote>...[T]he apostles [were] accompanied by 'sister women' who could assist them in ministering to women—for example, at full-immersion baptisms, where a question of modesty could arise, or in cases where it would be more appropriate for a woman to perform a charitable or catechetical function. Clement of Alexandria agreed, saying the women were not the wives of the apostles but were female assistants who could enter the homes of women and could teach them there (Stromata III, 6). In short, I think Peter was a widower at the time his mother-in-law was healed. </blockquote><p>With as much dripping sarcasm as I can muster through the printed word: <i>The Fathers! The Fathers! The Fathers! </i>So... I then went off to see what Clement of Alexandria said in context, and well... he didn't say what Catholic Answers asserts. In fact, he says the opposite, and none other than Eusebius backs Clement up on it! Here's <a href="https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-stromata-book3-english.html">the text from Clement</a> (<b>bolding mine</b>):</p><p></p><p><b>Clement of Alexandria</b>:</p><p></p><blockquote><p>52. How then? Did not the righteous in ancient times partake of what God made with thanksgiving? Some begat children and lived chastely in the married state. To Elijah the ravens brought bread and meat for food. And Samuel the prophet brought as food for Saul the remnant of the thigh, of which he had already eaten. But whereas they say that they are superior to them in behaviour and conduct, they cannot even be compared with them in their deeds. "He who does not eat," then, "let him not despise him who eats; and he who eats let him not judge him who does not eat; for God has accepted him." Moreover, the Lord says of himself: "John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He has a devil. The Son of man came eating and drinking and they say, Behold a gluttonous man and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and a sinner." Or do they also scorn the apostles? <b>Peter and Philip had children, and Philip gave his daughters in marriage</b>.</p><p>53. E<b>ven Paul did not hesitate in one letter to address his consort. The only reason why he did not take her about with him was that it would have been an inconvenience for his ministry. Accordingly he says in a letter: "Have we not a right to take about with us a wife that is a sister like the other apostles</b>?" <b> But the latter, in accordance with their particular ministry, devoted themselves to preaching without any distraction, and took their wives with them not as women with whom they had marriage relations, but as sisters, that they might be their fellow-ministers in dealing with housewives</b>. It was through them that the Lord's teaching penetrated also the women's quarters without any scandal being aroused. We also know the directions about women deacons which are given by the noble Paul in his second letter to Timothy. Furthermore, the selfsame man cried aloud that "the kingdom of God does not consist in food and drink," not indeed in abstinence from wine and meat, "but in righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit." Which of them goes about like Elijah clad in a sheepskin and a leather girdle? Which of them goes about like Isaiah, naked except for a piece of sacking and without shoes? Or clothed merely in a linen loincloth like Jeremiah? Which of them will imitate John's gnostic way of life? The blessed prophets also lived in this manner and were thankful to the Creator.</p></blockquote><p>Granted, there is some ambiguity because the English word for wife being used is, "consort." Nor do I know which Clement source Catholic Answers used. Could it be that I'm simply misreading Clement? Could it be that I'm demonstrating "Protestant" bias? Nope. Check out <a href="https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.viii.xxx.html">what Eusebius wrote</a>, reading the same context: </p><p></p><p><b>Eusebius: Chapter 30 The Apostles That Were Married</b></p><p></p><blockquote>1. Clement, indeed, whose words we have just quoted, after the above-mentioned facts gives a statement, on account of those who rejected marriage, of the apostles that had wives. "<i>Or will they, says he, reject even the apostles? For Peter and Philip begot children; and Philip also gave his daughters in marriage. And Paul does not hesitate, in one of his epistles, to greet his wife, whom he did not take about with him, that he might not be inconvenienced in his ministry</i>."</blockquote><p></p><p></p><blockquote>2. And since we have mentioned this subject it is not improper to subjoin another account which is given by the same author and which is worth reading. In the seventh book of his Stromata he writes as follows: "<i>They say, accordingly, that when the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their perfect disposition toward those dearest to them</i>." This account being in keeping with the subject in hand, I have related here in its proper place.</blockquote><p><b>Conclusion</b><br />Frankly, I appreciate the writings of the church fathers, but I do not hold them to be that which is the final voice that determines what a Biblical passage means. On the other hand, Rome's defenders do claim the church fathers are of key importance to establish the validity of Roman Catholicism. This text from Clement and its use by Catholic Answers demonstrates a severe disconnect. When they cite something... look it up! </p><p></p>James Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-87282981202014470822024-02-22T00:29:00.004-05:002024-02-22T00:33:00.658-05:00Calvinist Exorcism?<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhnxnpw7_6GRJgAtOu91tRrLx1jlKzOMLW-n_zz2icHeHSJksKhEWzYBmozUcYcFGOkYXZPqCwarOIMeibHX-iIWD_aB-bVPvunbESwM8c7wkkakPU7KxbOVYBTVqFVTqJ2zh8IaS6PZnyO5JnsfbO6DcSjXY91V4aJOr9TVL9pw68F1Rs5i--rPg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="725" data-original-width="426" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhnxnpw7_6GRJgAtOu91tRrLx1jlKzOMLW-n_zz2icHeHSJksKhEWzYBmozUcYcFGOkYXZPqCwarOIMeibHX-iIWD_aB-bVPvunbESwM8c7wkkakPU7KxbOVYBTVqFVTqJ2zh8IaS6PZnyO5JnsfbO6DcSjXY91V4aJOr9TVL9pw68F1Rs5i--rPg" width="141" /></a></div>Here's the way Rome's defenders used to do apologetics. When they confronted Calvinism, they didn't argue, they did exorcisms. To prove demon possession, they would put a copy of Calvin's Institutes on the possessed and watch the person caress the book. Then, they would use the powers of Ignatius Loyola and the Virgin Mary to battle the demon! Once they beat the demon, the now un-possessed person would return back to the Roman Catholic Church!<p></p><p>The following tale comes from <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=HAhBAQAAMAAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&dq=Ostrog%20poland%201627%20%20demon&pg=PA356#v=onepage&q&f=false">The Life of St. Ignatius Loyola: Founder of the Jesuits, vol. 2</a>.</p><p>At Ostrog in Poland, A.D. 1627, a noble lady belonging to the sect of Calvin was delivered from satanic possession to the great glory of the Catholic faith. The evidence of her possession was unmistakable; for though she knew no other than her native tongue, she replied to questions in any language she was addressed by. The heretics had not courage to attempt her cure, and were constrained by necessity to put her into our hands, and accordingly made their petition to the rector of our college. He first demanded whether they were entirely convinced that she was a demoniac: they answered, yes. The man who was most urgent in his entreaties was a most obstinate heretic, and used to say that he would sooner be a dog or a pig than a Papist, and to him the rector said, "Do you not consider our ceremonies as superstitious, and our exorcisms as vanities? Why then do you come to us? is it faith or necessity which brings you? Send for your own ministers, and your schismatical priests, and see what power they have over the devil, and then come to us; for it is only fair that the trial should be considered as a proof of the reality of the two religions." The heretics excused themselves, saying that their ministers did not possess power to expel devils, and that if we succeeded they should judge quite differently of the Roman faith.</p><p>After this a visit was made to the woman to see if she were really possessed, and of this they were soon assured; for hardly had the rector sprinkled her with holy water, and put a relic of St. Ignatius upon her by stealth, than she began to writhe and twist about her body, saying that a bone of St. Ignatius tormented her. As the rector was more anxious to heal the souls of the heretics than the body of the woman, he bid them bring the book of <b>Calvin's Institutions</b>, or some other book containing their own dogmas, and give it to the woman. This was accordingly done, and <b>the devil began to kiss and caress it with great marks of joy</b>. The rector then took it and hid between the leaves a picture of St. Ignatius, and presented it to her again. The devil then drew back screaming with anger, and would not even touch it. Being compelled to acknowledge what it was he feared, he answered, "The picture of St. Ignatius which you have placed there." The heretics were greatly confounded at this, and one of them said in anger, "You papists have a good understanding with the devil, and so you can do what you will with him." One of the fathers then said, "Since this evidence does not content you, let us try this. I will pray to God that if yours is the true faith, the devil may pass into my body and torment me, but if the Catholic faith be true, that he may enter into you for the space of one hour only. Will this satisfy you?" Not one of them would consent, and all were silent. Then they earnestly begged the rector, that if he could assist the poor woman he would do so. This he promised and then went away. </p><p>Then the rector ordered a three days' fast in the college, and other penances, and offered alms and many masses. Then one of our brethren went to visit the possessed, and on seeing him she flew into a passion, but if a heretic presented himself she called him her dear friend. The following facts ensued upon his being conjured to speak. First, the devil confessed that the Jesuits at Ostrog were his most hateful enemies, and that he endeavoured by every means in his power to render them odious in the city, and to counterwork the good they did. Secondly, that he had once tried to burn down the college, but that he had not been able to conceal the fire long enough to insure his success. Thirdly, that he tried to enter the rooms of the fathers to do them some evil; but that he was repulsed by Mary and Ignatius. In proof of this he described to one of the fathers all the articles in his room and their arrangement, and he added that a certain candle he had prepared ready for the feast of Candlemas would not be broken because it was put near the crucifix. As mass was being said in our church for the liberation of the woman, the devil from time to time uttered horrible cries and said, "Now they are raising the Most High!" </p><p>The solemn exorcism was fixed for the feast of the Purification. The heretics begged that it might take place privately in the house, but the faith was not to be defrauded of so signal a testimony to its power over the devil, and our church was the place fixed upon. The woman was brought into the church in the presence of a vast multitude, she was tightly bound, and dragged by men before our Lady's and St. Ignatius's altar, and sent forth horrible and terrifying cries. Before commencing the rector addressed the people, and exhorted them to repentance, and they wept and showed great emotion. The devil was asked who he was, and how he had entered there after great resistance. He said that he was Ruteno, and that an old sorceress, named Rutena, had introduced him into that body by means of a thread with which a garland of flowers was bound, and that she had heedlessly put it on her head, as is the custom in that country. He was then conjured to say who had most power to cast him out after God. After writhing about, gnashing his teeth in spite, and shrieking out, he answered, Mary and Ignatius. Exorcisms were continued for two hours before the image of the saint, with invocation to the Blessed Virgin. Then the devil snatched the woman out of the hands of those who held her, and throwing her on the earth, as if dead, he left her. In a little time she came to herself, and being assisted to rise, she was led before the blessed Sacrament, weeping herself, and amidst the tears of all, and there she solemnly abjured her errors and professed the Catholic Faith.</p>James Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-58677049358079136172024-02-12T10:38:00.000-05:002024-02-12T10:38:03.317-05:00Luther: "Christ is not found in church doctrine, but in your love for each other"<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEntKMiQ91dK_eL35ErwLiTa2q-moyGFFVlEZguXt6LJHFOqgDVxMBu0QOppZK5wKCg4SYwE7HGUX_ywr6c3vy7RMvmHyWHjImrS5KbXBN2x6ByQdGBjeHHwrzEgmN7M6tHLxTDDtC2VfBpFOFTEK-HqMPGO8Pqow18nsHQlTDiTCX-t9Ju1YVpQ/s600/chris%20is%20found%20not.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="503" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEntKMiQ91dK_eL35ErwLiTa2q-moyGFFVlEZguXt6LJHFOqgDVxMBu0QOppZK5wKCg4SYwE7HGUX_ywr6c3vy7RMvmHyWHjImrS5KbXBN2x6ByQdGBjeHHwrzEgmN7M6tHLxTDDtC2VfBpFOFTEK-HqMPGO8Pqow18nsHQlTDiTCX-t9Ju1YVpQ/w335-h400/chris%20is%20found%20not.jpg" width="335" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p>Social media has been steadily producing Martin Luther memes, and not all of them are accurate. The meme above certainly sounds like something Luther said. In the exact form in the picture above, I doubt theses sentences were either exactly written by Luther or presented by Luther in this order.</p><p>Perhaps all the elements can be located somewhere in Luther's vast written corpus. For instance, my cursory search determined that the later half of the last line can be found in the <a href="https://www.luther.de/en/95thesen.html">Ninety-Five Theses</a>: "<i>Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting indulgences, needs and thus desires their devout prayer more than their money</i>." Other than that, I'm not going to invest the time to discover who cobbled these ideas together from Luther's writings (the "sack of potatoes" line though does intrigue me). </p><p>So where does this quote come from? </p><p>The first line was uttered by a fictional representation of <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0309820/">Martin Luther from the 2003 movie</a>. Much thanks to the website, <a href="http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/l/luther-script-transcript-joseph-fiennes.html">script-o-rama</a> for the transcription of the following lines: "<i>He isn't found in the bones of saints... but here, in your love for each other, in your love for one another... in His sacraments, and in God's holy word</i>."</p><p>The second line appears to have originated from a documentary from <a href="https://www.ricksteves.com/watch-read-listen/video/tv-show/tv-specials/luther">Rick Steves Europe</a>. This appears to be where the entirety of both lines comes from. See particularly, <a href="https://classroom.ricksteves.com/videos/luther-translates-the-bible-the-start-of-the-reformation">this link</a> to a section of the video, including a transcript. <a href="http://storage.cloversites.com/hopelutheranchurch4/documents/wwa_history_openthedoortoluther.pdf">This video transcript</a> also featuring Rick Steves includes some of the quote.</p><p><br /></p>James Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-89783686925177500862024-01-15T01:52:00.004-05:002024-01-17T09:52:51.108-05:00Zwingli: "The more the honor and love of Christ increases among men, so much the esteem and honor given to Mary should grow"<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhMf2K6JIDqzQElJLjqj9TvkCxOZALgAviOdx_hwtRM28s25PmIk_I1Nx1lWann8q5_LzHTJRaruVrnqV9kbqFSQAWNdhVk19McpHmUJmmrLl-B607fxCWNUgrWs2Vw7a5li0aBYQ4UMY6h-CJCpPVJ4JFZnIY4ksuI6giqlNPqYHIKzHDONI_ZxQ" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="772" data-original-width="432" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhMf2K6JIDqzQElJLjqj9TvkCxOZALgAviOdx_hwtRM28s25PmIk_I1Nx1lWann8q5_LzHTJRaruVrnqV9kbqFSQAWNdhVk19McpHmUJmmrLl-B607fxCWNUgrWs2Vw7a5li0aBYQ4UMY6h-CJCpPVJ4JFZnIY4ksuI6giqlNPqYHIKzHDONI_ZxQ" width="134" /></a></div>Over the years <a href="https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-protestant-reformers-on-mary.html">I've worked through a Roman Catholic pop-apologetic webpage documenting the Mariology of the Reformers</a>. This propaganda is sometimes entitled, "<i>The Protestant Reformers on Mary</i>." It highlights Marian quotes from Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli, specifically with the intention of showing the early Reformers were either devoted to Mary, venerated her, or retained specifically Roman Catholic Marian dogmas. <div><br /></div><div>"<i>The Protestant Reformers on Mary</i>" webpage is usually set in the form of one-sided information which will only present quotes from the Reformers that coincide (or can be misconstrued) to support Roman Catholic Mariology. Anything the Reformers said that does not bolster Roman Catholic Mariology is often ignored. It is blatant propaganda: Consider how often Roman Catholic apologists vilify the Protestant Reformation, yet if the Reformers say something that sounds like their version of Mariology, the original Reformers become the staunch supporters of Mary... leaders that all contemporary Protestants should learn a great lesson in Mariology from!</div><div><br /></div><div>This quote from Ulrich Zwingli is typically cited in "<i>The Protestant Reformers on Mary</i>": </div><div><div><div><div><span style="font-family: courier;"><blockquote>"The more the honor and love of Christ increases among men, so much the esteem and honor given to Mary should grow" [Ulrich Zwingli, Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Volume 1, 427-428.]</blockquote></span></div><div>For an example of the most general popular usage of this quote, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_views_on_Mary#:~:text=Some%20early%20Protestant%20Reformers%20venerated,opposition%20to%20this%20celebration...">the anonymous authors over at Wikipedia</a> use it and state, "S<i>ome early Protestant Reformers venerated and honored Mary</i>." Most of the other usages of the quote I checked (typically by Roman Catholics) imply the same thing. It's easy to see why Rome's defenders would cherry-pick this quote. Zwingli appears to be placing Mary in a high place of divine importance. Zwingli doesn't say, "the more you love Christ, the more you <i>should</i> honor Paul or Abraham." He specifically places Mary in a unique category of honor, perhaps using the moral imperative, or normative, "should." The gist possibly being communicated with the use of this quote, is that... if you honor and love Christ, one has the <i>moral obligation</i> to grow in their esteem and honor of Mary. </div><div><br /></div><div>Was Zwingli venerating and honoring Mary... just like Roman Catholics do? Was he implying people have a <i>duty</i> to esteem and honor Mary? Let's take a closer look at this quote and see what's going on. We'll see with this quote, first, the word "should" is not what Zwingli originally meant. Second, this quote was only partially translated. The end of the sentence was left off, allowing Rome's defenders the needed ambiguity to make Zwingli appear to be venerating Mary... just like they do!</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Documentation and Historical Background</b></div><div>Before even attempting to search the primary source out, one of the first questions I consider is the origin of the English translation. Ulrich Zwingli did not write in English, so someone, at some time in the past, did the work of translating his German into English. Then, someone lifted the English quote from this secondary source and put it on the Internet. As far as I can tell, this quote, in this English form, has been multiplying throughout cyberspace for at least twenty years!</div><div><br /></div><div>It's very likely this quote comes from Thomas O'Meara, <i>Mary in Protestant and Catholic Theology</i> (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1966), <a href="https://archive.org/details/maryinprotestant0000thom/page/144/mode/1up">p.144</a>. Over the years, I've noticed quotes from the Reformers about Mary originating from this book. I'm not entirely certain that O'Meara did the English translation, but it seems likely. I have not found this specific English translation in any other book previous to O'Meara's publication. </div><div><br /></div><div>If the quote came from O'Meara, whichever Roman Catholic apologist originally mined this quote out of <i>Mary In Protestant and Catholic Theology </i>may have let their zealous worldview get in the way. Notice how O'Meara frames the quote:</div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEj-Rzu8Gr3pP5u2kZUV6oNSMg4ZAWaWT1dhz4tIZn3DABj_7NUWRTUynIJPlfU779TU0RZ7lp3sYPAUkHAGkkG-Y0IcR1JSvNIMu8OikLtsZUEojqQnHCMVbEM4GVZQgYw8waWiq_VvptIlxedtmptAOEJDAxbbghZvzoPhdVWUYt5CfS5l325TqQ" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="97" data-original-width="461" height="134" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEj-Rzu8Gr3pP5u2kZUV6oNSMg4ZAWaWT1dhz4tIZn3DABj_7NUWRTUynIJPlfU779TU0RZ7lp3sYPAUkHAGkkG-Y0IcR1JSvNIMu8OikLtsZUEojqQnHCMVbEM4GVZQgYw8waWiq_VvptIlxedtmptAOEJDAxbbghZvzoPhdVWUYt5CfS5l325TqQ=w640-h134" width="640" /></a></div><br />According to O'Meara, even though Zwingli wrote something nice about Mary, "...<i>he denied any special merit or work to Mary and was strongly opposed to any invocation to her</i>." On the same page he mentions Zwingli's rejection of any mention of Mary in prayer as a "<i>more drastic departure from Catholic tradition than Luther's</i>" and that for Zwingli, images of Mary do not belong "<i>in places of worship</i>." For O'Meara, Zwingli had a Mariology, but there were significant deviations from the popular Marian piety of the sixteenth century. Rome's cyber-defenders don't mention that! </div><div><br /></div><div>A simple web search of this quote reveals extensive cut-and-pasting, including it being featured in published books. If documentation is given, it's similar to what's been provided above. Going with the assumption that O'Meara is the English source for this Zwingli quote, let's closely look at it: "<i>Zwingli, Opera, CR 1, 427-428</i>." What's being cited is the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Reformatorum">Corpus Reformatorum</a>, specifically a volume dedicated to Zwingli's writings. "CR 1" is the first volume presenting Zwingli's writings (the actual volume in the overall set is 88). <a href="https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=osu.32435063074231&seq=12">This volume (from 1905) has been digitized</a>. </div><div><br /></div><div>In O'Meara's bibliography for "<a href="https://archive.org/details/maryinprotestant0000thom/page/359/mode/1up">Reformation Marian Theology</a>" many of the sources are in German. He lists a few German articles on Zwingli, and includes Tappolet's influential book, <a href="https://archive.org/details/dasmarienlobderr0000unse/page/n5/mode/2up">Das Marienlob der Reformatoren</a>. I mention this because it could very well be that O'Meara did not actually consult a primary Zwingli source for this quote. This does not mean the secondary source he may have taken the quote from was necessarily inaccurate. It means there is more of a possibility for tedious and contextual errors. For instance, Either O'Meara got the page numbers wrong for this quote, or he was working with a different edition: I did not locate the quote on <a href="https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=osu.32435063074231&seq=583">pages 427-428</a>. Rather, the quote is on <a href="https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=osu.32435063074231&seq=582">page 426</a>. I have not located any edition yet in which the quote is on pages 427-428.</div><div><br /></div><div>The quote comes from, "<i>Ein predig von der reinen gotzgebärerin Maria</i>," Sept. 17, 1522 ("Sermon on Mary, the Pure Mother of God"). This date is in interesting because technically, Zwingli was still a Roman Catholic when he preached the sermon on Mary. Shortly after the sermon (October 10, 1522), Zwingli gave up being a priest. <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=M0W8AAAAIAAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PA56&dq=Zwingli%20sermon%20pure%20mother%20of%20God&pg=PA56#v=onepage&q&f=true">This source states</a>, </div><div><blockquote>After this sermon Zwingli made his break with the Roman Catholic Church. On October 10, 1522 the Zurich council released him from his priestly duties by creating a preaching office. This was not the introduction of the Reformation, that was still over two years away, and the breaking of the Lenten fast and public criticism of saints and images in the churches remained contrary to the will of the magistrates, but it marked Zwingli's definitive break with the Catholic priesthood.</blockquote></div><div>An edited excerpt of the sermon has been partly translated into English <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=QqBUDgAAQBAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PT72&dq=Zwingli%20sermon%20pure%20mother%20of%20God&pg=PT72#v=onepage&q&f=true">here</a>. An interesting sectional overview can be found <a href="https://archive.org/details/thousandfacesofv0000tava/page/104/mode/1up">here</a>. For English speakers, this overview gives a fair and helpful overview of the entire sermon... and it was done by a Roman Catholic scholar. </div><div><br /></div><div>According to <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=Bs5JAwAAQBAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PA68&dq=Zwingli%20sermon%20pure%20mother%20of%20God&pg=PA68#v=onepage&q&f=false">this source</a>, the sermon was prompted by a disputation Zwingli was earlier involved in which he critiqued traditional Mariology. <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=NWNTAQAAQBAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PA88&dq=zwingli%20disputation%20July%201522%20Mary&pg=PA88#v=onepage&q&f=true">This source</a> mentions, <i>"For four hours they disputed on prayers to the Virgin Mary and the saints, with Zwingli convincing </i>[French preacher Francis]<i> Lambert </i>[of Avignon]<i> that such prayers were unscriptural</i>." <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=SKwyDwAAQBAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PA325&dq=zwingli%20disputation%20July%201522%20Mary&pg=PA325#v=onepage&q&f=true">An overview</a>:</div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgxAgcgjlXiVTZxUOoIgPkP6H4urm-o8LcX2DwmJS5LnRMpJXF6JFUhPD_Yvyct_XO7jeUPUEVKyl3XYB71yDsClbkhfUrtF5bVJop4_yNcbOQlGcj_Nsb2GFjXb75hXyL1cGmq7oNsiu9Vple--hB636pzOjVb5ooWLF4qq_qhrusoEizi8XhWxA" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="101" data-original-width="536" height="120" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgxAgcgjlXiVTZxUOoIgPkP6H4urm-o8LcX2DwmJS5LnRMpJXF6JFUhPD_Yvyct_XO7jeUPUEVKyl3XYB71yDsClbkhfUrtF5bVJop4_yNcbOQlGcj_Nsb2GFjXb75hXyL1cGmq7oNsiu9Vple--hB636pzOjVb5ooWLF4qq_qhrusoEizi8XhWxA=w640-h120" width="640" /></a></div>After this disputation, rumors spread that Zwingli had denigrated Mary. Zwingli's later sermon on Mary is therefore a "<i>defense against those accusations which charged him with having defamed the Mother of God in public and lowered her prominence</i>" (<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=Bs5JAwAAQBAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PA68&dq=Zwingli%20sermon%20pure%20mother%20of%20God&pg=PA68#v=onepage&q&f=false">source</a>). <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=Bs5JAwAAQBAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PA68&dq=Zwingli%20sermon%20pure%20mother%20of%20God&pg=PA68#v=onepage&q&f=false">This author continues about the sermon</a>: </div><div><blockquote>He clearly recognizes the term "Mother of God" as well as her permanent and unblemished virginity. However, he definitely rejects Mary's mediatorship and the religious veneration accorded her person. Faith in Christ is diminished when in the confessional the reciting of the Ave Maria (cf. Luke 1:28) is ordered. The right veneration of Mary is to see in her an example of strict morals, modesty, and firmness in faith: "If you seek to honor Mary especially, follow her in her purity, innocence and firm faith" (z 1, 426, 22f).</blockquote></div><div><b>Context</b></div><div><blockquote>Hierumb so wüsse ein ieder, das dis die höchst eer ist, die man Marie mag thủn, das man die gůthat' ires suns, uns armen sünderen bewisen, recht erkenne, recht ere, zů imm louffe umb alle gnad; denn gott hat inn gesetzt ein gnädigung für unser sünd durch sin eigen blüt, ja so wir sölchen glouben zů imm habend Rom. 3. 25. Denn er ein einiger mitler ist zwüschend got und den menschen, in dem, das er sich ein rantzung oder loßgelt ußgeben hatt für alle menschen 1. Tim. 2. 31. Ja, der die zůversicht und vertruwen zů dem sun Marie hat, der hat sy am höchsten geeret; denn all ir eer ist ir sun. Und so ich ieman fragte: Was ist das gröst ding ann Marien, weyß ich wol, er mußte antwurten: Das sy uns den sun gottes, der uns erlößt, geboren hat. Ist nun ir gröste eer ir sun, so ist ouch ir gröste eer, das man den recht erkenne, inn ob allen dingen lieb hab, imm ewenklich danckbar sy umb die gúthat, uns bewisen. <b>Dann ie me die eer und liebe Christi Jesu wachßt under den menschen, ie me das werd und eer Marie wachßt, das sy uns den so grossen doch gnädigen herren und erlöser geborn hat.</b> Wiltu aber Mariam besunderlich eeren, so volg nach irer reinigkeit, unschuld und vestem glouben, und so du ein Ave Maria bettest und bedacht hast zum ersten den fürnemen handel unserer erlösung, wie obstat, gedenck darnach, das die, so großer gnaden und eeren von got begabet, ist nüt deß minder arm xin, hat durchächtung, schmertzen und ellend müssen lyden, in den dingen sy aber allen unabgewendt bliben ist. Und tröst darnach din armůt und widerwertigkeit mit iro, das sölche iamer so gewüß den menschen gegnen? </blockquote></div><div><b>Textual Issues</b></div><div>One will notice that the context given above is in German... but in actuality, it's in a type of German / Swiss dialect. Checking independently with a few friends, I can safely provide this updated English translation of the quote in question:</div><blockquote>"The more the honor and love of Christ Jesus grows among the people, as it grows, also the honor of Mary grows because she has born for us the very great and gracious Lord and Savior."</blockquote><p>or:</p><p></p><blockquote>"The more honor and love for Jesus Christ grows among the people, the more worth and honor for Mary grows for bearing us the great yet benevolent Lord and Savior." </blockquote><p></p></div><div>George Tavard likewise translates the text similarly, and <a href="https://archive.org/details/thousandfacesofv0000tava/page/108/mode/1up">includes more of the context</a>:</div><div><blockquote>The more the honor and love of Christ Jesus has increased among humans, the more has the honor and appreciation of Mary increased, since she has born for us such a great and gracious Lord and redeemer. But if you wish especially to honor Mary, follow her purity, her innocence, and her strong faith. And when you say an <i>Ave Maria</i> and you have first thought what a great thing, as was said above, it is for our redemption, think also secondly that, with this great grace and honor given her by God, she has not become less poor herself and she has had to bear persecution, pain, and misery, in which however she has remained with a strong heart. And therefore may you, with your poverty and your weariness, find an example in her: This misery that is so well known to humans must be born, since the Holy Mother of God was not sheltered from it...</blockquote></div><div>Compare all of this with what's been floating around the Internet for twenty years:</div><blockquote>"The more the honor and love of Christ increases among men, so much the esteem and honor given to Mary should grow."</blockquote>First, O'Meara says Marian honor <u>should</u> grow among people. The word "should" being used sounds like it may be being used as a moral imperative (a moral action that must be done). The use of the word "should" leads to questions as to whether the sentence is descriptive or normative. Is the sentence describing something that is the case (descriptive), or is it describing something that ought to happen (normative)? Whichever the translator intended, of the three alternate translations above, none include "should." One source told me the word "should" isn't in the original text. </div><div><br /></div><div>The solution as to descriptive or normative is solved by the context. Notice O'Meara's English version didn't translate the entire sentence! He left out, "...<i>because she has born for us the very great and gracious Lord and Savior</i>." Zwingli is being descriptive. Zwingli wasn't saying honor Christ and increase your honor of Mary. Zwingli was stating a historical fact: The more the honor and love of Christ Jesus increased throughout church history, the more has the honor and appreciation of Mary increased as well. </div><div><br /></div><div>Zwingli then explains the correct way to "especially honor Mary": "<i>follow her purity, her innocence, and her strong faith</i>." One does not honor Mary for her intrinsic qualities of greatness or intercession. <a href="https://archive.org/details/thousandfacesofv0000tava/page/108/mode/1up?view=theater&q=purity">George Tavard</a> (a Roman Catholic scholar) interprets Zwingli's notion of correct devotion:</div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiQswXLgLSyGYfw9tF0jXp1GdqkF4yF-nq3limyuNexdHAoFYXxnBMGT9plAmSh8yhIFiWDU98cLYORzf4TMVHqonZ4bkIHbX273E1DzYsJU5ZoNw0qu82FUH7gK4OxL8qfGslSL9ip1hTYhwsADG41uGluA7HD8KrcIEwc_fACZxNp0Cy2BIeNUw" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="178" data-original-width="536" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiQswXLgLSyGYfw9tF0jXp1GdqkF4yF-nq3limyuNexdHAoFYXxnBMGT9plAmSh8yhIFiWDU98cLYORzf4TMVHqonZ4bkIHbX273E1DzYsJU5ZoNw0qu82FUH7gK4OxL8qfGslSL9ip1hTYhwsADG41uGluA7HD8KrcIEwc_fACZxNp0Cy2BIeNUw=w640-h213" width="640" /></a></div><br /><br /></div><div><b>Conclusion</b></div><div><div>In summary: the quote, "<i>The more the honor and love of Christ increases among men, so much the esteem and honor given to Mary should grow</i>," has significant difficulties. First, it's often documented incorrectly. Second, it was actually written while Zwingli was still technically a Roman Catholic and also previous to the introduction of the Reformation in Zurich ("...<i> the introduction of the Reformation, that was still over two years away, and the breaking of the Lenten fast and public criticism of saints and images in the churches remained contrary to the will of the magistrates.</i>.."). Third, the word translated "should" is not in the original text. The use of "should" without a context makes the quote at best ambiguous, at worst incorrectly either an imperative or a normative statement. Fourth, Zwingli explains the correct way to "<i>especially honor Mary</i>": "<i>follow her purity, her innocence, and her strong faith</i>." The honor is for one to modify their behavior by mirroring Mary's behavior. Zwingli reserves worshipful honor to Christ. </div><div><br /></div><div>I realize Rome's apologists read this blog. I can visualize some of them tapping away a rebuttal. Before they do this, I would respectfully ask they keep the following point in mind.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>1. Zwingli had a Mariology</b></div><div>I believe that Ulrich Zwingli had a Mariology, in fact, I would agree with George Tavard <a href="https://archive.org/details/thousandfacesofv0000tava/page/105/mode/1up?view=theater&q=purity">when he said</a> Zwingli was "<i>the most Marian figure of the Reformation</i>" among the early Reformers. Yes, Zwingli said things about Mary modern Protestants would not say. He believed things about Mary that modern Protestants would not. Rome's defenders need to balance this though with the historical truth that Zwingli's Mariology also differed with the Roman Catholic Mariology of his day, particularly popular beliefs about Mary.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>2. Zwingli said nice things about Mary</b></div><div>There's no denying Zwingli said nice things about Mary. A point I've often made in regard to Luther, applies to Zwingli as well: saying nice things about Mary is not the same thing as Roman Catholic Marian devotion and honor, both then and now. The question that needs to be asked is what exactly is Marian devotion and veneration? What does it mean for a Roman Catholic to be devoted to or venerate Mary, and what does it mean for Zwingli to be devoted, honor, or venerate Mary? Rome's defenders should not be allowed to equivocate. Zwingli saying nice things about Mary does not equal Rome's version of devotion. I do not deny that Zwingli spoke favorably about Mary, but when Roman Catholics say "honor" or “venerate,” they mean something different than Zwingli, as demonstrated above.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>3.The transitional early Reformers</b></div><div>Like Luther, there are quotes about Mary from Zwingli peppered throughout his writings that may "surprise" a reader. I suspect the quotes would be most surprising to someone ignorant of church history, particularly those unaware of the <i>ebb and flow</i> of trends and traditions, both within Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. It's true that the early Reformers made comments about Mary that current Protestants would not make. But similarly, there are comments made by Protestants today that would probably surprise the early Reformers. This isn't, to use the cliché, <i>rocket science</i>. The Marian climate of the early Protestant world is not the Marian climate of the current theological landscape. When the Reformers broke with Rome, they were, in some regard, transitional figures. To steal a concept from Alister McGrath: the Reformers demonstrated both continuity and discontinuity with the period which immediately preceded it. It shouldn't be at all surprising then to discover elements of the Reformer's Mariology that echoed the medieval theological worldview. Contrarily, it should also not be surprising to discover there were elements of their understanding of Mary that broke with the medieval theological worldview. Such is the case with this Zwingli quote. </div></div><div><br /></div><div><b>Addendum: Zwingli's Opposition to the Worship of Mary</b></div><div>By far, the best Zwingli blog is <a href="https://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com/">Zwinglius Redivivus by Jim West</a>. He has posted, <a href="https://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com/2024/01/02/zwinglis-opposition-to-the-worship-of-mary/">Zwingli's Opposition to the Worship of Mary</a>. He located <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=jl1KAAAAYAAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&dq=%22We%20do%20not%20insult%20Mary%2C%20the%20Virgin%20Mother%20of%20God%22&pg=PA239#v=onepage&q&f=false">this section</a> from <br />The Latin Works and the Correspondence of Huldreich Zwingli (Vol. 2):<br /></div><blockquote>II. From this, most gracious King, you see clearly that we do not dismiss the saints nor the sacraments, nor move them from their place, as some men say that we do, but that we keep and guard them in their proper place and dignity, that no man may use them wrongly. We do not insult Mary, the Virgin Mother of God, when we forbid that she be adored with divine honors; but when we would attribute to her the majesty and power of the Creator, she herself would not permit such adoration. For true piety has one and the same character among all men and is the same in all, because it originates by one and the same Spirit. It cannot even be imagined, therefore, that any created being should at the same time be pious and suffer the worship due the Deity to be offered to himself. So also the Virgin Mother of God will as much the less accept the worship due the Deity as she is high above all created beings and reverently devoted to God, her Son. It is a mark of insanity in godless men and demons when they allow divine honors to be paid to them. This is proved by the images of demons and the arrogance of Herod, of whom the first, by teaching worship of themselves, deceived the world to its destruction, and the second, not refusing the divine honors offered him, was struck with phthiriasis, that he might learn to recognize the feebleness of man.</blockquote></div>James Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-90205347677535381562023-11-20T14:24:00.003-05:002023-11-27T09:46:33.990-05:00Did Luther Believe Justification is a Process?<p>An anonymous participant <a href="https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2014/05/luther-it-is-easier-to-live-as.html?showComment=1698890909257#c2211781303207060046">left this comment</a>: <i>"Luther believed justification is an ongoing process and not a one-time-event like most Protestants today hold to as part of their interpretation of faith alone</i>." In support of this claim, the following citations were provided:<br /><span style="font-family: courier;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: courier;">Luther said: “We perceive that a man who is justified is not yet a righteous man, but is in the very movement or journey toward righteousness,” - Disputation on Justification, thesis 23, in Luther’s Works 34:152.<br /><br />“Our justification is not yet complete.... It is still under construction. It shall, however, be completed in the resurrection of the dead.” - D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausabe (Weimar, 1883), 39I:252 (cited in Althaus, 237 n. 63).</span></blockquote><p></p>With these citations, Luther is put forth as an advocate of the <i>process</i> of justification... which is notoriously a Roman Catholic theological construct. Let's take a closer look at these quotes and see where they come from and what they are actually saying. We'll discover that the lines between what Luther and Rome are saying about Justification and the final judgment are being obfuscated. <div><br /></div><div><b>Documentation</b></div><div>The immediate red flag that this may be a blatant <i>drive-by</i> cut-and-paste are the English citations of Luther and accompanying German references. The cut-and-paste of these quotes is suspiciously similar to an old article by Rome's defender, <a href="https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/justifications-of-abraham-928">Jimmy Akin</a>, but more precisely material from Akin's later book, <a href="https://www.slideshare.net/JasterRogueII/the-drama-of-salvation-jimmy-akin-65103026">The Drama of Salvation</a>, p. 29. </div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhOlAOeYFXagFe8ENFK0m96yvQ5nPxrTsJ_7VpW6ywuVHo6D8QynyPGd6Iip87yZDCVeXrftuIXR8nS_8MTyCskOCx-WkhNzZIXSG_MREIA6ETRD8YLsd28GOj38opEgQ1yY7ZZG6HLUeSLPHDy8fcP9pO-u_3W1DK8ghtzrZ5ziolcePMMUD5dog" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="256" data-original-width="508" height="201" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhOlAOeYFXagFe8ENFK0m96yvQ5nPxrTsJ_7VpW6ywuVHo6D8QynyPGd6Iip87yZDCVeXrftuIXR8nS_8MTyCskOCx-WkhNzZIXSG_MREIA6ETRD8YLsd28GOj38opEgQ1yY7ZZG6HLUeSLPHDy8fcP9pO-u_3W1DK8ghtzrZ5ziolcePMMUD5dog=w400-h201" width="400" /></a></div><div><br /></div>It looks like Mr. Akin recycled his old article and made additions and corrections when he published his book (for instance, the first Luther quote is expanded in the book form and the documentation was corrected). Mr. Akin has relied heavily on a section from Paul Althaus, <i>The Theology of Martin Luther</i>, (particularly page 226) in this presentation of Luther, with both quotes cited by Althaus on page 237 (Althaus translation of the first quote is slightly different than LW 34). Akin uses this material drawn from Althaus to conclude that "<i>a number of recent Protestant scholars</i>" recognize that Justification is a process and "<i>in doing so they are retrieving a concept that was present in the thought of some of the early Reformers</i>" (p.28). </div><div><br /></div><div>Mr. Akin argues for the Roman Catholic "process" of justification rather than the imputation of Christ's righteousness. For Akin, it's only <i>"the final, consummating declaration of our righteousness</i>" done in the future that will be the deciding factor if one is actually justified before God or not. </div><div><p><span style="font-weight: bold;">Quote #1 "We perceive that a man who is justified is not yet a righteous man, but is in the very movement or journey toward righteousness"</span></p></div><div>This quote comes from a series of disputation statements based on Romanns 3:28, While this is the extent of the statement (it is point #23), the explanation of what Luther means in regard to justification is contained in the surrounding theses and subsequent explanations. In Theses #4, Luther says, "<i>A man is truly justified by faith in the sight of God, even if he finds only disgrace before man and in his own self</i>" (LW 34:151). For Luther, this is profound, for it is human nature to expect to earn salvation by works. For Luther, our works do not contribute to standing before God as justified. In the same set of Theses, Luther says, "<i>Therefore, whoever is justified is still a sinner; and yet he is considered fully and perfectly righteous by God who pardons and is merciful</i>" (Theses #24). Luther says the righteousness of Christ "<i>cannot be laid hold of by our works</i>" (Theses # 27) and that "<i>faith alone justifies without our works</i> " because one cannot say "<i>I produce Christ or the righteousness of Christ</i>" (Theses #28).</div><div><br /></div><div>Luther says that God, in essence, tolerates sin in people until they enter his heavenly eternal kingdom. It is there he states, "<i>For we perceive that a man who is justified is not yet a righteous man, but is in the very movement or journey toward righteousness</i>." Is Luther saying that justification is a journey of the "process" of gaining righteousness toward some sort of eventual justification to stand before a holy God? Not at all. Luther says that good works done by the regenerate are the "<i>start of a new creature</i>" "<i>in the battle against the sin of the flesh</i>" (Theses #35).</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><b>Quote #2 “Our justification is not yet complete.... It is still under construction. It shall, however, be completed in the resurrection of the dead.” </b><div><br /></div><div>The document this quote comes from (<i>Die Promotionsdisputation von Palladius und Tilemann</i> [Rom 3:28] <i>On the Works of the Law and of Grace</i> [1537]) is scheduled to be released in a future volume of Luther's Works for English readers. The original text can be found <a href="https://archive.org/details/werkekritischeg3901luthuoft/page/252/mode/1up?view=theater">here</a>. Similar to the first quote, when Luther speaks of justification as "<i>under construction</i>" and then "<i>completed in the resurrection of the dead</i>," the emphasis is not on process-journey of gaining righteousness to stand before a holy God. The earthly existence is only the mere beginning of intrinsic personal righteousness. As Paul Althaus explains of Luther, "<i>The condition of being righteous in ourselves can be described in the present tense only as having begun, but its completion lies only in the future; we are only becoming righteous</i>" (Althaus, 237). </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>Conclusion</b></div><div>This blog entry is one of those <i>keep your eyes on the ball</i> exercises. For Luther, it's the <i>one-time event</i> in a person's life, in which the righteousness of Christ is imputed to a sinner that allows one into the saving presence of the Holy God, and to savingly remain forever in the presence of Holy God. In the final court room scene in each person's life, God declares a person righteous because the righteousness of Christ entirely covers that person.</div><div><br /></div><div>The confusion that the anonymous commenter seized and applied to Romanism is that, according to Lutheran scholar Paul Althaus, "<i>Luther used the term 'to justify' in [iustificare] and 'justification' [justificatio] in more than one sense</i>" (Althaus, 226). Sometimes Luther used it to mean that sense in which a sinner stands before God and is judged according to the righteousness of Christ, imputed by faith. Other times he uses it to mean a person actually intrinsically becoming righteous. Althaus explains, "<i>Justification in that sense remains incomplete on this earth and is first completed on the Last Day. Complete justification in this sense is an eschatological reality</i>" (Althaus, 226). By being made "<i>perfectly righteou</i>s" Luther means being given a glorified body. Althaus later says of Luther's view, "<i>This already present righteousness is both a complete and a partial righteousness, depending on the way in which it is viewed. It is complete when viewed as acceptance by God and as a participation in Christ's righteousness; Christ's righteousness is a totality and the believer participates in that totality. It is partial as man's new being and new obedience</i>" (Althaus, 236). That new obedience culminates in the future: For Luther, in the final court room scene, a person is given a new existence: "<i>Sin remains, then, perpetually in this life, until the hour of the last judgment comes and then at last we shall be made perfectly righteous</i>" (LW 34:166).</div><div><br /></div><div><div id="ftn1"><div style="margin: 0in;">For Rome, in the eternal state, God will look at person and judge whether or not that person is completely righteous. If that person is not completely infused with personal righteousness, that person is not given a glorified body, but is sent off to purgatory until personal righteousness is complete. In this world, therefore, a strong emphasis is placed on participating in the sacraments and gathering up as much righteousness as one can. Note <a href="https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/justifications-of-abraham-928">Jimmy Akin's comment from his old article</a>: </div></div></div><blockquote>[T]he ultimate and final courtroom declaration concerning the believer does not occur until he stands before God (at his death and at the end of the world). So we may infer that the ultimate and final pronouncement of the believer as righteous does not lie in this life.</blockquote><div><div><div id="ftn1"><div style="margin: 0in;">In Luther's view, it is the righteousness of Christ given to a person that allows a sinner to enter into God's holy presence... and stay there. There is no need to be sent off to purgatory to be made righteous. In <i>The Disputation Concerning Justification,</i> Luther comments on the view of Erasmus that captures some of the nuances under scrutiny here: </div><div style="margin: 0in;"><div style="line-height: normal;"><blockquote>By faith we are justified and by faith we receive forgiveness of sins and the beginning of obedience, as Erasmus also argues. He distinguishes between faith and works in this way. Faith alone begins the forgiveness of sins, but works obtain salvation or merit and the kingdom of heaven or eternal life. He says that faith in this life removes sins and gives remission of sins, afterward he ascribes salvation to works. This is most excellent and plausible, and this argument pleases reason. For reason rushes in blindly and thinks thus: Eternal salvation is something else than Christian righteousness. It concludes that it can by its own works merit eternal salvation, as if we obtained justification through faith and salvation through works. So it seems plausible enough, since the text clearly said, “Man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved” [Rom. 10:10]. But this is absurd in the first place, because then Christ must be an incomplete and not a perfect savior. They wish thereby to make us more perfect than our Savior, because they attribute that which is the greatest to works and that which is least to Christ and faith. Even if Christ merits forgiveness of sins for us, we must still save ourselves. Likewise, we need Christ for justification, as if for the least important reason, afterward we need obedience for our salvation, as if for the most important reason. Who says such things? Beware of these arguments and of such men, since this now makes Christ less highly esteemed a savior, but detracts from his honor, that he has made us righteous by his death, since we ourselves can obtain eternal life by our works. These absurdities bring darkness into the minds of men. For they assume that Christ must not be the Savior, that he made us safe from original sin, and that we must later become perfect by ourselves. [LW 34:163]</blockquote></div></div><div style="margin: 0in;">In this life, if works are done, they are not done to gain favor with God. In the Disputation in which the first quote was extracted, Luther repeatedly argues,</div></div></div><div><span lang="en-us"></span><blockquote><span lang="en-us">Works only reveal faith, just as fruits only show the tree, whether it is a good tree. I say, therefore, that works justify, that is, they show that we have been justified, just as his fruits show that a man is a Christian and believes in Christ, since he does not have a feigned faith and life before men. </span>For the works indicate whether I have faith. I conclude, therefore, that he is righteous, when I see that he does good works. In God’s eyes that distinction is not necessary, for he is not deceived by hypocrisy. But it is necessary among men, so that they may correctly understand where faith is and where it is not. [LW 34:161].</blockquote></div><div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><b>Addendum</b></div></div></div><div><br /></div><div>“Official Roman Catholic theology includes sanctification in the definition of justification, which it sees as a
process rather than a single decisive event and affirms that while faith contributes to our acceptance with God,
our works of satisfaction and merit contribute too. Rome sees baptism, viewed as a channel of sanctifying grace,
as the primary instrumental cause of justification, and the sacrament of penance, whereby congruous merit is
achieved through works of satisfaction, as the supplementary restorative cause whenever the grace of God’s initial
acceptance is lost through mortal sin. Congruous, as distinct from condign, merit means merit that it is fitting,
though not absolutely necessary, for God to reward by a fresh flow of sanctifying grace. On the Roman Catholic
view, therefore, believers save themselves with the help of the grace that flows from Christ through the church’s
sacramental system, and in this life no sense of confidence in God’s grace can ordinarily be had. Such teaching
is a far cry from that of Paul.”
(<a href="https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/packer/justification.html#:~:text=Official%20Roman%20Catholic%20theology%20includes,satisfaction%20and%20merit%20contribute%20too.">J.I. Packer Concise Theology</a>)</div>James Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-687851051238983142023-10-28T01:26:00.003-04:002023-10-29T08:28:54.223-04:00Calvin's Antisemitism: "Their rotten and unbending stiff-neckedness deserves that they be oppressed unendingly and without measure or end and that they die in their misery without the pity of anyone.”<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjxFeRkAQlMenPSxGDGhd0WcpsW9BcUM5Y0FE0bSCtpUAYRJcz1wCNSWhMqcsdjwfc69klv4zDjAXXZsh5KS-uworM6IMnSsItk6kuVV_MuBtpQob26VTOLvc-th3kzEjFnN982EyZGMrg9RSsJTcUUAVmJTolzTnVcwIrAiR0r18wlNBf0owsS9Q" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="379" data-original-width="241" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjxFeRkAQlMenPSxGDGhd0WcpsW9BcUM5Y0FE0bSCtpUAYRJcz1wCNSWhMqcsdjwfc69klv4zDjAXXZsh5KS-uworM6IMnSsItk6kuVV_MuBtpQob26VTOLvc-th3kzEjFnN982EyZGMrg9RSsJTcUUAVmJTolzTnVcwIrAiR0r18wlNBf0owsS9Q" width="153" /></a></div> Here's a hostile quote against the Jews from John Calvin circulating cyberspace:<p></p><span style="font-family: courier;"><blockquote>John Calvin: (Speaking of the Jewish people) Their rotten and unbending stiff-neckedness deserves that they be oppressed unendingly and without measure or end and that they die in their misery without the pity of anyone.”</blockquote></span>This John Calvin quote seems to be saying the "<i>rotte</i>n" Jews <i>should</i> be actively oppressed to the point of<i> death</i>. While it's true that the sixteenth century (and all centuries!) have been hostile to the Jewish people, I was unfamiliar with strong antisemitic statements like this from the pen of John Calvin. We'll see with this quote, while John Calvin was not ecumenical towards the Jews (nor was he sympathetic to them), he was not advocating killing them. The quote appears to be a mistranslation of the original Latin source. <div><div><br /></div><div><b>Documentation</b></div><div>There are a number of websites using this quote without any documentation (I found <a href="https://www.godreports.com/2023/06/the-great-israel-theology-cover-up/">one website</a> misattributing the quote to Calvin's Commentary on Daniel). There are also a few <a href="https://www.godreports.com/2023/06/the-great-israel-theology-cover-up/">Christian</a> and <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20001219061200/http://www.yashanet.com/library/fathers.htm">Jewish apologetic sites</a> that use the quote as part of a cumulative case argument demonstrating antisemitism by important personages of the Christian church. The quote made its way to the ever-popular disseminator of context-less factoids, <a href="https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Calvin">Wikiquote</a>. They correctly identify the quote as originating from Calvin's <i>Response to questions and Objections of a Certain Jew</i> (in its original Latin, Ad Questiones et Obiecta Iudaei cuisdam Responsio). They do not provide where this source can be found, nor a page number.</div><div><br /></div><div>If the original written source is in Latin, who translated this quote into English? The earliest usage I could find of this English rendering comes from a book entitled, <i>The Jew in Christian Theology</i>, by Gerhard Falk (McFarland and Company, Inc., Jefferson, NC and London, 1992), p. 84 (<a href="http://jdstone.org/cr/files/thoselovingchristians.html">some websites</a> use this book for documentation without a page number and incorrectly date the book "1931" ...the year Falk was born). Falk, in essence, admits to not using the original source. He documents the quote coming from a secondary German source: Rudolf Pfisterer, <i>Im Schatten des Kreuzes</i> (Hamburg, Evangeliscer Verlag, 1966), p. 72. (At the time of writing this entry, I do not have a copy of this secondary source). Falk documents that while he took the quote from Pfisterer's book, Pfisterer was actually quoting Jacques Courvoisier's article, "<i>Calvin et les Juifs</i>"! That article is from an old scholarly periodical: Judaica Beitrage zum Verständnis des jüdischen. Schidcsals in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart 2 (1946): 203-8. That periodical can be found <a href="https://www.e-periodica.ch/digbib/view?pid=jud-001%3A1946%3A2#230">here</a>. The Latin text this quote is based on is found on page 206:</div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjgInbid1TJhSU1Rgl6PqCpQBn-_88_YibYCwezCyikuXsrjVp-bAkOUNT4ukxnS5y6qmqBRMwfO2vur4IWzF4m17SLfbSBYgrDK5l22Sg_TAQfqaZRJboG8YDUGTZArWo7jzSYZJEh8rjRQfbP1gIfbaKduPY1yd9HX4XuNMn4AeLjf9WvUqP2Ug" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="151" data-original-width="557" height="87" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjgInbid1TJhSU1Rgl6PqCpQBn-_88_YibYCwezCyikuXsrjVp-bAkOUNT4ukxnS5y6qmqBRMwfO2vur4IWzF4m17SLfbSBYgrDK5l22Sg_TAQfqaZRJboG8YDUGTZArWo7jzSYZJEh8rjRQfbP1gIfbaKduPY1yd9HX4XuNMn4AeLjf9WvUqP2Ug" width="320" /></a></div></div><div>Without having Pfisterer's book, it seems likely that Falk either translated Courvoisier's Latin Calvin quote into English, or perhaps Pfisterer translated Calvin's Latin into German, and then Falk translated the quote into English. Either way, it seems that it's likely Falk provided the English translation currently circulating in cyberspace. </div><div><br /></div><div>The Latin treatise the quote comes from is found in <a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/Opera_quae_supersunt_omnia/wwtCAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA653&printsec=frontcover">CR 37:653–74</a> (The Corpus Reformatorum<span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;"> </span>). The popular English version this quote appears to be based on can be found in the last paragraph in the right hand column on page <a href="https://books.google.com/books/content?id=wwtCAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA673&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&bul=1&sig=ACfU3U0WKoNsJl5XpHEXipCDjCJ0Fu6zMg&w=1025">674</a>. The text is a fictional dialog between a Jewish apologist and John Calvin. Calvin did not publish it (it was put out 11 years after he died). It is also incomplete (<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=9iboDwAAQBAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PA84&dq=%22Response%20to%20questions%20and%20objections%20of%20a%20certain%20jew%22&pg=PA84#v=onepage&q&f=false">source</a>). The treatise begins and ends abruptly.</div><div><br /></div><div>To my knowledge, there are only two complete English translations of this treatise available, from two very different people. The most scholarly was done by Rabbi Susan Frank in M. Sweetland Laver, “<i>Calvin, Jews, and Intra-Christian Polemics</i>” (PhD diss, Temple University, Philadelphia, 1987), 220–61. Her complete translation is included as an appendix toward the end of this dissertation. Up until recently, this appears to be the only complete English translation in circulation. That translation is available <a href="https://www.proquest.com/openview/3feb74781b83920ab8e79c902d7070e2/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y">here</a> for purchase. </div><div><br /></div><div>The other translation is <a href="https://archive.org/details/calvin-response/mode/1up?view=theater">self-published and freely available on the Internet Archive</a>. While this translation may be accurate, <a href="http://truesonsofabraham.com/one-billion-strong.htm">the author appears to be blatantly and approvingly antisemitic</a>. How ironic: the previous translation was done by a scholarly Rabbi and is accessible for purchase, the other by an antisemite (seemingly without meaningful publishing credentials)... for free. What I found curious about this antisemitic translator was that he suspected Rabbi Frank's earlier translation would not be accurate because she was a Rabbi! <a href="https://archive.org/details/calvin-response/page/n7/mode/1up?view=theater">He concluded though it was</a>:</div><div><div></div><blockquote><div>I must admit that the fact that a rabbi was responsible for this translation led me to suspect its accuracy. However, I have closely compared the Frank translation to my own, and while it differs in some very minor points, the Frank translation is on the whole quite accurate. </div></blockquote><div></div></div><div>I mention this antisemitic translator because he actually includes a section of his translation dedicated to the Calvin quote in question: </div><div><blockquote>There is a quote about the Jews attributed to Calvin that is found on several different websites (for an example, see the John Calvin <a href="https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Calvin">page</a> on Wikiquote). The quote is as follows: "Their [the Jews] rotten and unbending stiffneckedness deserves that they be oppressed unendingly and without measure or end and that they die in their misery without the pity of anyone." The Wikiquote page, as well as other online postings, claim that this quote comes from the Response. However, this exact quote is not found in the text. It seems to be a mistranslation of a sentence that appears in the twenty-third section of the work. Below is the original Latin and my translation of this sentence:</blockquote></div><div><blockquote>"Primo meretur eorum perdita obstinatio et indomabilis, ut immensa miseriarum congerie sine fine et modo oppressi omnes exhilarent suis malis, nemo autem eorum misereatur."</blockquote></div><div><blockquote>"First of all, their depraved and indomitable obstinacy merits that none of them be pitied, as they all delight in their evils while being oppressed by a great mass of miseries without end or measure."</blockquote></div><div><blockquote>In the popular online version, it sounds as if Calvin is saying that the Jews should be oppressed and that they deserve to die, while the actual text says that the Jews are foolish to persist in their rejection of the Messiah in the face of the oppression that they have experienced. The sentiment that the Jews should not be pitied certainly is found in Calvin's original words, and while the mistranslation does not in the least stray from the overall tenor of the Response, it is still desirable to correct an inaccurate rendering that has been repeated so many times.</blockquote><p> </p><p><b>Context</b></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><img alt="" data-original-height="162" data-original-width="309" height="210" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgDgdcBUakmXUsVdR4-Ge6DoNaTcKxRXNX7tOZPCeqUlF17ht4zBjd-MvcfPXmpWg3VyqtIEdGEhNIGCUAUylkHkdmrZCYSU-sSkcursHNntrPyDHlBk-oLkZ1jlM9HUNGqZJfv21OkmgneJyw5KNRkD2Ra5hvxrWclusOP9_TkbhDcYawPJNjnRA=w400-h210" width="400" /></div><p></p><p><b><br /></b></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgNVGQ1BhdXFaA4H1ZAPZSbIZsNcM8kA2fzvmj5fPzZzi3dQp_S5ouM_tK_sN-mOhtBZ8kQO8Lv14Koi5xWzWfMWQoXQZUOcKQUCjcJ4BLm2EItWncJdyJALA7oJynLM6_opMfcex5zUhKiQg0BACvCz0bYgw7SalcaF012esaKQ5Z9S0D7Wc0w4w" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img alt="" data-original-height="330" data-original-width="316" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgNVGQ1BhdXFaA4H1ZAPZSbIZsNcM8kA2fzvmj5fPzZzi3dQp_S5ouM_tK_sN-mOhtBZ8kQO8Lv14Koi5xWzWfMWQoXQZUOcKQUCjcJ4BLm2EItWncJdyJALA7oJynLM6_opMfcex5zUhKiQg0BACvCz0bYgw7SalcaF012esaKQ5Z9S0D7Wc0w4w=w383-h400" width="383" /></a></div><p><br /></p><b>Conclusion</b></div><div>In context, the Jewish apologist asks Calvin, why are the Jews in exile because they killed Jesus when Jesus himself prayed that those killing him be forgiven, since they didn't know what they were doing? It is to this question Calvin claims the Jews have "indomitable obstinacy" delighting in evil, even while being subjected to years of misery in exile. It is to this Calvin claims the hardship of the Jews should not provoke pity. While he is not advocating murdering Jews (as the quote in question insinuates), it is nonetheless hostile to the Jews and promotes typical sixteenth century antisemitic views. </div><div><br /></div><div>It appears the popular English rendering of this quote includes elements of mistranslation. Note that Falk used the word, "rotten" for the Latin word "perdita." The meaning "rotten" appears to be a severe translating choice at best (or erroneous at worst) of the adjective "<a href="https://worldofdictionary.com/dict/latin-english/meaning/perditus">perditus</a>" (Calvin did not use the word "<a href="https://latin-dictionary.net/definition/32394/putridus-putrida-putridum">putridum</a>"). <a href="https://www.latin-is-simple.com/en/vocabulary/verb/4883/">"Meretur" is a deponent verb</a> that's passive but translated as active, so, while "<i>deserves</i>" is a proper English translation, it's meaning is not that people should actively oppress the Jews, but that what is happening to them is "deserved" because of past actions. The part of Falk's translation that takes it a step a further is "<i>that they die in their misery without the pity of anyone</i>." I'm not entirely sure how he arrived at this from the Latin text, but taken as a whole, Falk's version has Calvin instructing his readers to oppress the Jews to the point of death. Calvin is not saying this. </div><div><br /></div><div>In the same context of the Calvin quote Falk translated, he says, </div><div><blockquote>Calvin wrote very little about the Jews because he could not have ever met Jews in Geneva... It is true Calvin accepted common Christian teachings concerning the Jews as outsiders, enemies of God and Christ killers. But compared to the excesses of hatred which Luther spewed forth for years, Calvin's attitudes toward the only non-Christians permitted to live in Christian Europe seemed mild and ordinary (p. 83-84).</blockquote></div><div>Whoever originally mined the Calvin quote out of this text appears to have missed these remarks from Falk. In fact, <a href="https://reformedinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/GSPak.pdf">there is debate</a> as to exactly how one should interpret Calvin's attitude toward the Jews ranging from those who say Calvin was not antisemitic, to typically antisemitic for his time period, to harshly antisemitic. Falk's analysis falls in the middle category (as does mine). True, Falk does present a mistranslated Calvin quote to make him seem worse than he was. Why did he do this? My take is he might have needed to do this for the overall argument of his book: Calvin may not have been bad enough, especially after Falk previously documented the things Luther had said about the Jews. There is also the question as to whether or not using an unfinished and unpublished work by Calvin himself is fair. Certainly the unpublished remarks Calvin made have meaning, but do they have precedent over his other published remarks? </div></div>
James Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-24854185768474407452023-08-13T13:47:00.003-04:002023-08-13T13:48:37.628-04:00Luther: Mary is the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ..."<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjb55-trH0QBZplUlhAYWTsWAMK3TBynNbk6RzgVL7fYa0B-xWq4-jFNEXklGbeeAFaMeF0n4-9v7LMRKQKolt5SHO8_pxgCnMcRI2Qfw5jCKlnJgq4Cudwgj_eqtxhhPTs1H3ZYSOQDZmS4kSr0A4Atmqbji0HfvIhY8EX7JkLg8V4O2JRkVdJqg/s640/Luther%20Mary.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="640" data-original-width="524" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjb55-trH0QBZplUlhAYWTsWAMK3TBynNbk6RzgVL7fYa0B-xWq4-jFNEXklGbeeAFaMeF0n4-9v7LMRKQKolt5SHO8_pxgCnMcRI2Qfw5jCKlnJgq4Cudwgj_eqtxhhPTs1H3ZYSOQDZmS4kSr0A4Atmqbji0HfvIhY8EX7JkLg8V4O2JRkVdJqg/s320/Luther%20Mary.jpg" width="262" /></a></div><p>This picture / quote is circulating cyberspace. It's a quote I've gone over before in tedious detail <a href="https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2015/01/luther-mary-she-is-highest-woman-and.html?m=0">here</a>. In summary of this earlier blog post:</p><p>1) This is not one quote. It's two quotes from two different pages (separated by an entire page). The English version of this quote appears to have been taken from William Cole’s article “<i>Was Luther a Devotee of Mary</i>?” (Marian Studies Volume XXI, 1970, p.131). Whoever put this quote / picture together probably never consulted the source, but rather did the typical cut-and-paste.</p><p>2) The sermon appears to be from 1532, not 1531. The date is confusing because the sermon is found in a volume dedicated to Luther's 1531 sermons. </p><p>3) In my <a href="https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2015/01/luther-mary-she-is-highest-woman-and.html?m=0">tedious detail post</a> back in 2015, I did not see the phrase "<i>wisdom and holiness personified</i>" in the text. It could be in the original and I missed it. The primary source is a mixture of Latin and German, not written by Luther, but by someone who took notes on what he preached. See my<a href="https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2015/01/luther-mary-she-is-highest-woman-and.html?m=0"> original post </a>for more details. </p><p> 4) In context, Luther chastised the papacy for its treatment of Mary:</p><blockquote>We should not praise and extol the mother in such a way as to allow this child who has been born unto us to be removed from before our eyes and hearts and to think less highly of him than of the mother. If one praises the mother, the praise ought to be like the wide ocean. If either one is to be forgotten, it is better to forget the mother rather than the child. Under the papacy, however, the child has all but been forgotten, and attention riveted only on the mother. But the mother has not been born for our sakes; she does not save us from sin and death. She has, indeed, begotten the Savior! for this reason we are to wean ourselves away from the mother and bind ourselves firmly to this child alone!</blockquote><div>5) There's no denying Luther said nice things about Mary. Luther though abandoned the distinction between <i>latria</i> and <i>dulia</i>. If you search out all the times Luther used the word “veneration,” you will find almost an entirely negative meaning applied to the term by the Reformer. The question that needs to be asked is what exactly is Marian devotion and veneration? What does it mean for a Roman Catholic to be devoted to or venerate Mary, and what does it mean for Luther to be devoted to or venerate Mary? Rome's defenders should not be allowed to equivocate. Luther saying nice things about Mary does not equal Rome's version of devotion. I do not deny that Luther spoke favorably about Mary, but when Roman Catholics say "honor" or “devotion,” they mean something different than Luther.</div>James Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-79692654722033178652023-06-19T09:47:00.000-04:002023-06-19T09:47:17.570-04:00Luther: "to be sure, each Christian is for himself Pope and church"<p> Through a <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/CatholicOrBibleOnly/posts/6189906191046506/?__cft__[0]=AZW_Feqc9gUaUJTwzIXg87JQ8hBLPfGWeRJa_OHlw21hpYShz01t9shoIO4VUAM65ixmRl1t2bTFps8hf16Ain4q1OxV0f9fiqUQXVJPPotX_ZOlrivgSSdBQViM7jMDHTUFo15KCMkr4LrZUKBblfkjJCON_zFlhs6rrV02rVenJA&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R">Facebook discussion</a> comes this shocking Martin Luther quote:</p><span style="font-family: courier;"><blockquote>Do Protestants believe in the Papacy? They sure do; they just don't believe in the Catholic Papacy! Ken Hensley as a Protestant writes, Luther wrote, "to be sure, each Christian is for himself Pope and church" (Wierke, Weimar: 1898, 5:407, p. 35). This, in part is why Ken isn’t Protestant anymore!</blockquote></span><div>This is a standard pop-apologetic Roman Catholic argument: without Rome's infallible interpreter governing the meaning of Scripture, each person functions as their own interpreter of Scripture. This Facebook post goes on to say, "<i>As one Protestant minister convert put it, when he became Catholic, 'I am glad I don’t have to be the Pope anymore.' I must admit, there are some honest Protestants out there</i>!" This is old-school Roman Catholic apologetics in which a seemingly outrageous quote from Luther is utilized (along with a reference to an obscure source) to justify Roman Catholicism. Why would Luther say or write such a thing? Why would he affirm that without the Roman Catholic papacy, each person becomes a Pope? It seems like a bizarre admission from the Reformer. </div><div><br /></div><div>We'll see from the context, Luther was not saying what this argument purports. </div><div><br /></div><div><b>Documentation</b></div><div>The documentation offered is first to Roman convert Ken Hensley's article, <a href="https://chnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/2107nwslttr_email.pdf">Is Sola Scriptura Biblical</a>? Mr. Hensley writes, </div><div><blockquote>We’ve been talking about the “foundation” upon which Protestantism as a <i>worldview</i> is built: <i>sola Scriptura</i>. What is <i>involved</i> in a
commitment to <i>sola Scriptura</i>? It’s often summarized simply as the
belief that the inspired Scriptures are to function as the “sole infallible rule of faith and practice for the individual Christian and for
the Christian Church.” But actually, <i>sola Scriptura</i> includes within
it another key commitment: the right of each Christian to study
the Bible and <i>decide for himsel</i>f what it is teaching. Protestants
commonly refer to this as the “right of private judgment,” and it’s
understood as following inescapably from a belief in sola Scriptura. “In these matters of faith,” Luther wrote, “to be sure, each
Christian is for himself pope and church” (Werke, Weimar: 1898,
5:407, p. 35).</blockquote></div><div>Mr. Hensley presents a Luther quote in English, but if the documentation is checked, the source is in Latin. This is standard pop-apologetic Roman Catholic methodology: give off the appearance of credible scholarship by using obscure sources. Luther said x, here is a reference to a source that casual English readers will not know how to look up, and even if they do know how to look it up, they will only understand the source if they can read German or Latin! </div><div><br /></div><div>I suspect Mr. Hensley actually did not translate Latin into English, nor did he actually utilize "<i>Werke, Weimar: 1898, 5:407, p. 35.</i>" It is more likely he cut-and-pasted this quote from elsewhere. Perhaps he used the Robert Sungenis driven anthology, <a href="https://archive.org/details/notbyscriptureal0000sung/page/363/mode/1up?view=theater">Not By Scripture Alone</a>. This book uses the same English rendering and documentation: </div><div><blockquote>Luther, the grand champion of <i>sola scriptura</i>, ultimately was forced to set his own authority above Scripture when the Bible contradicted his own position...This appeal to his own authority was consistent with his conviction that "in these matters of faith, to be sure, each Christian is for himself Pope and Church" (in his enim, quae sunt fidei, quilibet Christianus est sibi Papa et Ecclesia). [D Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimar: 1898; 5:407, 35]. </blockquote></div><div>The primary source cited by Mr. Hensely is "WA 5:407, p. 35." Someone trying to figure out this reference first needs to figure out why Mr. Hensley presented two different page numbers: 407 and 35. Maybe whatever secondary source he utilized added the "p," or perhaps if the Sungenis anthology was used, he added the "p" himself. The page is <a href="https://archive.org/details/werkekritischege05luthuoft/page/407/mode/1up?view=theater">407</a>. "35" refers to the line being cited on the page: </div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNAKFx1brut5bb8DWPmsrcW7f6_wC214B3UcdlBmFVh5NZlYioKCRXg_Bg3pXFqoturvTHHnOlF9rs_Xr5dn_JAF6--Ond1ICL9l75Rco27XZu8PvxNVT4JBvIMvxhQA4tEDjsBmljcgB4P2EO_WzUUsbzAqLAgbRu3z_4ocf7Eg5HYtlCPfk/s620/psalms.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="130" data-original-width="620" height="134" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNAKFx1brut5bb8DWPmsrcW7f6_wC214B3UcdlBmFVh5NZlYioKCRXg_Bg3pXFqoturvTHHnOlF9rs_Xr5dn_JAF6--Ond1ICL9l75Rco27XZu8PvxNVT4JBvIMvxhQA4tEDjsBmljcgB4P2EO_WzUUsbzAqLAgbRu3z_4ocf7Eg5HYtlCPfk/w640-h134/psalms.png" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div>This volume contains Luther's comments on Psalms 1-22,1519-1521. The comment comes from Luther's insights into Psalm 14. This text has been translated into English, <a href="https://archive.org/details/completecommenta02luth/page/n5/mode/2up?view=theater">Martin Luther's complete commentary on the first Twenty-Two Psalms (vol. 2)</a>. The quote can be found on <a href="https://archive.org/details/completecommenta02luth/page/64/mode/1up?view=theater">page 64</a>.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Context </b></div><blockquote>
And to this we ought to be moved by the consideration, that this knowledge of ours renders us safe, so that the works of ceremonies cannot hurt us when we know that we are justified by faith. And again, we ought to be moved to this, by the knowing that we have good things in Christ, and have no longer to labour under considerations and thoughts about the manner in which we may be justified. And therefore, all our life from henceforth should be lived to the benefit of our neighbour: as Christ lived for us; and, as we do all other things for their good, much more should we attend to these indifferent ceremonies for their good. And therefore, we owe no man any thing but to love one another: and by this love it comes to pass that all things whatsoever we do are good; and yet, we seek not to be justified by our works; and this is to be a Christian.
</blockquote><blockquote>I will now only add one thing, and bring these observations to an end. — If any one shall perceive that he has a confidence or trust in the works of ceremonies, let him be bold, and at length cast them off: and in this let him not wait for any dispensation or power from the Pope: <b>for in these matters every Christian is a pope and a church to himself</b>: nor should any thing be decreed concerning him, nor should he abide by any thing that is decreed, which can in any way lead his faith into peril. But if he shall wish to communicate
with his neighbour upon this matter, in order that he may be rendered the more certain by his word, (according to that scripture, "If any two of you shall agree upon earth concerning any thing," &c. Matt, xviii.) he does well. </blockquote><div><br /></div><div><b>Conclusion</b></div><div>The above context is a conclusion to a lengthy argument Luther was making in regard to justification by faith alone and justification by works, with a discission on the role of church ceremonies. Do church ceremonies play a part in justification before a holy God? Does going to or participating in a church ceremony have any effect on one's standing before God? In Luther's day, a church ceremony was a "good work" that could play a part in a person's justification. Therefore, one could place their confidence in the work of a ceremony. for Luther, this would be a denial of faith alone and would be placing one's confidence in something other than the work of Christ. In context, Luther says to cast off placing confidence in the work of a church ceremony. Cast away any infallible declarations of the church in regard to justification. The pope and church does not justify a person before God, the work of Christ does. </div><div><br /></div><div>It's also obvious from the context that <i>sola scriptura</i> was not being discussed. Rome's defenders have created a context and placed a Luther quote in that created context... this is a pure example of taking something out of context! Over the years, I've been chastised by Rome's defenders for being "anti-Catholic." What they fail to realize is that their blatant carelessness with the details of their arguments demonstrates to me they are the true <i>anti-catholics</i>. The goal of going through particular quotes is not to defend Luther as a Protestant saint. I see the study of any person in church history as an exercise in the love of God and neighbor. How do I love my neighbor in the study of church history? If I bear false witness against my neighbor, even if he's been dead for hundreds of years, I am not loving him. </div>James Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-11199368410248573052023-06-01T10:50:00.005-04:002023-06-01T11:25:14.323-04:00Bad Arguments Against Roman Catholicism<p>Have you ever considered the cogency of your argumentation? I began this blog back in late 2005. It served primarily as a place in which to keep track of my interactions with Roman Catholicism and my theological endeavors. Now almost two decades later, here is a reflection on those lines of reasoning I think are the least meaningful in engaging Rome's defenders. They are in no particular order, nor is this list exhaustive. </p><b>1. The Pope is the Antichrist, or Rome is the "Whore of Babylon" etc.</b><div>I was raised in a period when many took Hal Lindey's <i>The Late Great Planet Earth</i> seriously. This also coincided with Jack Chick tracts and comic books ("Alberto"). It wasn't all that long ago that Dave Hunt released his opus, <a href="https://www.chick.com/information/article?id=Who-Is-The-Woman-Who-Rides-The-Beast-In-Revelation-17">The Woman Rides The Beast</a>. The belief that the Pope is the antichrist and the Roman church plays prominently in Revelation may seem like the meanderings of the Schwärmerei, but it was also included originally in the <a href="https://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/50366">Westminster Confession of Faith</a> and <a href="https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/05/luthers-battle-at-end-of-world.html">some of the Reformers</a> were convinced of it (the Reformers were not the first but were preceded by the Joachimites). Generally, Protestants in the historicist tradition of end times interpretation identified the papacy in Revelation. <b>My two cents</b>: First, arguing that the Papacy is embedded in eschatology is speculative. There is no certain way to know that it fulfills prophecy... until prophecy is fulfilled. Second, the exact interpretation of the culmination of the events of the world, while important, is not the main issue of division between Roman Catholic theology and the church of Jesus Christ... the Gospel is. <div><div><br /></div><div><b>2. Abuse Scandals</b><br />Abuse scandals can certainly serve as good examples of hierarchical subterfuge in any organization that claims a lofty pedigree of divine favor. The Reformers had no problem using scandal and abuse as arguments against Rome. The scandals pointed to greater doctrinal issues that played a key role in perpetuating ecclesiastical abuse. <b>My two cents</b>: The problem is that using abuse scandals as an apologetic argument against Rome forces one to explain abuse scandals within various Protestant churches. If it is argued that an abuse scandal proves that Rome is not the ultimate infallible authority, how does one avoid this contrary: abuse scandals within Protestantism prove that the Bible cannot function as an infallible authority? If the argument you're using works against your own position, you've refuted yourself as well. Simply saying "Well, they've got more than us" is not a logically good response: truth is not determined by a head count. </div><div><br /></div><div><div><b>3. Executing Heretics</b></div><div>Similar to abuse scandals, it is true that many have lost their lives at the hands of the Roman church. Some of Rome's defenders are simply waiting for the inquisition or some similar horror to be mentioned so they can then mention the intolerance of the early Reformers or the Salem Witch trials. To complicate it more, Rome's defenders and Protestants have to grapple with the violence recorded in the historical sections of the Bible. <b>My two cents</b>: like abuse scandals, ff the argument you're using works against your own position, you've refuted yourself as well. Simply saying "Well, they've got more than us" is not a logically good response: truth is not determined by a head count. </div></div><div><br /></div><div><b>4. Theotokos: Mother of God</b><br />Some of the silliest dialogues with Rome's defenders is over the phrase, "Mother of God." Rome's defenders may employee a method of attempting to back people into affirming Christological heresies if the title "Mother of God" is denied. <b>My Two Cents</b>: The term has evolved in its usage. What was once a rich theological term expressing a doctrinal truth about Christ developed into a sweeping venerating praise to Mary. One should affirm the former and deny the excessive veneration of the later, reclaiming the etymological essence of "Mother of God." </div><div><br /></div></div><div><b>5. Big Ornate Buildings</b></div><div>As the argument goes, the Papacy has a lot of money... rather than helping the poor with all their resources, they waste their finances constructing large ornate buildings, therefore, Rome is a false church. <b>My two cents</b>: Similarly, some Protestant churches have big buildings and a lot of money (this has provoked <a href="https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/general-apologetics/tradition-and-the-house-church-movement/">the house church movement</a>). Unless one is personally willing to embrace absolute asceticism and only be part of religious organizations doing similarly, I don't see how one can consistently make the argument that Rome is a false church because of excessive wealth. </div><div><br /><b>6. Church history previous to the Reformation was "Roman Catholic"</b></div><div>Some of Rome's defenders think all of church history previous to the sixteenth century was completely "catholic" and then Protestantism was born, having their first day of church history on October 31, 1517. Similarly, some non-Roman Catholics think that all of church history between the closing of the New Testament canon and the sixteenth century Reformation was the history of apostate Roman Catholicism and should be thrown out. In its place, only the Bible should be cited against Romanism. <b>My two cents</b>: While responding to Rome's claims with the Bible has precedent, the history of the church from its inception to the Reformation period is not the sole property of Rome's defenders. It is the history of the church, not the Roman church. Understanding how earlier generations of Christians understood and applied the Bible can be a valuable tool in taking apart Rome's claims to having a pure apostolic "Tradition." </div><div><br /><b>7. Arguing against a particular Roman apologist rather than an official statement</b></div><div>It can be invigorating dismantling a Roman Catholic apologist, sifting through their arguments and stopping their shell game of hiding their ultimate authority. Therefore, when one defeats a Roman Catholic apologist, one has defeated Rome. <b>My two cents</b>: Many (if not most) of Rome's defenders are self-proclaimed Roman Catholic apologists: the Pope has not sanctioned them to venture into cyberspace and tap away on their keyboards to defend the Roman church. Therefore, if you are engaging in a dialog with a defender of Rome, you are not necessarily doing apologetics against Roman Catholicism, but rather, an interpretation of Roman Catholicism.<b> </b> Whenever possible, ask Rome's defenders to document their points with official dogmatic pronouncements from the magisterium. If they attempt to interact with you over the Bible, make sure to challenge them to document their use of the Bible with Rome's official dogmatic interpretation of the passage being utilized. Similarly with history: say a defender of Rome makes a declaration about Martin Luther, make sure to inquire if it's their opinion, or an official historical conclusion of the Magisterium.</div><div><br /><b>8. Honoring other Christians</b></div><div>Rome's defenders have developed an excessive system of honoring specific people (i.e., people from the Bible and those from church history deemed, "saints"). Seeing the excessive nature of their honoring system and its tie to the Treasury of merit, some react by throwing out "honor" all together. <b>My two cents</b>: "Honor" does not necessarily have to mean "praying to" or utilizing the Treasury of merit. One can honor those who came before us, whether in the Bible or in subsequent church history. I have no problem saying Mary deserves honor as an important person in the Bible... and so does Moses, Abraham, Noah, Peter, Paul, Stephen, etc. I honor the life and work of Calvin, Luther, Edwards, Spurgeon... and, Dr. R.C. Sproul! I also am keenly aware of honoring those still active in defending the church. </div><div><br /><b>9. Anything written by a Roman Catholic is wrong</b></div><div>Rome's defenders have written something so it must be wrong or not utilized... even if it is being put out by Catholic Answers or some of the lowest hanging fruit of Roman Catholic apologetics. <b>My two cents</b>: While difficult to do (and I've failed many times), the arguments Rome's defenders are putting forth should be evaluated first before engaging in personal polemic. Recently I read an article from Catholic Answers defending the immaculate conception of Mary. While I disagreed with their premise of Mary's immaculate conception and their conclusion of how it answers a modern theological dilemma of a young girl becoming pregnant with the Messiah, I was challenged by their question of how one should respond when Mary's conception of the Messiah is placed in the same realm as Muhammed having seven-year-old girls as wives. In other words, I did not dismiss the article entirely because it positively argued for the immaculate conception of Mary. </div><div><br /></div><div><b>10. Protestants believe in justification by faith, Roman Catholics believe they are saved by works</b></div><div>This may be the most important bad argument presented. It is paralleled by Roman Catholics who think Protestants believe they are saved by faith, and works do not matter at all (antinomianism). <b>My two cents</b>: Roman Catholics do not deny the role of faith in salvation, nor do Protestants deny the role of works in salvation. The debate is over their relationship. Both Protestants and Roman Catholics believe in justification by faith... which is why I rarely say "justification by faith." Rather, I say "justification by faith...<b> <u>alone</u></b>." "Alone" is the <i>sine qua non</i> of the phrase, placing justification in the complete works of Jesus Christ. </div></div>James Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.com21tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-58159310509308515252023-05-25T08:40:00.000-04:002023-05-25T08:40:47.940-04:00Catholic Answers on Luther's View of the Immaculate Conception<p><a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/mary-consented-to-pregnancy">Catholic Answers posted an article</a> defending their belief that Mary was entirely without sin, particularly when detractors question the impregnation of a teenage girl. While Martin Luther's view of the immaculate conception was only a passing comment, it represents a change in typical Roman Catholic cyber-treatments of the Reformer's Mariology. Apologist Trent Horn writes, </p><span style="font-family: courier;"><blockquote>Some Protestants might say that at best, this proves only that Mary was free from sin at the Annunciation, not necessarily since her conception. Martin Luther, for example, moved away from belief in the Immaculate Conception, but even in 1540, he said with regard to the Annunciation, “The flesh and blood of Mary were entirely purged, so that nothing of sin remained.” In response, I would just say that it seems arbitrary to say God chose this moment to give Mary grace rather than at any other moment and that the angel’s greeting, “Hail, full of grace,” signifies that her being full of grace was a part of her identity even before the announcement about the Incarnation.</blockquote></span><div>Let's take a look at the citation used and conclusion reached by Mr. Horn of Catholic Answers.</div><div><b><br /></b></div><b>Documentation</b><br />Other than the date 1540, no meaningful documentation is provided. The quote is from an English rendering of Luther's <i>Disputation On the Divinity and Humanity of Christ</i> (February 27, 1540). The Latin text can be found in <a href="https://archive.org/details/ab2werkekritisch39luth/page/107/mode/1up?view=theater">WA 39.2:107</a>.<div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-mtBAE_aliyhcHHscOFxSBVOffLhAH5yHoXgmAyLbvV5M3hVYPWa9dj1SGk0hTPxHcyrvHkkdpiHgP7I05poypBp2Z0UsdOqy5x49iHYT_5GdLX8F5BXerrIi6VQXXjpISw9TyxRo2TUihq6tQFa6cz3OibVcoLLWL3H-F364jAMu90njBkw/s638/omnis%20homo.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="241" data-original-width="638" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-mtBAE_aliyhcHHscOFxSBVOffLhAH5yHoXgmAyLbvV5M3hVYPWa9dj1SGk0hTPxHcyrvHkkdpiHgP7I05poypBp2Z0UsdOqy5x49iHYT_5GdLX8F5BXerrIi6VQXXjpISw9TyxRo2TUihq6tQFa6cz3OibVcoLLWL3H-F364jAMu90njBkw/s16000/omnis%20homo.png" /></a></div><br /><div><div>This writing has been available <a href="https://www.projectwittenberg.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-divinity.txt">online for many years</a> via Project Wittenberg. This disputation has been included in LW 73, with the quote found at LW 73:267-268 (utilized below). The English translation in LW 73 was done by the same person who did <a href="https://www.projectwittenberg.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-divinity.txt">the web version on Project Wittenberg</a>. </div><div><br /><div><br /></div><div><b>Context</b></div><blockquote>Argument 10<div>Every man is corrupted by original sin and has concupiscence. Christ had neither concupiscence nor original sin. Therefore he is not a man.</div></blockquote><div><blockquote><i>Response</i>: I make a distinction with regard to the major premise. Every man is corrupted by original sin, with the exception of Christ. Every man who is not a divine Person, as is Christ, has concupiscence, but the man Christ has none, because he is a divine Person, and in [his] conception the flesh and blood of Mary were entirely purged, so that nothing of sin remained. Therefore Isaiah says rightly, "There was no guile found in his mouth" [Isa. 53:9]; otherwise, every seed except for Mary's was corrupted.</blockquote><div><div><b>Conclusion</b></div><div><div>Mr. Horn rightly says that Luther "<i>moved away from belief in the Immaculate Conception</i>." I would qualify this though by saying: Luther didn't just "move away" from it, he ceased believing it. It appears earlier in his life he accepted it, later in his life he did not.</div><div><br /></div><div>If the sands of cyber time were reversed, this same quote, and others, were used by some of Rome's defenders to prove Luther held a lifelong belief in the immaculate conception of Mary! It would be interesting to know what sources Mr. Horn used on Luther's view of the immaculate conception. Back in the early 2000's, it was common to find Roman Catholic webpages using Luther's statements about Mary as an apologetic tool against Protestants. I do not find the same amount of these webpages today. It seems to me the newer generation of Rome's defenders have learned from the errors of the older generation... of perhaps... they are better at using Google! </div></div></div></div></div></div>James Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-73134157997395697032023-05-15T11:37:00.001-04:002023-05-31T10:02:27.265-04:00 St. John Chrysostom: “If you knew how quickly people would forget you after your death, you would not seek in your life to please anyone but God”... or Allah? <p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_SN-jQAlgKQSp7NeNwZTEv3ZM43YTY5Bx0FtzklLRqwMzov32XYOo2TRBLVqEtauLAKM0HQB7YpIXa50NeioThpG6Uv9bqaUKNdKrFLlExlSCaC8NQdJmsaxDBvmyP0zrFVcisGtVPtHzV8Nft73A3bXoxejjLjalZyOSoIN_LiI_3gZBYO8/s600/Chrys.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="510" data-original-width="600" height="340" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_SN-jQAlgKQSp7NeNwZTEv3ZM43YTY5Bx0FtzklLRqwMzov32XYOo2TRBLVqEtauLAKM0HQB7YpIXa50NeioThpG6Uv9bqaUKNdKrFLlExlSCaC8NQdJmsaxDBvmyP0zrFVcisGtVPtHzV8Nft73A3bXoxejjLjalZyOSoIN_LiI_3gZBYO8/w400-h340/Chrys.jpg" width="400" /></a>This quote from John Chrysostom has been making the cyber-rounds. I suspect most people rightly resonate with the profound depth of the words. My first reaction though was.... great quote... where exactly did John Chrysostom write this? What source does this quote come from?</p><br /><b>Documentation</b><br />A cursory search produced a seemingly complete absence of documentation of the quote in this particular English form. The quote in this form seems recent to the last few years. <div><br /></div><div> A curious version also circulating states, "<i>If you knew how fast people would forget you after death, you would not live your life to please anyone but Allah</i>." This English version seems to predate the Chrysostom English version, but not by all that many years. It also appears to be cited much more by those devoted to Islam.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Conclusion </b><br />Without finding any meaningful documentation, the quote may be someone's commentary of what either John Chrysostom wrote or what Islam teaches. It is within the realm of possibility that both quotes developed independently of each other, but that the English versions are so similar points towards a common source. Someone borrowed from someone! </div><div><br /></div><div>For my friends familiar with the extant writings of John Chrysostom, I would be interested in any leads as to anything sounding vaguely familiar in his writings (for instance, note some of the similarities <a href="https://mwerickson.com/2019/09/17/john-chrysostom-on-preaching-to-please-god-and-not-for-human-praise/">in this quote</a>). For those of you knowledgeable of Islam: where do you think the quote comes from? Do you think a Christian plagiarized an Islamic source? </div>James Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-44119670444377996832023-03-20T01:58:00.007-04:002023-03-21T00:10:05.241-04:00Peter Kreeft: Luther Was Simply Right About Faith Alone?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmi-IolOAR8CmbuZu7ASQ-os6L-tgZ5-AB_i2ZnXiGGvyY4mn3q00i5pHNVDipeN6UQeOpoA-gddKs6mBB5w1jCCNR0mLxG9etNyQkaKJHsFPyq3eH1-RP-N0fK4PouBQFOniBx7gLDsLhG67YHM3a1Q4F1r0F67ZLLdX1rK0UJ6b-2InsEeA/s393/kreeft.png" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="393" data-original-width="255" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmi-IolOAR8CmbuZu7ASQ-os6L-tgZ5-AB_i2ZnXiGGvyY4mn3q00i5pHNVDipeN6UQeOpoA-gddKs6mBB5w1jCCNR0mLxG9etNyQkaKJHsFPyq3eH1-RP-N0fK4PouBQFOniBx7gLDsLhG67YHM3a1Q4F1r0F67ZLLdX1rK0UJ6b-2InsEeA/s320/kreeft.png" width="208" /></a></div>I've come across this quote from Roman Catholic author Peter Kreeft a number of times over the years:<p></p><p></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: courier;">"How do I resolve the Reformation?
Is it faith alone that justifies, or is it faith and works? Very simple. No tricks.
On this issue I believe Luther was simply right; and this issue is absolutely crucial.
As a Catholic I feel guilt for the tragedy of Christian disunity because the church in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries was failing to preach the gospel.
Whatever theological mistakes Luther made, whatever indispensable truths about the Church he denied, here is an indispensable truth he affirmed — indispensable to union between all sinners and God and union between God’s separated Catholic and Protestant children."</span></blockquote><p></p><p>It is interesting to find a Roman Catholic author saying anything nice about either the Reformation or Martin Luther... but the quote just seems <i>too good to be true</i>. Based on the context below, I would caution Protestants from utilizing this quote from Peter Kreeft because... it is <i>too good to be true</i>. There are indeed "tricks" going on. </p><p> <br /><b>Documentation</b><br />The version above was cut-and-pasted from an Internet discussion forum. It was posted without any documentation. Kreeft's comment appears in a published book: Peter Kreeft, <i>Fundamentals of the Faith: Essays in Christian Apologetics</i> (San Fransico: Ignatius Press, 1998). Via Google books, <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=6c32DQAAQBAJ&lpg=PT222&dq=%22This%20is%20the%20root%20issue%20because%20the%20essence%20of%20the%20gospel%20is%20at%20stake%20here.%22&pg=PT222#v=onepage&q&f=false">the quote can be found here</a> and <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20141030073834/https://christlife.org/evangelization/articles/C_reuniting.html">here</a>. </p><div><br /></div><div><b>Context</b></div><div><blockquote>The fourth issue is the most crucial of all. It is the issue that sparked the Reformation, and it is the issue that must spark reunion too. It is, of course, the issue of faith, of faith and works, of justification by faith. </blockquote></div><div><blockquote>This is the root issue because the essence of the gospel is at stake here. How do I get right with God? This was the issue of the first century church at Galatia, a church Protestants see as making the same essential mistake as the Catholics-preaching the gospel of good works. Protestants dare not compromise on this issue or they would be turning to what Paul calls "another gospel". Thus his harsh words to the Galatians, the only church for which he has not one word of praise: </blockquote></div><div><blockquote>"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel-not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed." </blockquote></div><div><blockquote>How do I resolve the Reformation? Is it faith alone that justifies, or is it faith and good works? Very simple. No tricks. On this issue I believe Luther was simply right; and this issue is absolutely crucial. As a Catholic I feel guilt for the tragedy of Christian disunity because the church in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries was failing to preach the gospel. Whatever theological mistakes Luther made, whatever indispensable truths about the Church he denied, here is an indispensable truth he affirmed-indispensable to union between all sinners and God and to union between God's separated Catholic and Protestant children. </blockquote></div><div><blockquote>Much of the Catholic Church has not yet caught up with Luther; and, for that matter, much of Protestantism has regressed from him. The churches are often found preaching one of two "other gospels": the gospel of old-fashioned legalism or the gospel of new-fangled humanism. The first means making points with God and earning your way into heaven, the second means being nice to everybody so that God will be nice to you. The churches, Protestant and Catholic, may also preach the true Christian gospel, but not often enough and not clearly enough and often watered down and mixed with one of these two other gospels. And the trouble with "other gospels" is simply that they are not true: they don't work, they don't unite man with God, they don't justify.</blockquote></div><div><blockquote>No failing could be more serious; but on the Catholic side, as distinct from the liberal Protestant side, it is a failing in practice, not doctrine. When this happens, the Catholic Church fails to preach its own gospel. It is sitting on a dynamite keg and watering the fuse; it is keeping a million dollar bank account and drawing out only pennies. Catholicism as well as Protestantism affirms the utterly free, gratuitous gift of forgiving grace in Christ, free for the taking, which taking is faith. Good works can be only the fruit of faith, flowing freely as a response to the new life within, not laboriously, to buy into heaven. </blockquote></div><div><blockquote>But there are two important verbal misunderstandings in the Reformation controversy over faith and works. First, when the Council of Trent affirmed, contrary to Luther, that good works contribute to salvation, it meant by salvation not just getting to heaven but the whole process of being transformed and becoming incorporated into the life of God. In other words, salvation meant not just justification but sanctification as well; and it was quite correct to say that both faith and works contribute to sanctification, thus to salvation. </blockquote></div><div><blockquote>Second, Catholic and Protestant theologians mean different things by the word faith. Protestants usually follow biblical usage: faith means saving faith, the heart or will accepting Christ. Catholics usually follow a more technical philosophical and theological usage: faith means the act of the mind, prompted by the will, which accepts Christ's teachings as true. In Protestant language, faith means heart faith, or whole-person faith; in Catholic language, faith means mind faith. Thus, Catholic theologians are right to deny justification by faith alone in that sense (which of course was not Luther's sense). For "the devils also believe, and tremble." in this narrower sense faith can exist without the works of love; as James writes, "Faith without works is dead." In the larger sense, faith cannot exist without works, for it includes works as a plant includes its own blossoms.</blockquote></div><div><br /></div><div><b>Conclusion</b></div><div>I see only one positive aspects of this quote: Kreeft espouses 20th Century ecumenism embracing (a position taken by a number of Roman Catholic scholars) not placing the entirety of blame for the Reformation on Luther. Rome's laymen often say the opposite: Luther was completely responsible for everything. Other than that, I would caution Protestants from utilizing this quote from Peter Kreeft. Here are my reasons. </div><div><br /></div><div>1. Peter Kreft is putting forth theological confusion by inferring the Protestant Reformers had the same Gospel, but Rome's error was that they were not preaching this agreed upon Gospel in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. I've mentioned a number of times on this blog over the years, Rome did not have an official dogmatic pronouncement on justification previous to the Council of Trent: </div><div><blockquote>Existing side by side in pre-Reformation theology were several ways of interpreting the righteousness of God and the act of justification. They ranged from strongly moralistic views that seemed to equate justification with moral renewal to ultra-forensic views, which saw justification as a 'nude imputation' that seemed possible apart from Christ, by an arbitrary decree of God. Between these extremes were many combinations; and though certain views predominated in late nominalism, it is not possible even there to speak of a single doctrine of justification. [Jaraslov Pelikan, <i>Obedient Rebels: Catholic Substance and Protestant Principle in Luther’s Reformation</i> [New York: Harper and Row, 1964, 51-52].</blockquote><blockquote>All the more tragic, therefore, was the Roman reaction on the front which was most important to the reformers, the message and teaching of the church. This had to be reformed according to the word of God; unless it was, no moral improvement would be able to alter the basic problem. Rome’s reactions were the doctrinal decrees of the Council of Trent and the Roman Catechism based upon those decrees. In these decrees, the Council of Trent selected and elevated to official status the notion of justification by faith plus works, which was only one of the doctrines of justification in the medieval theologians and ancient fathers. When the reformers attacked this notion in the name of the doctrine of justification by faith alone—a doctrine also attested to by some medieval theologians and ancient fathers—Rome reacted by canonizing one trend in preference to all the others. What had previously been permitted (justification by faith and works), now became required. What had previously been permitted also (justification by faith alone), now became forbidden. In condemning the Protestant Reformation, the Council of Trent condemned part of its own catholic tradition [Jaroslav Pelikan, <i>The Riddle of Roman Catholicism</i> (New York: Abingdon Press, 1959), pp. 51-52].</blockquote></div><div>2. Kreeft puts forth an ecumenical hodge podge statement attempting to portray an agreement between Rome and Luther: "<i>Catholicism as well as Protestantism affirms the utterly free, gratuitous gift of forgiving grace in Christ, free for the taking, which taking is faith. Good works can be only the fruit of faith, flowing freely as a response to the new life within, not laboriously, to buy into heaven</i>." What exactly is Kreeft saying? Further down he clarifies he's putting forth pure Romanism: </div><blockquote>First, when the Council of Trent affirmed, contrary to Luther, that good works contribute to salvation, it meant by salvation not just getting to heaven but the whole process of being transformed and becoming incorporated into the life of God. In other words, salvation meant not just justification but sanctification as well; and it was quite correct to say that both faith and works contribute to sanctification, thus to salvation.</blockquote><div>This is not Reformation theology! In Luther's thought, being justified before God was on the basis of a perfect righteousness (Christ's) that is not one's own. One is not sanctified to eventual justification finally completed after being purified in purgatory. </div><div><br /></div><div>3. Kreeft then launches into a discussion of the term "faith" positing that Protestants use the word as defined by the Bible, while Roman Catholics use the word defined by philosophy and theology! I can only speculate he added "theology" as some sort of jab at Protestants clinging to Sola Scriptura while Rome's defenders have more than one infallible authority to "theologize" from (Tradition and the Magisterium). </div><div><br /></div><div>4. It's true that Trent says that faith is needed to be justified, but Trent did not affirm that faith <i>alone</i> justifies. The Protestant Reformers held that faith is placed in the works of another: Christ's works, and only those works serve as a basis for a right standing before God. In Protestant theology, the fruit of works are a response of gratitude that one has been justified. One's works are not done in the process of being eventually justified. </div><div><br /></div><div>5. Kreeft says "<i>Good works can be only the fruit of faith, flowing freely as a response to the new life within.</i>" That seems "Protestant" enough until one reads his eventual clarification. He mentions James writing "faith without works is dead" and adds, "<i>faith cannot exist without works, for it includes works as a plant includes its own blossoms</i>." Using his own analogy, in Roman Catholic theology, one is a plant growing into an eventual <i>justified </i>blossom! </div><div><br /></div><div><b>Addendum</b><br />Here's an interesting <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geuTVWetlzw">YouTube link</a> in which Scott Hahn wrote Peter Kreeft about this very issue. In the letter, Kreeft says (at around 1:40) that he "c<i>onfused the truth in Luther, sola gratia, with the untruth, sola fide</i>." </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>James Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-51218044089363974322023-03-07T09:57:00.001-05:002023-03-07T10:02:35.765-05:00"Tradition" reposted<h2 class="date-header" style="background-color: white; color: #999999; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10.14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: 0.2em; line-height: 1.4em; margin: 1.5em 0px 0.5em; text-transform: uppercase;"><br /></h2><div class="date-posts" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px;"><div class="post-outer"><div class="post hentry uncustomized-post-template" itemprop="blogPost" itemscope="itemscope" itemtype="http://schema.org/BlogPosting" style="border-bottom: 1px dotted rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0.5em 0px 1.5em; padding-bottom: 1.5em;"><a name="8898316782609579379"></a><h3 class="post-title entry-title" itemprop="name" style="color: #cc6600; font-size: 18.2px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.4em; margin: 0.25em 0px 0px; padding: 0px 0px 4px;">Tradition</h3><div>Originally written in April of 2016. Reposting now with an important link to Scott Hahn's testimony restored.</div><div><br /></div><div class="post-header"><div class="post-header-line-1"></div></div><div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-8898316782609579379" itemprop="description articleBody" style="line-height: 1.6em; margin: 0px 0px 0.75em;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="272" mozallowfullscreen="" src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/155465690" webkitallowfullscreen="" width="500"></iframe><br /><br />μάτην δὲ σέβονταί με διδάσκοντες διδασκαλίας ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων<br /><br /> "And in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrine the commandments of men" Mark 7:7<br /><br /><br /> <iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="272" mozallowfullscreen="" src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/155465693" webkitallowfullscreen="" width="500"></iframe><br /><br />ἀφέντες τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ θεοῦ κρατεῖτε τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων<br /><br /> "leaving/abandoning the commandment of God, you are holding onto the traditions of men"<br /><br />Mark 7:8<br /><br /> The Aorist participle of "leaving"/ "neglecting" / "abandoning" (aphentes- αφεντες, from aphiaemi αφιημι ) seems to be contrasted with the present active verb of "holding onto" ( κρατειτε )- because they are so focused on teaching as doctrine, the commandments of men (verse 7), or they are so focused on holding onto their own man-made traditions (8b), it caused them to neglect, abandon, leave the commandment of God (the word of God, the Scriptures). Or, it could be an adverbial participle of means or manner, modifying the way they are holding onto the traditions of man - "by abandoning" or "by neglecting" . . . "you are holding onto". Or it could be a causal participle, "because you neglected the commandment of God, you are holding onto the traditions of man". Or it could be a temporal participle: "while neglecting the commandment of God" or "after neglecting the commandment of God". Any of these three fit the context. This is exactly what the church started doing little by little in history.<br /><br /> It is interesting to me that the word for "leaving" ("abandoning" or "neglecting") is also the word used in Revelation 2:4 - "you have left your first love"<br />ἀλλὰ ἔχω κατὰ σοῦ ὅτι τὴν ἀγάπην σου τὴν πρώτην ἀφῆκες "But I have this against you, that you have left your first love"<br /><br /> and<br />Matthew 23:23 - "you have neglected the weightier provisions of the law . . . "<br /><br />Dr. Plummer pointed out in the video that this word, aphiaemi / αφιημι - has a wide range of meaning, many times, in context, it means "to forgive" sins, and other times "to divorce", but you can see the idea of "leaving", "abandoning", "neglecting", "forsaking" in the basic concept.<br /><br />This is what the Roman Catholic Church did in history, by clinging to man-man traditions and holding onto them, they neglected and abandoned important doctrines such as justification by faith alone; and emphasized Mary too much and exalted her too much, and created doctrines such as Purgatory; and said that bread and wine turns into the body and blood of Jesus by the words of a RC priest. They emphasized and clung to external works and relics and penances and pilgrimages, and clinging to those things caused them to not see the main issues. Justification by faith alone was there all along in the Bible, and hinted at by some early church fathers, but it was left behind and neglected by their emphasis on external works, focus on non-Biblical things about Mary, statues, priests, penances, relics, etc.<br /><br />Some Roman Catholics like to say that Protestants treat "tradition as a dirty word" or "always negative" and some (far too many) Evangelicals have done that; but that should not be and everyone should be able to handle the passages that speak of "traditions" in a positive way, since they are the true apostolic traditions.<br /><br /> 2 Thessalonians 2:15<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="line-height: 1.3em; margin: 1em 20px;"><span class="text 2Thess-2-13" face=""helvetica neue", verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif" id="en-NASB-29675" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">"But we should always give thanks to God for you, <span class="crossreference" data-cr="#cen-NASB-29675AE" data-link="(<a href="#cen-NASB-29675AE" title="See cross-reference AE">AE</a>)" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; top: 0px; vertical-align: top;"></span>brethren beloved by the Lord, because <span class="crossreference" data-cr="#cen-NASB-29675AF" data-link="(<a href="#cen-NASB-29675AF" title="See cross-reference AF">AF</a>)" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; top: 0px; vertical-align: top;"></span>God has chosen you rom the beginning <span class="crossreference" data-cr="#cen-NASB-29675AG" data-link="(<a href="#cen-NASB-29675AG" title="See cross-reference AG">AG</a>)" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; top: 0px; vertical-align: top;"></span>for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.</span><span face=""helvetica neue", verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif" style="font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;"> </span><span class="text 2Thess-2-14" face=""helvetica neue", verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif" id="en-NASB-29676" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;"><span class="versenum" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: arial; font-size: 12px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 22px; position: relative; top: 0px; vertical-align: top;">14 </span>It was for this He <span class="crossreference" data-cr="#cen-NASB-29676AI" data-link="(<a href="#cen-NASB-29676AI" title="See cross-reference AI">AI</a>)" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; top: 0px; vertical-align: top;"></span>called you through <span class="crossreference" data-cr="#cen-NASB-29676AJ" data-link="(<a href="#cen-NASB-29676AJ" title="See cross-reference AJ">AJ</a>)" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; top: 0px; vertical-align: top;"></span>our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.</span><span face=""helvetica neue", verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif" style="font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;"> </span><span class="text 2Thess-2-15" face=""helvetica neue", verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif" id="en-NASB-29677" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;"><span class="versenum" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: arial; font-size: 12px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 22px; position: relative; top: 0px; vertical-align: top;">15 </span>So then, brethren, <span class="crossreference" data-cr="#cen-NASB-29677AK" data-link="(<a href="#cen-NASB-29677AK" title="See cross-reference AK">AK</a>)" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; top: 0px; vertical-align: top;"></span>stand firm and <span class="crossreference" data-cr="#cen-NASB-29677AL" data-link="(<a href="#cen-NASB-29677AL" title="See cross-reference AL">AL</a>)" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; top: 0px; vertical-align: top;"></span>hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether <span class="crossreference" data-cr="#cen-NASB-29677AM" data-link="(<a href="#cen-NASB-29677AM" title="See cross-reference AM">AM</a>)" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; top: 0px; vertical-align: top;"></span>by word <i style="box-sizing: border-box;">of mouth</i> or <span class="crossreference" data-cr="#cen-NASB-29677AN" data-link="(<a href="#cen-NASB-29677AN" title="See cross-reference AN">AN</a>)" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; top: 0px; vertical-align: top;"></span>by letter from us." 2 Thessalonians 2:13-15</span></blockquote><span class="text 2Thess-2-15" face=""helvetica neue", verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">I have never understood why former Evangelicals who have converted to Rome say that they could not explain or handle verse 15. <a href="https://catholiceducation.org/resources/the-scott-hahn-conversion-story" style="color: #5588aa; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">As in the following in Scott Hahn's testimony of how he just melted into goo when the question was posed to him about 2 Thessalonians 2:15: </a> (to see where this is, scroll down to the paragraph with the heading "Teacher at a Presbyterian Seminary") ( As I recall, a lot of the <i>Surprised by Truth</i> (edited by Patrick Madrid) testimonies also told of how they were unprepared to deal with that verse.)</span><br /><span class="text 2Thess-2-15" face=""helvetica neue", verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;"><br /></span><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: #ccd8d7; font-family: "Open Sans", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22.4px; margin: 0.5em 20px 1.5em;">Then he turned the tables on me. The students were supposed to ask him a question or two. He said, "Can I first ask you a question, Professor Hahn? You know how Luther really had two slogans, not just sola fide, but the second slogan he used to revolt against Rome was sola Scriptura, the Bible alone. My question is, 'Where does the Bible teach that?'"<br />I looked at him with a blank stare. I could feel sweat coming to my forehead. I used to take pride in asking my professors the most stumping questions, but I never heard this one before. And so I heard myself say words that I had sworn I'd never speak; I said, "John, what a dumb question." He was not intimidated. He look at me and said, "Give me a dumb answer." I said, "All right, I'll try." I just began to wing it. I said, "Well, Timothy 3:16 is the key: 'All Scripture is inspired of God and profitable for correction, for training and righteousness, for reproof that the man of God may be completely equipped for every good work....'" He said, "Wait a second, that only says that Scripture is inspired and profitable; it doesn't say ONLY Scripture is inspired or even better, only Scripture's profitable for those things. We need other things like prayer," and then he said, "What about 2 Thessalonians 2:15?" I said, "What's that again?" He said, "Well, there Paul tells the Thessalonians that they have to hold fast, they have to cling to the traditions that Paul has taught them either in writing or by word of mouth." Whoa! I wasn't ready. I said, "Well, let's move on with the questions and answers; I'll deal with this next week. Let's go on."<br />I don't think they realized the panic I was in. When I drove home that night, I was just staring up to the heavens asking God, why have I never heard that question? Why have I never found an answer? </blockquote><span class="text 2Thess-2-15" face=""helvetica neue", verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;"></span><br /><span class="text 2Thess-2-15" face=""helvetica neue", verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">Aside for failing to distinguish between 1 or 2 Timothy, it is amazing to me, that he could not handle this, when one looks at the context of verses 13 and 14; and the date and historical background of when 2 Thessalonians was written.</span><br /><span class="text 2Thess-2-15" face=""helvetica neue", verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;"><br /></span><b>1. The historical context of when the Thessalonians epistles were written. (50-52 AD) </b>Obviously, at this point, the only other letters that Paul has written are Galatians (48-49 AD) and 1 Thessalonians (50 AD), so it seems obvious that the apostle was preaching and teaching content that will be later included in letters such as Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1-2 Timothy, etc. There is no evidence at all that the apostle taught anything that Roman Catholics claim he may have, RC traditions like Mary as a perpetual virgin, or purgatory, or priests as a NT office, or indulgences, or the Papacy, or the Immaculate Conception of Mary, or Transubstantiation, external penances, relics, praying to Mary. No; it is obvious that Paul means was essential doctrine that will be later in the rest of Scripture. There is no evidence that the apostles taught any of those things that Roman Catholics developed centuries later. They read their own traditions back into the word "tradition".<br /><br /><b>2. The context of the verse within the paragraph. </b> Verse 14 identifies the traditions of verse 15 as the gospel ("our gospel"), and verse 13 shows the doctrines of election, salvation, "sanctification by the Spirit", "faith in the truth" as part of the gospel.<br /><br />2 Thessalonians 3:6<br />This verse points to the context of the teachings in verses 7-14, and what Paul already taught them in 1 Thessalonians 4:11-12 and 5:14.<br /><br />1 Corinthians 11:2 - same principle here; 1 Corinthians is early also, around 55 AD, so the same principle goes, and by the rest of the content of the whole letter of 1 Corinthians, especially in the rest of chapter 11 and 15, but not excluding any of the letter. Paul considers his teaching and letters as spiritual truths (1 Corinthians 2:12-13) that he is passing on/delivering/handing over = "traditioning" to them. Since they have written questions about issues that were raised after he taught them (see 1 Cor. 7:1); and he will also write another letter to them (2 Corinthians, which may have as part of it embedded in it, the same content as the "painful letter" about church discipline mentioned in 2 Corinthians 7:8 and 7:12 and possibly with 2 Corinthians 2:2, or it may also refer to 1 Corinthians 5 about church disciple), (or it may be a lost letter); it seems obvious the traditions are basic gospel issues and teachings. These essential teachings will all be included in writing, that will eventually all be finished by 96 AD. All Scripture is written down by either 70 AD or 96 AD. Also, the context is on the content of what he writes to them in chapter 11.<br /><br />1 Corinthians 15:3 has the verbal form of "tradition", "to deliver", which is also used in Jude 3 - "the faith once for all delivered to the saints". It seems obvious that the context of 1 Corinthians 15 is about gospel essentials (which agrees with 2 Thessalonians 2:13-15, and that Jude 3 shows that all the truths of the faith necessary for the saints was already delivered once for all. This, along with Jesus' promise that when the Holy Spirit comes, He would lead the apostles into all the truth (John 16:12-13) and bring to their remembrance everything (John 14:26); it is reasonable to assume that all the truths needed would be written down.<br /><br /> It seems to me easy to see, when 2 Timothy 3:16 says that "all Scripture is God-breathed", that whatever is God-breathed or inspired is revelation from God, and when that revelation is written Scripture; and since it is God-breathed, is also "canon", since "canon" meant "principle", "law", "criterion", "standard", before it meant "a specific list of books" recognized / discerned as "God-breathed".<br />As Dr. White has said many times, and <a href="http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-canon-as-infallible-sacred-tradition.html" style="color: #5588aa; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">James Swan in an article below, </a><br /><br /><span style="font-family: georgia, serif; line-height: 20.8px;">"The canon list is not revelation, it's an artifact of revelation." </span><br /><span style="font-family: georgia, serif; line-height: 20.8px;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;">This means it is physical evidence and a result of revelation, a proof that revelation happened in history, since all 27 books were first individual scrolls in the first century, and each one was God-breathed Scripture, the list is merely the "footprint" or evidence or product of them all together. </span><br /> Scripture is sufficient to equip the man of God in the church for "every good work" (2 Timothy 3:17; verse 17 is important to include), for ministry and teaching and counseling people (rebuking, correcting, training). Paul assumes that the "man of God" is a man like Timothy who has already been qualified to be an elder/pastor/teacher/overseer in the local church (see the whole letters of 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus). Things like the local church (1 Timothy 3:14-16), teaching, being an elder/pastor/teacher, a man of God, a man of prayer, qualified, are assumed in the whole context of the whole letters of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. The fact that Paul quoted gospels with law in 1 Timothy 5:18 as Scripture, and that Peter wrote that all of Paul's letters are Scripture (2 Peter 3:16), along with the "once for all" of Jude 3, rounds things out as logical and reasonable to assume that all things that were needed for the church were written down in Scripture. 2 Timothy 3:15 is about the OT only, but 2 Timothy 3:16 expands it to "all Scripture", including by principle, all of the NT books, even those written in the future.<br /><br />Colossians 2:8 and 2:20-23 are also negative on man-made traditions. They also point to man-made traditions, (as Mark 7 and Matthew 15 do), philosophy, and the "elementary principles of this world" (see with Galatians 4:9-11) - these things seem to point the things that Roman Catholicism emphasizes - external rituals and laws, asceticism, rites and things that humans can do to make themselves feel religious - like visiting graves and praying to the dead, kissing relics, and the legalisms of adding things to faith as being necessary to do in order to merit finally that one may be justified before God in the future.<br /><br />Those gospel essentials or essential doctrines are what Irenaeus (180-200 AD), Tertullian (190-220 AD), Origen (250 AD), and Athanasius (297-373 AD) refer to when they explain what "the tradition of the apostles" or "the faith" or "the preaching" is to their readers in the centuries that follow. When they explicate what the tradition is, it never includes any of the things that Roman Catholics read back into it. They are the same basic content as the early creeds, such as the Apostles Creed and the Nicean Creed. More on that later, Lord willing.<br /><br />See Irenaeus, <i>Against Heresies</i>, 1:10:1 to 1:11:1<br />and 1:22:1<br />and 3:4:2.<br /><br />Tertullian, <i>Presciption Against Heretics</i>, 13:1-6<br />Against Praxeas 2:1-2<br /><br />Origen, <i>On First Principles</i>, 1. preface. 2-8<br /><br />Athanasius, <i>To Serapion, Concering the Holy Spirit Against the Tropici Heretics</i>, Book 1, 28-32<br />This work, unforuntately, is not available at the www.ccel.org or www.newadvent.org site.<br /><br />But the others are there for all to see and read.</div></div></div></div>Ken Templehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00831230878745693389noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-3311224291516231732023-03-03T12:18:00.007-05:002023-04-01T13:29:06.305-04:00The Real Reason Why Luther Rejected the Book of James?<p>Here's<a href="https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/info/james-cathen.html"> a statement</a> evaluating Martin Luther's opinion of the Epistle of James.</p><p><span style="font-family: courier;"><span style="background-color: white;"></span></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: courier;"><span style="background-color: white;">Luther strongly repudiated the Epistle as "a letter of straw", and "unworthy of the apostolic Spirit", and this solely for dogmatic reasons, and owing to his preconceived notions, for the epistle refutes his heretical doctrine that </span><span style="background-color: white;">Faith alone is necessary for salvation.</span></span></blockquote><span style="font-family: courier;"><span style="background-color: white;"></span></span><p></p><p> <i>Soley for dogmatic reasons</i>? As I've looked at this over the years, it's more complicated than that. There's actually contradicting evidence on Luther's opinion of the Epistle of James and exactly what his "rejection" entirely entails. Let's take a look at these charges and see if the real reason (or reasons) Luther rejected James can be determined. </p><p><br /><b>Documentation</b><br />I came by the statement above on a website dedicated to <a href="https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/info/james-cathen.html">early Christian writings</a>. Searching for the author, the webpage cited: "<i>Camerlynck, A. "Epistle of James." Early Christian Writings. 2023. 22 Jan. 2023</i>." Doing a search for "<i>Camerlynck, A</i>," I discovered this webpage was a complete cut-and paste from <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=I1g_AQAAMAAJ&lpg=PA275&ots=YRVgg1NWIP&dq=%22this%20solely%20for%20dogmatic%20reasons%22&pg=PA275#v=onepage&q&f=false">the old Catholic Encyclopedia</a>. <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=hLoTAAAAYAAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&dq=achilles%20camerlynck&pg=PP12#v=onepage&q&f=false">Achilles Camerlynck</a> was a well-educated Roman Catholic scholar from long ago. The old Catholic Encyclopedia is generally not favorable to Luther, so it makes sense that multiple shots are taken at Luther by Camerlynck<i>. </i> </p><p>The <i>early Christian Writings</i> website appears to be selling CD-ROM's (remember those?) of the entire content of the website (I'm not sure what the legality of that is... selling someone else's work?). Back in 2015, the owner of the site gave <a href="https://peterkirby.com/my-story.html">a brief overview</a> of who he was: a young man with Roman Catholic roots that's become some sort of agnostic (as of 2015). Where he is now on his spiritual journey, I didn't spend time to discover. His blog entries stop December 2015. From a cursory search, he appears to have fallen off the cyber-radar in 2015. <br /><br /><br /><b>Letter of Straw? Epistle of Straw?</b><br />Luther's famous statement is "<i>Saint James’ epistle is </i>rea<i>lly an epistle of straw</i>" compared to John's gospel and epistles, Paul's epistles, and 1 Peter, and, further, that James "<i>has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it</i>" (LW 35:362). The "epistle of straw" line comes from Luther's Preface to the New Testament, originally penned in 1522. I suspect most realize this is a negative comment. </p><div>Back in 2004, I addressed the "epistle of straw" comment in <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20140803220107/http://tquid.sharpens.org/Luther_%20canon.htm#a6">Luther's View of the Canon of Scripture</a> (on the now defunct <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20071008225806/http://www.ntrmin.org/rccorner.htm#Reformation">NTRmin.org website</a>). In 2007, I put up a short article on aomin.org: <a href="https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/roman-catholicism/six-points-on-luthers-epistle-of-straw/">Six Points On Luther's Epistle of Straw</a>. Now years later, there's nothing significant to add beyond repeating this pertinent fact: The "epistle of straw" comment was deleted by Luther himself. He eventually dropped this comment along with the entire paragraph that placed value judgments on particular biblical books (see LW 35:361-362, particularly the footnotes, and also fn. 5 on p. 358). Unfortunately, the editors of Luther's Works include all the deleted text, using brackets<b> [ ] </b>to delineate what was dropped from the final text. The older Philadelphia edition does the same thing. I suspect they simply intended to be transparent and scholarly (presenting a type of critical text). What the final product though practically does is insert back into the text what Luther wanted edited out! </div><div><br /></div><div>Why did Luther delete his text? I don't know. The editors of LW offer this reason: they suggest Luther's early biblical prefaces had a polemic bent directed toward his opponents: </div><div><blockquote>Divergences from the original 1522 text were due primarily to Luther’s desire to accommodate the text of the New Testament prefaces to that of the Old Testament prefaces with which they were—in the 1534 complete Bible—to appear for the first time, rather than to criticism on the part of Emser or other opponents (LW 35:357, fn 5).</blockquote><div>It would be interesting to see which of Luther's contemporary opponents criticized Luther's view of James, especially those early on in the 1520's. <a href="https://bookofconcord.org/other-resources/sources-and-context/johann-eck-404-theses/">In 1530, Johann Eck</a> included it against Luther:</div><blockquote>106 Many, with much probability, have asserted that this epistle was not written by the apostle James, and that it is not worthy of an apostolic spirit (Luther) .</blockquote><div> After Luther's death, his<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=jJs3EAAAQBAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PA112&dq=%22for%20Luther%20seemed%20to%20the%20best%20people%22&pg=PA112#v=onepage&q&f=false"> archrival Cochlaeus wrote</a>,</div><div><blockquote>For Luther seemed to the best people to have proceeded too maliciously
against the Sacred Scripture of the New Testament; since he had, with an
audacious censorship, rejected the Letter to the Hebrews, the Letter of James,
the Letter of Jude, and the Apocalypse of John from the canon of the New
Testament. He defamed these books openly, with savage falsehoods, in his
prefaces.</blockquote></div><div>Luther saw fit to delete the comment. Subsequent citations of this quote should <i>at least</i> mention his deletion. The "epistle of straw" comment is cited by those favorable and unfavorable to Luther. I suspect many of those not hostile to him citing it often don't know about the deletion and that Luther did not intend the statement to be part of his enduring legacy. For those who cite it against him, the deletion probably doesn't matter anyway. They will find a way to spin the comment to use against him. </div><div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>Unworthy of the Apostolic Spirit?</b></div><div>The basic thrust of "<i>unworthy of the apostolic spirit</i>" is that Luther did not believe the Epistle of James was written by an apostle or eyewitness of the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. He argued at times that James was a second-generation Christian. Camerlynck probably took the phrase he used from Luther's 1520 treatise, <i>The Babylonian Captivity of the Church</i>. In commenting on the Roman Catholic sacrament of extreme unction, Luther writes: </div><div><div><blockquote>If ever folly has been uttered, it has been uttered especially on this subject: I will say nothing of the fact that many assert with much probability that this epistle is not by James the apostle, and that it is <b>not worthy of an apostolic spirit</b>; although, whoever was its author, it has come to be regarded as authoritative. But even if the apostle James did write it, I still would say, that no apostle has the right on his own authority to institute a sacrament, that is, to give a divine promise with a sign attached. For this belongs to Christ alone (LW 36:118).</blockquote><p>A blatant thing to note here is that there's nothing in the context about <i>faith alone</i>. Luther is expressing doubts about the authorship of James in regard to extreme unction. Here Luther presents two options but appears to favor the Epistle of James as not apostolic, though grants the possibility of it being apostolic. For Luther, the epistle of James may have been written by a later Christian, therefore not an apostle or eyewitness of the risen Christ, therefore not canonical. </p><p>Just a year earlier (1519), Luther wrote the following, (and this may be his earliest criticism of James):</p></div><div data-reactroot=""><blockquote>For although it is argued from the epistle of the Apostle James that ‘faith without works is dead,’ the style of that epistle is far inferior to the Apostolic majesty of St. Paul, and should in no way be compared with him. Paul speaks of living faith, for a faith that is dead is not faith but opinion. Yet you see theologians who hold on to this one authority and care nothing at all that the rest of Scripture teaches faith without works. That’s how these fellows do it. They rip out one little phrase from a text and set it up against all of Scripture. [Quod autem Iacobi Apostoli epistola inducitur ‘Fides sine operibus mortua est’, primum stilus epistolae illius longe est infra Apostolicam maiestatem nec cum Paulino ullo modo comparandus, deinde de fide viva loquitur Paulus. Nam fides mortua non est fides, sed opinio. At vide theologos, hanc unam autoritatem mordicus tenent, nihil prorsus curantes, quod tota alia scriptura fidem sine operibus commendet: hic enim mos eorum est, una abrepta oratiuncula textus contra totam scripturam cornua erigere] (<a href="https://archive.org/details/werkekritischege02luthuoft/page/425/mode/1up?view=theater">WA 2:425</a>; <a href="https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110467925-006/pdf">English translation</a>).</blockquote></div><div data-reactroot="">Here, <i>faith alone</i> is in view. Luther appears to accept James as an authority, but of lesser authority than Paul. Luther says James lacks "<i>Apostolic majesty,</i>" which echos "<i>apostolic spirit,</i>" therefore questioning apostolic pedigree (and therefore, canonicity). Luther's emphasis is on those who use James as a prooftext to refute "<i>the rest of scripture.</i>" Luther accuses his detractors of misusing James: "<i>They rip out one little phrase from a text and set it up against all of Scripture</i>." Luther explains what Paul means but does not overtly explain what James meant.</div><div data-reactroot=""> </div><div data-reactroot="">Then in his 1522 <i>Preface to James</i>, Luther reiterates that James was written by a second-generation Christian, </div></div><div><div><blockquote>...[H]e throws things together so chaotically that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took a few sayings from the disciples of the apostles and thus tossed them off on paper. Or it may perhaps have been written by someone on the basis of his preaching [LW 35: 396-397].</blockquote><blockquote>Moreover he cites the sayings of St. Peter [in 5:20]: “Love covers a multitude of sins” [1 Pet. 4:8], and again [in 4:10], “Humble yourselves under the hand of God” [1 Pet. 5:6]; also the saying of St. Paul in Galatians 5[:17], “The Spirit lusteth against envy.” And yet, in point of time, St. James was put to death by Herod [Acts 12:2] in Jerusalem, before St. Peter. So it seems that [this author] came long after St. Peter and St. Paul [LW 35:397].</blockquote><p>When challenged that the Epistle of James stood against justification by faith alone, in 1543 Luther stated: "<i>The authority of this (James) is not so great that (it detracts from the divine promise [or that] on its account one should abandon the doctrine of faith and depart from the authority of the rest of the apostles and all of Scripture</i>" [LW 73:349-350; <a href="https://archive.org/details/ab2werkekritisch39luth/page/219/mode/1up?view=theater">WA 39(2): 219</a>].</p><p>Luther is recorded in a 1542 <i>Table Talk</i> utterance saying,</p><blockquote>We should throw the Epistle of James out of this school, for it doesn’t amount to much. It contains not a syllable about Christ. Not once does it mention Christ, except at the beginning [Jas. 1:1; 2:1]. I maintain that some Jew wrote it who probably heard about Christian people but never encountered any. Since he heard that Christians place great weight on faith in Christ, he thought, ‘Wait a moment! I’ll oppose them and urge works alone.' This he did. He wrote not a word about the suffering and resurrection of Christ, although this is what all the apostles preached about. Besides, there’s no order or method in the epistle. Now he discusses clothing and then he writes about wrath and is constantly shifting from one to the other. He presents a comparison: ‘As the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead’ [Jas. 2:26]. O Mary, mother of God! What a terrible comparison that is! James compares faith with the body when he should rather have compared faith with the soul! The ancients recognized this, too, and therefore they didn’t acknowledge this letter as one of the catholic epistles.” [LW 54:424].</blockquote>I say "<i>recorded in the Table Talk</i>" because Luther didn't write these words, someone else transcribed them, context unknown. The comments do though match up to the sentiment found in Luther's earlier comments.<br /><div> </div></div><div>Did Luther simply arrive at this authorship conclusion without precedent? No. He maintained a position that echoed other voices from church history. Eusebius and Jerome both recorded (at least) doubts to the apostolicity and canonicity of James. The great humanist Scholar Erasmus likewise questioned the authenticity of James, as did Cardinal Cajetan, one of the leading 16th Century Roman Catholic scholars. Some think the early influence of Erasmus impacted Luther view. consider the speculation from Lutheran scholar J.M Reu:</div><blockquote>It is possible that the position of Erasmus had influenced Luther in some particulars. Luther had first expressed his critical attitude towards the Epistle of St. James in his <i>Resolutiones</i> of 1519; afterwards more energetically in <i>De Captivitate Babylonica</i>. Under such conditions we have no reason to be surprised that Luther entered into the question in his New Testament of 1522, especially as the fundamental understanding of Scripture that had come to him compelled him to take a stand, at least concerning James, and furthermore, he did not think that these matters were to be kept hidden from the congregations but even discussed them in his sermons [M. Reu, <i>Luther’s German Bible: An Historical Presentation Together with a collection of Source</i>s (Ohio: The Lutheran Book Concern, 1934), 176].</blockquote><div>Reu points out that Erasmus "<i>had assumed a critical attitude towards [James, Jude, Hebrews, Revelation] in the Annotationes of 1516</i>" (Reu, 175). Reu then later speculates, that Luther publicly altered his criticisms of James "<i>to keep his personal opinions in the background, especially as the German Bible was intended for the whole congregation</i>" [Reu, 226]. Reu documents the changes from Luther's September-Testament to the softening revision in the 1530's (p.226-227):</div><blockquote>In fine, he wanted to guard against those who tried to rely on faith without works but he was too weak in spirit, understanding and words, and so he rends Scripture and opposes Paul and all Scripture, trying to accomplish by the occasion of the Law what the other apostles effect by incentives to love. Therefore I will not have him reckoned in my Bible in the number of the real chief books, but will not prevent anyone from esteeming him as he pleases, for otherwise it contains many good sayings. One man is reckoned, as no man in worldly affairs. How then should this one alone count against Paul and all the rest of Scripture ?</blockquote></div><div>Then, this statement was modified in the 1530's:</div><div><blockquote>In fine, he wanted to guard against those who tried to rely on faith without works but was too weak for the undertaking, trying to accomplish by the coercion of the Law what the other apostles effect by incentives to love. Therefore I will not have him reckoned in my Bible in the number of the real chief books, but will not prevent anyone from esteeming him as he pleases. For it contains many good sayings.</blockquote><b>Did Luther Want to Throw the Epistle of James in the Stove?</b></div>Was Luther’s hatred for the Epistle of James was so severe, he wanted to burn the book in a stove? This charge comes from a comment found in <i>The Licentiate Examination Of Heinrich Schmedenstede</i>, July 7 1542. At one point, James chapter 2 is raised as a potential counter argument against justification by faith alone: “<i>James says that Abraham was justified by works. Therefore, justification is not by faith</i>.” Protestant Heinrich Schmedenstede countered this by saying, “James is sp<i>eaking of works as the effect of justification, not as the cause</i>.” Luther then gave his opinion:<br /><blockquote>That epistle of James gives us much trouble, for the papists embrace it alone and leave out all the rest. Up to this point I have been accustomed just to deal with and interpret it according to the sense of the rest of Scriptures. For you will judge that none of it must be set forth contrary to manifest Holy Scripture. Accordingly, if they will not admit my interpretations, then I shall make rubble also of it. I almost feel like throwing Jimmy into the stove, as the priest in Kalenberg did [LW 34:318; cf <a href="https://archive.org/details/ab2werkekritisch39luth/page/199/mode/1up?view=theater">WA 39(2):199, n.2</a>].</blockquote></div>Luther does not deny the answer put forth by Schmedenstede. What Luther does point out is heavy Roman Catholic reliance on James 2. It troubled him that this passage weighed so strongly in Roman Catholic arguments against justification by faith alone. Interestingly, he also says that he has previously interpreted it “<i>according to the sense of the rest of Scriptures</i>” (which will be shown below) But what of the comment “I feel like throwing Jimmy in the stove”? What is not explicit in the context above is the historical background of Luther’s comment. The editors of Luther’s Works explain, <div><blockquote>The preacher of Kalenberg, when visited by the duchess, heated the room with the wooden statues of the apostles. The statue of James was the last and as the preacher shoved it into the stove he exclaimed, “Now bend over, Jimmy, you must go into the stove; no matter if you were the pope or all the bishops, the room must become warm" [LW 34:318].</blockquote><p> Even though Luther isn't saying to throw the actual Epistle of James into the stove, it's obvious there's a sarcastic intent to his comment and frustration being expressed. </p></div><div><br /></div><div><div><div><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Luther Did Not Reject James Because of "Faith Alone"?</span></b></div></div><div>There is also evidence from Luther that complicates the information above. For instance, even while criticizing James, <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20140803220107/http://tquid.sharpens.org/Luther_%20canon.htm#a9">he positively quoted it throughout his career</a>. He also occasionally preached from the book: <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20140803220107/http://tquid.sharpens.org/Luther_%20canon.htm#a8">in 1536 Luther preached on James 1:16-21</a>, Sermon for the Fourth Sunday after Easter, "Two things there are which part men from the Gospel: one is angry impatience, and the other evil lust. Of these James speaks in this epistle." But more surprisingly, there are also statements in which Luther harmonized James and Paul on the relationship of faith and works!<div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div>In his early lectures on Romans, Luther provides a harmonious explanation of James on faith and works (LW 25:234-235), "<i>Therefore justification does not demand the works of the Law but a living faith which produces its own works</i>" [LW 25:236].<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: "Times New Roman", times, serif; font-size: 16px; text-indent: 24px;"><br /></span></div>In 1530, Luther answered the question, "<i>Why does James [2:26] say, 'Faith apart from works is dead</i>'?" Luther answered:<div><blockquote>James is dealing with a moral point, not theological, just as he is almost entirely about morality. Morally speaking, it is true that faith without works is dead- that is, if faith does not do works or if outward works do not follow faith. In this way then, faith cannot exist apart from works; that is, it cannot fail to do works, else there is no faith alone.<br /><br />We, however, are dealing with a theological point here since we are discussing justification before God. Here we assert that faith alone is counted as righteousness before God, apart from works and merits." (LW 61:183-184).</blockquote><div>In <i>The Disputation Concerning Justification</i>, Luther answered this spurious proposition: Faith without works justifies, Faith without works is dead (Jas. 2:17, 26). Therefore, dead faith justifies. Luther responded:<br style="background-color: #fefefe; box-sizing: border-box; color: #141414; font-family: "Segoe UI", "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Roboto, Oxygen, Ubuntu, Cantarell, "Fira Sans", "Droid Sans", sans-serif; font-size: 15px;" /><blockquote>The argument is sophistical and the refutation is resolved grammatically. In the major premise, ‘faith’ ought to be placed with the word ‘justifies’ and the portion of the sentence ‘without works justifies’ is placed in a predicate periphrase and must refer to the word ‘justifies,’ not to ‘faith.’ In the minor premise, ‘without works’ is truly in the subject periphrase and refers to faith. We say that justification is effective without works, not that faith is without works. For that faith which lacks fruit is not an efficacious but a feigned faith. ‘Without works’ is ambiguous, then. For that reason this argument settles nothing. It is one thing that faith justifies without works; it is another thing that faith exists without works. [LW 34: 175-176].</blockquote></div><div>In a 1521 sermon Luther is recorded as saying,</div><div><blockquote>See, this is what James means when he says, 2, 26: "Faith apart from works is dead." For as the body without the soul is dead, so is faith without works. Not that faith is in man and does not work, which is impossible. For faith is a living, active thing. But in order that men may not deceive themselves and think they have faith when they have not, they are to examine their works, whether they also love their neighbors and do good to them. If they do this, it is a sign that they have the true faith. If they do not do this, they only have the sound of faith, and it is with them as the one who sees himself in the glass and when he leaves it and sees himself no more, but sees other things, forgets the face in the glass, as James says in his first chapter, verses 23-24.</blockquote></div><div><blockquote>[This passage in James deceivers and blind masters have spun out so far, that they have demolished faith and established only works, as though righteousness and salvation did not rest on faith, but on our works. To this great darkness they afterwards added still more, and taught only good works which are no benefit to your neighbor, as fasting, repeating many prayers, observing festival days; not to eat meat, butter, eggs and milk; to build churches, cloisters, chapels, altars; to institute masses, vigils, hours; to wear gray, white and black clothes; to be spiritual; and innumerable things of the same kind, from which no man has any benefit or enjoyment; all which God condemns, and that justly. But St. James means that a Christian life is nothing but faith and love. Love is only being kind and useful to all men, to friends and enemies. And where faith is right, it also certainly loves, and does to another in love as Christ did to him in faith. Thus everyone should beware lest he has in his heart a dream and fancy instead of faith, and thus deceives himself. This he will not learn anywhere as well as in doing the works of love. As Christ also gives the same sign and says: "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." John 13, 35. Therefore St. James means to say: Beware, if your life is not in the service of others, and you live for yourself, and care nothing for your neighbor, then your faith is certainly nothing; for it does not do what Christ has done for him. Yea, he does not believe that Christ has done good to him, or he would not omit to do good to his neighbor. [<i>The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther </i>Vol. 3:1 (Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), pp. 71-72].</blockquote></div><div>Elsewhere in <i>The Sermons of Martin Luther</i>, Luther states:<br style="background-color: #fefefe; box-sizing: border-box; color: #141414; font-family: "Segoe UI", "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Roboto, Oxygen, Ubuntu, Cantarell, "Fira Sans", "Droid Sans", sans-serif; font-size: 15px;" /><blockquote>This is what St. James means when his says in his Epistle, 2:26: ‘"Faith without works is dead." That is, as the works do not follow, it is a sure sign that there is no faith there; but only an empty thought and dream, which they falsely call faith. Now we understand the word of Christ: "Make to yourselves friends by means of the mammon of unrighteousness." That is, prove your faith publically by your outward gifts, by which you win friends, that the poor may be witnesses of your public work, that your faith is genuine. For mere external giving in itself can never make friends, unless it proceed from faith, as Christ rejects the alms of the Pharisees in Mat. 6:2, that they thereby make no friends because their heart is false. Thus no heart can ever be right without faith, so that even nature forces the confession that no work makes one good, but that the heart must first be good and upright. [<i>The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther</i> Vol. 2:2 (Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), p. 308].</blockquote><p> </p></div><div><b>Conclusion</b></div><div>The extant evidence of Luther's view is therefore conflicting. On the one hand, Luther overtly doubted the apostolic pedigree of the Epistle of James and saw that it conflicted with Paul. On the other hand, Luther approvingly cited James, preached from it, embraced a harmonious way of understanding James and Paul, and softened his earlier criticisms. This contradictory evidence appears to run parallel throughout his life. It could very well be that definitive answer on Luther's view of James... is that there is not a definitive answer. It seems to me that in light of Rome's defenders generally, Luther argued James was not canonical, particularly if pressed that James refuted justification by faith alone. In other contexts generally, Luther treated James as harmonious with the rest of scripture. As I've read Luther over the years, the balance of these positions seems to lean more towards the former evidence that James was not an apostolic witness. This could simply be the result of the continual polemical conflicts Luther found himself in. </div><div><br /></div><div>Perhaps Reu's speculation that Erasmus influenced Luther on authorship and LW's conclusion that his papal opponents were citing James against him may be the pertinent factors that explain the confusion as to Luther's view. For both of these speculations, I would need to see evidence. For the former, I have never seen a statement from Luther demonstrating he was following Erasmus on James. For the later, I searched through my collection of early polemical writers against Luther and did not come across many meaningful early uses of James being cited against Luther, though I suspect it certainly was! It seems to be assumed as a papal criticism in the many disputations Luther took part in throughout his life. </div><div><br /></div><div>This blog post isn't presenting any information that's not readily available elsewhere. There is no original historical thought being presented. I suspect there's even more statements from Luther on the epistle of James. I only offer this brief exploration to simply outline the basic evidence and have it ready for my own personal use. </div></div><div><br /></div><div><b>Addendum #1: Interacting With Rome's Defenders on Luther's View of James</b></div><div>If you're dealing with Luther's detractors, most often Rome's defenders... keep in mind that one of the main reasons they're bringing up Luther's view of James is that its intention is to put forth the infallible authority of Rome in determining the canon of the Bible. Simply in response: it does not follow that unless Rome infallibly determines the canon of the Bible, everyone will pick and choose their own Biblical canon. Despite Luther's view of James, this has practically not happened. To my knowledge, there was not any significant following of Luther on his view of James, nor has Protestantism created 30,000 canons to match the alleged 30,000 denominations Rome's defenders continually squawk about. I would exhort the reader to realize that the choice between the infallible authority of Rome and total anarchy is a false dilemma. </div><div><br /></div><div>If you're engaging Rome's defenders on the canon and Luther's view of the canon comes up, a counter question that they should be forced to consider is answering.... why has the canon of the Bible remained very consistent despite Luther's views? Is Rome responsible for this? Is so, how? If Luther's view amounts to a subjective personal canon, why is it that the canon has been so stable since the publication of Luther's opinions found in his translation of the Bible?</div></div></div></div><div><br /></div><div>I've argued <a href="https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/roman-catholicism/six-points-on-luthers-epistle-of-straw/">elsewhere</a> that Erasmus, Cajetan, and Luther had rights within the Roman Catholic system to engage in Biblical criticism and debate over the extent of the canon previous to the dogmatic declarations of the Council of Trent. All expressed some doubt. Theirs was not a radical higher criticism. The books they questioned were books that had been questioned by previous generations. The editors of Luther’s Works note that both Eusebius and Jerome raised or confirmed similar doubts to the apostolicity and canonicity of James:<blockquote>In the earliest general history of the church, Eusebius: The Ecclesiastical History (II, xxiii, 25), the author… writes, “Such is the story of James, whose is said to be the first of the Epistles called Catholic. It is to be observed that its authenticity is denied, since few of the ancients quote it, as is also the case with the Epistle called Jude’s.”… Eusebius also includes both epistles in his list of “Disputed Books” (History, III, xxiv, 3)…Cf. the statement by Jerome (d. 420) in his Liber de Viris Illustribus (II) concerning the pseudonymity ascribed to the epistle of James and its rather gradual attainment of authoritative status [LW 35:396].</blockquote><p>Follow this up the following from <a href="https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2015/08/new-catholic-encyclopedia-canon-was-not.html">The New Catholic Encyclopedia</a>: </p><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.3em; margin: 1em 20px;">According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the Biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church (at the Council of Trent). Before that time there was some doubt about the canonicity of certain Biblical books, i.e., about their belonging to the canon.</blockquote><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px;">The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. III Can to Col (New York: Mcgraw-Hill, 1967), 29.</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px;" /><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px;">Nihil Obstat</i><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px;">: John P. Whalen, M.A., S.T.D. Censor Deputatus</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px;" /><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px;">Imprimatur</i><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px;">: Patrick O'Boyle, D.D. Archbishop of Washington, August 5, 1966</span></p><p><a href="https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2008/07/my-condolences-for-champion-of.html">Rome's defender Robert Sungenis</a> admitted the validity of my argument in regard to Trent and the canon. </p><p><b><br /></b></p><p><b>Addendum #2: John Warwick Montgomery</b><br />Here's nitpicking myself: Back in 2004, I addressed the "epistle of straw" comment in <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20140803220107/http://tquid.sharpens.org/Luther_%20canon.htm#a6">Luther's View of the Canon of Scripture</a>. I cited John Warwick Montgomery writing, </p></div><div><blockquote>Few people realize — and liberal Luther interpreters do not particularly advertise the fact — that in all the editions of Luther’s Bible translation after 1522 the—Reformer dropped the paragraphs at the end, of his general Preface to the New Testament which made value judgments among the various biblical books and which included the famous reference to James as an “Epistle of straw.</blockquote>In my old paper I summarized Motgomery saying, "<i>An interesting fact about this quote (hardly ever mentioned by Luther-detractors!) is that it only appears in the original 1522 Preface To The New Testament.</i>" It is true that, as it was back in 2004, I did not come across Rome's defenders admitting Luther deleted the comment, "epistle of straw." On the other hand, LW 35:358, fn. 5 states: "<i>The portions here set in brackets did not appear in any editions of the complete Bible, nor in editions of the New Testament after 1537</i>." It appears to me that editions of Luther's New Testament previous to 1537 and incomplete editions of the Bible previous to 1534 probably did include the "epistle of straw" comment. </div>James Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-84467330661870789532023-01-07T10:49:00.001-05:002023-01-07T16:32:36.381-05:00What Luther Says, Available Online<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcNUy8ficZJBtGyOORKm-iy8PvnUCJluhfiFiZfw-Or8OG5mRXbdyJ4X866_4ScZ0QVatei5nf6f111O1eCgTYO0aUb-Xy6tq3_hEUEdwmhAZJKaVaoymv_ycXtPxTkZ8YMfqzP50PrZV6aPpmkMgrbxrhHGotKOD_ZhIbpGSBzKREFBps8GU/s1230/What%20L.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1230" data-original-width="674" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcNUy8ficZJBtGyOORKm-iy8PvnUCJluhfiFiZfw-Or8OG5mRXbdyJ4X866_4ScZ0QVatei5nf6f111O1eCgTYO0aUb-Xy6tq3_hEUEdwmhAZJKaVaoymv_ycXtPxTkZ8YMfqzP50PrZV6aPpmkMgrbxrhHGotKOD_ZhIbpGSBzKREFBps8GU/s320/What%20L.jpg" width="175" /></a></div><div><p><a href="https://archive.org/details/whatluthersaysan0001luth/page/n5/mode/2up?view=theater">Volume 1</a> (Internet Archive)</p><p><a href="https://archive.org/details/whatluthersaysan02luth/page/n8/mode/1up">Volume 2</a> (Internet Archive)</p><p><a href="https://archive.org/details/whatluthersaysan0003luth/page/n7/mode/2up?view=theater">Volume 3</a> (Internet Archive)</p></div><div><br /></div>The Internet Archive continues to provide free access to many of the books I've purchased! I bought the three-volume set of <i>What Luther Says</i> around twenty years ago. It's not a set that simply sits on my bookshelf: I've continued to use it regularly in my studies or treatments of Luther here on this blog. Early on, when I came across a seemingly outrageous charge about Luther, often I was able to get a broad overview of what Luther really thought on the subject by using this anthology. <p></p><p>In regard to English treatments of Luther, this set is one the most helpful in my entire library. The author, Ewald Plass, went painstakingly through Luther's writings (in their original languages) and compiled a massive anthology of what Luther thought about particular topics. It isn't a systematic theology <i>per se</i>, but there is a sense in which it's a topical systematic treatment of Luther's immense literary output. According to the Forward of the set, the project began in 1948 and finished in 1956. </p><p>What I find unfortunate is that detailed information as to exactly who the author was is not easily located online. Concordia Publishing <a href="https://www.cph.org/this-is-luther">say</a>s of the author, </p><blockquote>Edwald Plass, a long-time Lutheran college professor, devoted his life to introducing laypeople and clergy alike to Martin Luther, a man's whose writings he thoroughly studied and read in the original language. His great work What Luther Says remains in print to this day as the most outstanding and thorough collection of the wit and wisdom of Martin Luther. This volume offers a storehouse of information about Luther, about those with whom he worked and struggled during the tumultuous years of the Reformation. In his book, Plass presents Luther's attitudes on many aspects of life, while demonstrating Luther's one overriding passion that animated everything he did: the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Let Ewald Plass introduce you to Martin Luther.<div></div></blockquote><div>With a such a unique name, I suspected the author was<a href="http://www.mtcalvary-mke.org/our-history"> the founding pastor of Mount Calvary Lutheran Church in Milwaukee WI</a>:</div><div><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Poppins; font-size: 15px;"><blockquote>Founding Pastor, Rev. Ewald M. Plass, imparted to the congregation a strong support for foreign missions which remains a part of Mount Calvary’s ethos. Rev. Plass served two years at the Lutheran Seminary in Brazil and his passion for overseas mission work took hold at Mount Calvary.</blockquote></span></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="background-color: white;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-family: Poppins; font-size: 15px; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiieq-ACagRk1cUROZEpX5pbhMr8iO0hnRPrMyfkYI52f4vwVaWlmufSVQYyCSUmG-Y8_mg_i3oYwzrDHOEOzUU-ASypBfL8o8YXUl-jKZdyPpM_UnYoFFGOF00Q1pKxzsk9QjA5Hf7EcSgYQqHbqM-OM-ndLwy5Mmr8L_jwOtaTotN5CwiR5Q/s277/plass.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="277" data-original-width="250" height="277" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiieq-ACagRk1cUROZEpX5pbhMr8iO0hnRPrMyfkYI52f4vwVaWlmufSVQYyCSUmG-Y8_mg_i3oYwzrDHOEOzUU-ASypBfL8o8YXUl-jKZdyPpM_UnYoFFGOF00Q1pKxzsk9QjA5Hf7EcSgYQqHbqM-OM-ndLwy5Mmr8L_jwOtaTotN5CwiR5Q/s1600/plass.jpg" width="250" /></a></div><span style="font-family: Poppins;"><span style="font-size: 15px;">This was confirmed in <a href="https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/143053168/ewald-martin-plass">an obituary</a> which provided the following information:</span></span></span></div><div><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Poppins;"><span style="font-size: 15px;"><br /></span></span></span></div>Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod pastor at Mt. Calvary Lutheran Church, Milwaukee, WI from 1926 to 1936; Assistant pastor at Nazareth Lutheran Church, Milwaukee, WI. He served as a professor at Concordia Seminary, Porto Alegre, Brazil from 1923 to 1925 and Concordia College, Milwaukee, Wisconsin from 1936 to 1960, where he was also the librarian from 1941 to 1950. He served as the Secretary of the Commission on College and University Work for the LCMS from 1932 to 1956. He was a published author, providing a book of sermon illustrations with Frederick Selle, as well as a Luther biography in 1948 and his monumental three-volume anthology of "What Luther Says" in 1959.<div><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Poppins; font-size: 15px;"><br /></span></div><div><br /></div><div>I'm sure there are some of you reading this that, sometimes like me, do a basic Internet search of your name to see what's <i>out there</i>. Sad to say that many cyber hits to my name are slanderous and malicious. Not so with Ewald Plass! A typical search of "Ewald Plass" produces countless hits to his set, <i>What Luther Says</i>. He truly left a significant legacy and deserves to be remembered!</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Addendum </b></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=NAA5AAAAIAAJ&dq=What+Luther+says&source=gbs_similarbooks&hl=en">Volume 1</a> (Google Books, search only)</div><div><p><a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=NQA5AAAAIAAJ&dq=What%20Luther%20says&source=gbs_book_other_versions">Volume 2</a> (Google Books, search only) </p><p><a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=NgA5AAAAIAAJ&q=What+Luther+says&dq=What+Luther+says&hl=en&ei=rlG-TOqCO8GB8gam45z7Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAQ">Volume 3</a> (Google Books, search only)</p></div>James Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-61180914940189261302023-01-04T17:08:00.002-05:002023-01-04T17:09:35.775-05:00John Calvin: the Roman Catholic Church was the Mother church?<p> John Calvin was a secret Roman Catholic? Here's an odd John Calvin quote utilized on a discussion forum:</p><span style="font-family: courier;"><blockquote>Calvin on the RCC:<br />"the Roman Catholic church was the Mother church; that no one had the right to withdraw from the Mother church even if it were sinful; and that there was no salvation outside the walls of the Mother church."(Book 4, Institutes, Calvin)</blockquote></span><div>If this quote seems awkwardly worded and suspicious... you're right! While there are some aspects of this quote that hint at some of Calvin's comments from Book Four of the Institutes, it's common knowledge that he was clearly opposed to Roman Catholicism. Rome's defenders overtly recognized him as an enemy of the Roman church. Let's take a closer look at this quote and see if it can be determined exactly how Calvin ended up supporting Roman Catholicism! </div><div><br /></div><div><b>Documentation</b></div><div>The person who posted this quote provided the vague reference, <i>"Book 4, Institutes, Calvin</i>." Granted, Calvin released different editions of the Institutes throughout his lifetime, but I did not come across any meaningful direct hits to this quote in the Institutes. The only direct search hit that did occur was to a webpage entitled, <a href="https://www.hopperscrossingchristianchurch.com/portfolio-item/calvinism-is-a-counterfeit-christian-cult/">Calvinism is a counterfeit Christian cult. It is actually carefully disguised Roman Catholicism</a>. That webpage states, </div><blockquote>Not only is calvinism a counterfeit Christian cult, it is also largely based upon the Catholic heresies which were greatly influenced by Augustine. And, no great surprise, for Calvin’s Institutes were also greatly influenced by that same Augustine. Thus, calvinism is merely a counterfeit Catholic belief; Calvin was, all along, a closet Catholic. He declared that the Roman Catholic church was the Mother church; that no-one had the right to withdraw from the Mother church even if it were sinful; and that there was no salvation outside the walls of the Mother church. (Book 4, Institutes, Calvin)</blockquote><div>As far as I could determine, the author of this link is anonymous. <a href="https://www.hopperscrossingchristianchurch.com/">The website hosting the page states</a>, </div><blockquote>"Hoppers Crossing Christian Church is a small home based church in the Western Suburbs of Melbourne. Over the past two to three years since inception, we have become concerned about the state of the Christian Church in western society and have therefore embarked on a mission to spread the truth about what we are seeing."</blockquote><div>The website hosts an entire collection of articles under their category, "<a href="https://www.hopperscrossingchristianchurch.com/portfolio-item/calvinist-heresy/">Calvinist heretics & heresies</a>," with John Calvin taking many beatings. Someone (perhaps the author?) <a href="https://www.hopperscrossingchristianchurch.com/2022/06/05/how-to-be-a-good-calvinist-without-being-a-christian/">on the website claims</a> to have been a "Calvinist" for 19 years... therefore now, of course, an expert! From reading the biographical information provided, this person admits to being born into a Presbyterian family and then had some sort of theological epiphany at age 19, I think it's disingenuous to claim a full 19 years of a well-researched and understood Calvinistic background. Rather, why not simply admit to being born into a family with particular theological leanings, and then later on questioning that upbringing in later teen years? </div><div><br /></div><div>Since an exact reference to the Institutes Book 4 was not provided, this following is a quick overview of Calvin's Institutes comments on Romanism and a speculative excursion into which texts from Calvin were misconstrued into the Reformer supporting Roman Catholicism.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Context</b></div><div>In Book 4 Calvin shows his deep criticism of the Roman Church (they are "<i>Christ's chief adversaries</i>"). For instance:</div><div><blockquote>Instead of the ministry of the Word, a
perverse government compounded of lies rules there, which partly
extinguishes the pure light, partly chokes it. The foulest sacrilege has been
introduced in place of the Lord’s Supper. The worship of God has been
deformed by a diverse and unbearable mass of superstitions. Doctrine
(apart from which Christianity cannot stand) has been entirely buried and
driven out. Public assemblies have become schools of idolatry and
ungodliness. In withdrawing from deadly participation in so many
misdeeds, there is accordingly no danger that we be snatched away from
the church of Christ. The communion of the church was not established on
the condition that it should serve to snare us in idolatry, ungodliness,
ignorance of God, and other sorts of evils, but rather to hold us in the fear
of God and obedience to truth.</blockquote><p></p><blockquote>They indeed gloriously extol their church to us to make it seem that there
is no other in the world. Thereupon, as if the matter were settled, they
conclude that all who dare withdraw from the obedience with which they
adorn the church are schismatics; that all who dare mutter against its
doctrine are heretics. </blockquote><p></p></div><div>Surprisingly, Calvin did refer to Rome as the "mother church" In Book 4 he wrote, "<i>Of old, Rome was indeed the mother of all churches; but after it began to become the see of Antichrist, it ceased to be what it once was</i>" (4,7,24). He compares Rome to the "ancient church of Israel," meaning that in a similar way that Israel was corrupt /idolatrous, so also was Rome: "<i>The Romanists, therefore, today make no other pretension than what the
Jews once apparently claimed when they were reproved for blindness,
ungodliness, and idolatry by the Lord’s prophets</i>." In 4,2,20. Calvin discusses why one must separate from the corrupted church.</div><div><br /></div><div>This does not mean though there is no such thing as "mother church" since Rome's corruption. Rather, there is a <i>visible </i>church that is the mother of believers and there is no salvation apart from her. Calvin writes, </div><div><blockquote>But because it is now our intention to discuss the visible church, let us learn even from the simple title “mother” how useful, indeed how necessary, it is that we should know her. For there is no other way to enter into life unless this mother conceive us in her womb, give us birth, nourish us at her breast, and lastly, unless she keep us under her care and guidance until, putting off mortal flesh, we become like the angels [Matthew 22:30]. Our weakness does not allow us to be dismissed from her school until we have been pupils all our lives. Furthermore, away from her bosom one cannot hope for any forgiveness of sins or any salvation, as Isaiah [Isaiah 37:32] and Joel [Joel 2:32] testify. Ezekiel agrees with them when he declares that those whom God rejects from heavenly life will not be enrolled among God’s people [Ezekiel 13:9]. On the other hand, those who turn to the cultivation of true godliness are said to inscribe their names among the citizens of Jerusalem [cf. Isaiah 56:5; Psalm 87:6]. For this reason, it is said in another psalm: “Remember me, O Jehovah, with favor toward thy people; visit me with salvation: that I may see the well-doing of thy chosen ones, that I may rejoice in the joy of thy nation, that I may be glad with thine inheritance” [Psalm 106:4-5 p.; cf. Psalm 105:4, Vg., etc.]. By these words God’s fatherly favor and the especial witness of spiritual life are limited to his flock, so that it is always disastrous to leave the church. (4,1,4). </blockquote><div>Some years back I took a look at Calvin's adherence to the phrase that <a href="https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2015/09/calvins-surprise-there-is-no-salvation.html">there is no salvation outside the church</a>. In summary, I concluded that the e<i>xtra ecclesiam nulla salu</i>s of Calvin and Rome are in essence quite different.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /><b>Conclusion</b></div></div><div><div>In fairness to whoever put the quote together, it is true that in Book 4 of the Institutes John Calvin applied the phrase "mother church" to Rome. It's also true that Calvin believed one had to be joined to the mother church, and it's also true he believed there is no salvation outside the church. However, these concepts are to be interpreted according to their immediate context, and when done, the exact opposite is discovered: for Calvin, Rome may have originally held an important maternal pedigree in a qualified sense, but it no longer did. Yes, there is a "mother church," but it was the visible church, not the visible Roman church. One needed to be joined to that visible church as the normal means of salvation. </div><div><br /></div><div>This quote is a perfect example that one cannot simply assume a quote found on the Internet is accurate. In this case, what John Calvin actually wrote in Book 4 of the Institutes is directly opposed to the quote he's purported to have written! It appears to me that this the words "<i>He declared that the</i>..." were cut off of<a href="https://www.hopperscrossingchristianchurch.com/portfolio-item/calvinism-is-a-counterfeit-christian-cult/"> the original anti-Calvin webpage</a>, thus creating a quote alleged to be directly from Calvin. Therefore, the key to this quote... is that it's not a direct quote from Calvin's Institutes. The author of the anti-Calvinist webpage appears to be erroneously summarizing some points from Calvin's Institutes, Book 4.</div></div>James Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.com59tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-68831645246181317362022-12-26T09:00:00.001-05:002022-12-26T09:00:00.229-05:00Luther: "The more and the longer we preach, the worse matters grow."<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaFTTBApYE0TEen8rLZ2jOLGAVeBMGpOTx_NoMT4_eF01_L8EYZURZGIWGzuzXwS4QdAd-VvrQmUMZip8Vx19YmGASgOolLjaSZPbeHPr2sTtebKYj1WSwkNC6I_T-6ZVXzLBO/s1600-h/oc6.jpg"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5200413030734074706" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaFTTBApYE0TEen8rLZ2jOLGAVeBMGpOTx_NoMT4_eF01_L8EYZURZGIWGzuzXwS4QdAd-VvrQmUMZip8Vx19YmGASgOolLjaSZPbeHPr2sTtebKYj1WSwkNC6I_T-6ZVXzLBO/s320/oc6.jpg" style="cursor: hand; float: left; margin: 0px 10px 10px 0px;" /></a>Did Martin Luther think his preaching (and that of his collogues) made things worse for the people of Germany? Luther is quoted as saying, <div><br /></div><div><div><span style="font-family: courier;">"The more and the longer we preach, the worse matters grow" (Walch XII, 2120).</span></div><div><br /></div><div>This sparse quote has been used as proof of the failure of the Reformation or something like Luther's regret or concession to the failure of the Reformation, etc. I've documented a number of these Martin Luther quotes <a href="https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/p/did-luther-regret-reformation.html">here</a> and <a href="https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/p/luthers-own-statements-concerning-his.html">here</a>. </div><div><br /></div><div>From a cursory search, the quote is most often taken from the old book, <i>Luther's Own Statements Concerning His Teaching and Its Results: Taken Exclusively from the Earliest and Best Editions of Luther's German and Latin Works</i> (1884), p. <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=N9QrAAAAYAAJ&lpg=PA55&dq=As%20soon%20as%20our%20Gospel%20began%20.%20.%20.%20decency%20.%20.%20.%20and%20modesty%20were%20done%20away%20with%2C%20and%20everybody%20wished%20to%20be%20perfectly%20free%20to%20do%20whatever%20he%20liked&pg=PA55#v=onepage&q&f=false">55</a>. The author, Henry O'Connor, used the quote to describe the "<i>Results of Luther's Teaching</i>," specifically the "<i>Moral Results</i>" that there was a "<i>Lower State of General Morality</i>." <a href="https://archive.org/details/confessional00case/page/n8/mode/1up?view=theater">This Roman Catholic source</a> (from roughly the same time period as O'Connor) <a href="https://archive.org/details/confessional00case/page/28/mode/1up?view=theater">uses it</a> as part of a <a href="https://archive.org/details/confessional00case/page/28/mode/1up?view=theater">cumulative case proof</a> that <i>"Christianity without the confessional bore the following fruits, according to Luther's own statement: neglect of the poor and of the sick; sad state of the youth; increase of drunkenness; increase of the number of suicides; lower state of general morality</i>." Fast forward to 2009, <a href="https://www.christianforums.com/threads/romans-4-7-is-problematic-for-me-help-lol.7338774/post-50531071">this seeming defender of Rome</a> uses it to demonstrate Luther's "<i>irrational state</i>." <a href="https://subumbraalarum.wordpress.com/2017/01/11/excellent-book-luthers-own-statements-concerning-his-teaching-and-its-results/">This Roman Catholic blogger in 2017</a> regurgitated this quote (along with other statements from O'Connor's book) declaring the information from O'Connor is "<i>favorable to the truth seeker</i>." </div><div><br /></div><div>Was Luther admitting the failure of his preaching? Was he admitting that his preaching made people worse? Did he regret the Reformation? Let's take a look and find out! </div><div><br /></div><div><b>Documentation</b></div><div>Stating the obvious: Luther's original writings were in German and Latin. As far as I can determine, Henry O'Connor appears to be responsible for this particular English rendering <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=N9QrAAAAYAAJ&lpg=PA55&dq=As%20soon%20as%20our%20Gospel%20began%20.%20.%20.%20decency%20.%20.%20.%20and%20modesty%20were%20done%20away%20with%2C%20and%20everybody%20wished%20to%20be%20perfectly%20free%20to%20do%20whatever%20he%20liked&pg=PA5#v=onepage&q&f=false">(he says</a>, "<i>In every single case the translation from the German or the Latin is my own</i>"). There is another English version (from yet another hostile Roman Catholic source),<a href="https://archive.org/details/lutheraportrait00verruoft/page/300/mode/1up?view=theater"> J. Verras, Luther an Historical Portrait</a>: "<i>The more and the longer the Evangelium is preached, the worse things are getting.</i>" Verras also seems to be responsible for his particular English rendering: "<i>The prospect of having to devote many months to going through </i>[Luther's]<i> voluminous and frequently disgusting books was anything but cheerful</i>..."(<a href="https://archive.org/details/lutheraportrait00verruoft/page/n10/mode/1up?view=theater">p.I</a>). One older meaningful polemical source using this quote is a German text: Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger's<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px;"> </span><i>Die reformation </i>vol. 1, <a href="https://archive.org/details/diereformationi00unkngoog/page/302/mode/1up">p. 301-302</a>, "<i>Je mehr und länger es</i> [<i>das Evangelium</i>] <i>geprebigt wird, je ärger wirb ed</i>") <a href="https://archive.org/details/a577178401dolluoft/page/n294/mode/1up?q=%22Walch+XII+2120%22">(cf. French text</a>).</div><div><br /></div><div>Both O'Connor and Verras cite "<a href="https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/imgsrv/image?id=mdp.39015074631717;seq=845;width=850">Walch XII. 2120</a>." This is a sermon on Romans 13:11-14 (Nov. 27, 1530). The sentence reads, "<i>Aber je mehr und das Evangelium , daruin ſollen wir nicht länger es gepredigt wird , je ärger wird es</i>." Notice the word, "<i>Evangelium.</i>" Verras's English translation is more authentic to the meaning of the text: "<i>The more and the longer the Evangelium is preached, the worse things are getting.</i>" O'Connor has left out "<i>Evangelium</i>" (Gospel). <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=N9QrAAAAYAAJ&lpg=PA55&dq=As%20soon%20as%20our%20Gospel%20began%20.%20.%20.%20decency%20.%20.%20.%20and%20modesty%20were%20done%20away%20with%2C%20and%20everybody%20wished%20to%20be%20perfectly%20free%20to%20do%20whatever%20he%20liked&pg=PA5#v=onepage&q&f=false">O'Connor does say</a>, "<i>Not a single second-hand quotation is to be found from beginning to end of my little work</i>." Either O'Connor left a significant word out of his translation, or he took the quote from a secondary source. It would not surprise me to discover O'Connor and Verras both mined the quote out of Döllinger's<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px;"> </span><i>Die reformation </i>vol. 1 (or someone using that source). Döllinger was unapologetically hostile to Luther and influential in Roman Catholic historical studies in the nineteenth century. Verras does <a href="https://archive.org/details/lutheraportrait00verruoft/page/300/mode/1up?view=theater&q=dollinger">reference Döllinger</a> a number of times. Many older German sources use parentheses on the word "Evangelium." Did O'Connor use a secondary source and left the bracketed word "Evangelium" out, thinking it not important to the text? </div><div><br /></div><div>Besides Walch XII, the quote can be found in a slightly different form in <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=UOQPAQAAIAAJ&dq=Luther%20%22ich%20ein%20alter%20Doctor%20bin%22&pg=PA219#v=onepage&q&f=false">WA 32:219</a> ("<i>Aber je mehr und länger es gepredigt wird, je ärger wirds</i>"). There is no "official" English translation of this sermon that I'm aware of. An inferior computer-generated English translation can be found <a href="https://archive.org/details/st-l-12-en-us/page/n835/mode/1up?view=theater">here</a>. O'Connor says, “<i>I have taken special care not to quote anything, that would have a different meaning, if read with the full context</i>” (<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=N9QrAAAAYAAJ&lpg=PA55&dq=As%20soon%20as%20our%20Gospel%20began%20.%20.%20.%20decency%20.%20.%20.%20and%20modesty%20were%20done%20away%20with%2C%20and%20everybody%20wished%20to%20be%20perfectly%20free%20to%20do%20whatever%20he%20liked&pg=PA5#v=onepage&q&f=false">p.5</a>). We'll see that the context does demonstrate a different meaning with the word "Evangelium" left out.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>Context</b></div><div>It's helpful to see exactly what Biblical text Luther was preaching on. Romans 13:11-14 states, </div><blockquote> And do this, understanding the present time: The hour has already come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed. The night is nearly over; the day is almost here. So let us put aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light. Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy. Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the flesh.</blockquote><div>Paul is blatantly exhorting his readers to Godly living. It should not be surprising therefore that Luther's sermon on this passage does the same thing! Luther's entire sermon gives strong attention to exhorting Christians to reflect Christ in their lives: to live a life outwardly that reflects what has been done inwardly to the heart. There should be no <i>slumbering</i> in regard to the Christian life. One should think of Jesus Christ as the master of the Christian household. Christ says to his servants: rise up and do your appointed work! </div><div><br /></div><div> "<i>Salvation is nearer now</i>" because Christ has come and the Gospel is being preached. The Jews of the Old Testament had only the promise of the coming Gospel, Christians have the fulfillment of the Gospel. Therefore, now is the time to put away sinful living. It is the time to live as people transformed by the Gospel. If someone claims to be a Christian, yet their life dishonors the gospel, that person dishonors God. Similarly, if a society in general claims to be Christian but lives immorally, it should not come as any surprise if God punishes that society, especially if the gospel is being clearly preached. The more the gospel is preached to people claiming to be Christians that continue in immorally, the worse God's punishment against that person or society will be. Hence the quote, "<i>The more and the longer we preach, the worse matters grow</i>." As an example, Luther mentions those in 1 Corinthians 11 that were partaking in the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner and were being stricken will illness. The "worse matters" are God's punishment! Luther chastises those specifically who use their freedom to practice Christianity without persecution ("<i>Dieweil jeßt der Bann abgetban if</i>t") but maintain blatantly sinful lifestyles. He ends his chastisement particularly at them: "<i>Wem zu sagen ist, dem ist gnug gefag</i>t."</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><b>Conclusion</b><div>Henry O'Connor did translate Luther in a sense other than what the primary source originally stated: he left out the key word, "Evangelium." In O'Connor's contextless version, Luther appears to be lamenting he and his colleagues collected preaching efforts: "<i>The more and the longer we preach, the worse matters grow.</i>" One sees a societal picture of sinking ship, Germany going to moral ruins with Luther in utter despondency of his failed efforts. This is not what the text said. Rather, what Luther preached is that the proclamation of the Gospel makes things worse for people if they live blatantly sinful lifestyles. God will bring judgment on people that either besmirch the Gospel, abuse their Christian freedom, or claim to be Evangelicals while living in open grievous sin. </div><div><br /></div><div>The context does not warrant the conclusions of some of Rome's defenders, that this sermon was a lament of the moral failures of Luther's ministry or that there was a "<i>Lower State of General Morality</i>." Luther was in no way regretting... anything. He was not bemoaning that his failed preaching was having a devastating effect on society. Rather, he was exhorting his hearers to godly living (just like Paul), and even says that his point is directed at those who do not demonstrate godly living. </div><div><br /></div>In Luther's eschatology, it was the end of the world. Things were indeed going to get worse. The Gospel was going to be fought against by the Devil with all his might. The true church was a tiny flock in a battle against the world, the flesh, and the Devil. He hoped the people would improve with the preaching of the Gospel, he often admitted he knew things were going to get worse because of the Gospel. </div><div><div><div><div><div><div></div></div></div></div></div></div>James Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-72798232713249293172022-12-14T23:28:00.003-05:002022-12-15T00:43:40.042-05:00Martin Luther Did Not Write "Away in a Manger"<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLHZUoEGsYv09i5aJTrHmiPHWH2SQR9LYS-6bhNeCFRHoaYMTIgkLBc78Qfa1odrRd0MzkKAQV0pkUdT5sJiaS2zn8wM85lzLLstnPFC_PABtdekiIi5l77D_QsqHUVT9Q9bRfz9uXYHd59mKFcODSsjwwgAc5sS-blhr5CoZ0NzZ7lTN_od0/s1252/hymnary.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="477" data-original-width="1252" height="244" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLHZUoEGsYv09i5aJTrHmiPHWH2SQR9LYS-6bhNeCFRHoaYMTIgkLBc78Qfa1odrRd0MzkKAQV0pkUdT5sJiaS2zn8wM85lzLLstnPFC_PABtdekiIi5l77D_QsqHUVT9Q9bRfz9uXYHd59mKFcODSsjwwgAc5sS-blhr5CoZ0NzZ7lTN_od0/w640-h244/hymnary.png" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p>According to <a href="https://hymnary.org/text/away_in_a_manger_no_crib_for_a_bed?fbclid=IwAR2FXM9gspLhtHEcHVHoIgmRdqFA42BWZvcj1jK9N_G7V52YGcYQtPRHEKc">Hymnary.org</a>, <i>Away in a Manger</i> is attributed to Martin Luther. I went through this a few years ago (<a href="https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2017/01/luther-wrote-away-in-manger.html?fbclid=IwAR0fw3BH0PmS39pdAMnCv1OPhHn6OLhqTq7ybJXBVi0c9-c-fxW1gDZhOhI">see my link here</a>). Luther did not write <i>Away in a Manger</i>!</p>James Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-68752951730734920522022-12-09T13:41:00.001-05:002022-12-10T13:20:07.209-05:00Luther: "misery, corruption, scandal, blasphemy, ingratitude, and wickedness" was the result of the Reformation?<p> Kudos to the <a href="https://threepillarsblog.org/quotes/who-could-have-foreseen-how-much-misery/?fbclid=IwAR1y2vzlHZyKln4OG8HQW2tuLvsMXCe4UaE7Xoz4Ge8oxoPt5aeNeDDjWd0">Three Pillars blog</a> for debunking this Luther quote utilized by <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-protestants-who-came-before-the-protestants">Catholic Answers</a>:</p><blockquote><span style="font-family: courier;">Toward the end of his life, Martin Luther would bemoan the religious indifference wrought by the movement he began:<br /><br />Who among us could have foreseen how much misery, corruption, scandal, blasphemy, ingratitude, and wickedness would have resulted from it? Only see how the nobles, the burghers, and the peasants are trampling religion underfoot! I have had no greater or severer subject of assault than my preaching, when the thought arose in me: thou art the sole author of this movement.</span></blockquote><div>This is another of many quotes typically used by Rome's defenders claiming<a href="https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/p/did-luther-regret-reformation.html"> Luther regretted the Reformation</a>. I don't recall seeing the bulk of this particular quote before. The <a href="https://threepillarsblog.org/quotes/who-could-have-foreseen-how-much-misery/?fbclid=IwAR1y2vzlHZyKln4OG8HQW2tuLvsMXCe4UaE7Xoz4Ge8oxoPt5aeNeDDjWd0">Three Pillars blog</a> was able to determine that Catholic Answers mined it out of either Warren Carroll's <i>The Cleaving of Christendom</i> or <a href="https://archive.org/details/historyofgermanp06jans/page/276/mode/2up?view=theater">Johannes Janssen, History of the German People 6: 276-277</a>. Janssen was a nineteenth century Roman Catholic historian heavily fueled with anti-Luther sentiment. The quote appears to be a hodgepodge of Luther quotes strung together. Catholic Answers haphazardly cut-and-pasted from one of these sources without checking it first. </div><div><br /></div><div>It looks to me that the first sentence was not documented by Janssen: "<i>Who among us could have foreseen how much misery, corruption, scandal, blasphemy, ingratitude, and wickedness would have resulted from it</i>?" I suspect this may be from Luther's comments on John 13 <a href="https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2016/08/luther-who-would-have-begun-to-preach.html">which I covered here</a>. The Three Pillars blog was able to determine the origins of the second and third sentences. Sentence #2 was taken from <a href="https://archive.org/details/st-l-22-deep-l-en/page/n179/mode/2up?view=theater&q=%22look+at+our+times%2C+how+the+very+stingy+noblemen%2C+burghers+and+peasants+trample+religion+underfoot%22">the Table Talk</a>: "<i>Only see how the nobles, the burghers, and the peasants are trampling religion underfoot</i>!" The last sentence then comes from<a href="https://archive.org/details/st-l-22-deep-l-en/page/n449/mode/1up?view=theater&q=%22more+severe+challenge%22"> a completely different page in the Table Talk</a>, "<i>I have had no greater or severer subject of assault than my preaching, when the thought arose in me: thou art the sole author of this movement</i>." Janssen presented a cumulative case of Luther quotes from different places, Catholic Answers appears to have simply assumed it was one quote Luther said.... somewhere!</div><div><br /></div><div>I greatly appreciate the work on this quote done by Scott Cooper, and will add his post to my series, <a href="https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/p/did-luther-regret-reformation.html">Did Luther Regret the Reformation</a>? Many of Rome's defenders have notoriously used secondary hostile sources without checking the quotes they're utilizing. I concur with Mr. Cooper: </div><blockquote>It’s surprising that a non-profit, extremely popular apologetics empire with an <a href="https://www.catholic.com/misc/990.pdf">annual budget</a> over $10 million doesn’t have basic editorial standards minimally requiring direct quotes to have a citation. What’s more concerning is this doesn’t appear to be a simple oversight on a web page. Catholic Answers is apparently <a href="https://shop.catholic.com/20-answers-the-reformation/">selling a book</a> with this false quote and <a href="https://steveweidenkopf.com/">the author</a> of the article is “a Lecturer in Church History at the Christendom College Graduate School of Theology.”</blockquote><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>James Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-62800356271230198622022-12-03T12:20:00.002-05:002022-12-04T06:33:14.698-05:00Dr. Martin Luther's Complete Writings (Walch set in English)<p>The Internet Archive has a 23-volume set of the Walch edition of Luther works..... in English.<a href="https://martinluther.us/"> This was a set of Luther's works originally published 1740-1753 by Johann Georg Walch (then revised in the next century). </a>This set was originally in German. I do not recall there ever being a complete English translation done of Walch. Mystery solved: the Internet Archive states, "<i>This is an English machine translation (by DeepL Translator) of the original German book, available at Google Books and HathiTrust</i>."</p><p><a href="https://archive.org/details/st-l-01-en/page/n1/mode/2up?q=%22Dr.+Martin+Luther%27s+Complete+Writings%22&view=theater">Volume 1</a>: Interpretations of the first book of Moses, Genesis (part one) </p><p><a href="https://archive.org/details/st-l-02-deep-l-en/mode/2up?q=%22Dr.+Martin+Luther%27s+Complete+Writings%22&view=theater">Volume 2</a>: Interpretations of the first book of Moses, Genesis (part two) </p><p><a href="https://archive.org/details/st-l-03-deep-l-en/mode/1up?q=%22Dr.+Martin+Luther%27s+Complete+Writings%22&view=theater">Volume 3</a>: Interpretation of the Old Testament (continued)</p><p><a href="https://archive.org/details/st-l-04-deep-l-en/mode/2up?q=%22Dr.+Martin+Luther%27s+Complete+Writings%22&view=theater">Volume 4</a>: Interpretation of the Old Testament (continued)</p><p><a href="https://archive.org/details/st-l-05-deep-l-en/page/n1/mode/2up?q=%22Dr.+Martin+Luther%27s+Complete+Writings%22&view=theater">Volume 5</a>: Interpretation of the Old Testament (continued)- Interpretation of the Psalms (continued), Ecclesiastes, the Song of Solomon</p><p><a href="https://archive.org/details/st-l-06-deep-l-en/mode/2up?q=%22Dr.+Martin+Luther%27s+Complete+Writings%22&view=theater">Volume 6</a>: Interpretation of the Old Testament (continued)- Interpretations of the major and some of the minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel and Amos</p><p><a href="https://archive.org/details/st-l-07-deep-l-en/mode/2up?q=%22Dr.+Martin+Luther%27s+Complete+Writings%22&view=theater">Volume 7</a>: New Testament interpretation</p><p><a href="https://archive.org/details/st-l-08-deep-l-en/page/n1/mode/2up?q=%22Dr.+Martin+Luther%27s+Complete+Writings%22&view=theater">Volume 8</a>: New Testament Interpretation (continued)- John (continued), Acts 1, 1 Corinthians 15, 17, Shorter interpretation of Galatians, Luther's marginal glosses on the Bible Old and New Testament 1545, collection of Proverbs from Luther's writings</p><p><a href="https://archive.org/details/st-l-09-deep-l-en/mode/2up?q=%22Dr.+Martin+Luther%27s+Complete+Writings%22&view=theater">Volume 9</a>: New Testament interpretation (conclusion)- Galatians, etc.</p><p><a href="https://archive.org/details/st-l-10-deep-l-en/mode/2up?q=%22Dr.+Martin+Luther%27s+Complete+Writings%22&view=theater">Volume 10</a>: Catechetical writings and sermons</p><p><a href="https://archive.org/details/st-l-11-en-us/mode/1up?q=%22Dr.+Martin+Luther%27s+Complete+Writings%22">Volume 11</a>: The Church Postils, Gospels Section</p><p><a href="https://archive.org/details/st-l-12-en-us/mode/2up?q=%22Dr.+Martin+Luther%27s+Complete+Writings%22&view=theater">Volume 12</a>: Church Postil Epistle section, miscellaneous sermons </p><p><a href="https://archive.org/details/st-l-13a-en-us/mode/2up">Volume 13</a>: The House Postils according to Veit Dietrich</p><p><a href="https://archive.org/details/st-l-13b-en-us/mode/2up?q=%22Dr.+Martin+Luther%27s+Complete+Writings%22&view=theater">Volume 13b</a>: The House Postils according to Georg Rorer</p><p><a href="https://archive.org/details/st-l-14-deep-l-en/mode/1up?q=%22Dr.+Martin+Luther%27s+Complete+Writings%22&view=theater">Volume 14</a>: Preface to the German Bible, forwards to other books, Luther's historical and philological writings</p><p><a href="https://archive.org/details/st-l-15-deep-l-en/mode/2up?q=%22Dr.+Martin+Luther%27s+Complete+Writings%22&view=theater">Volume 15</a>: Reformation writings</p><p><a href="https://archive.org/details/st-l-16-deep-l-en/mode/2up?q=%22Dr.+Martin+Luther%27s+Complete+Writings%22&view=theater">Volume 16</a>: Reformation writings</p><p><a href="https://archive.org/details/st-l-17-deep-l-en/mode/2up?q=%22Dr.+Martin+Luther%27s+Complete+Writings%22&view=theater">Volume 17</a>: Documents related to the history of the Reformation</p><p><a href="https://archive.org/details/st-l-18-deep-l-en/mode/2up?q=%22Dr.+Martin+Luther%27s+Complete+Writings%22&view=theater">Volume 18</a>: Disputes with the Papists</p><p><a href="https://archive.org/details/st-l-19-deep-l-en/mode/2up?q=%22Dr.+Martin+Luther%27s+Complete+Writings%22&view=theater">Volume 19</a>: Disputes with the Papists</p><p><a href="https://archive.org/details/st-l-20-deep-l-en/mode/2up?q=%22Dr.+Martin+Luther%27s+Complete+Writings%22&view=theater">Volume 20</a>: Disputes with the Sacramentarians and other Enthusiasts </p><p><a href="https://archive.org/details/st-l-21a-deep-l-en/mode/2up?q=%22Dr.+Martin+Luther%27s+Complete+Writings%22&view=theater">Volume 21a</a>: Dr. Luther's Letters (part one)</p><p><a href="https://archive.org/details/st-l-21b-en/mode/2up?q=%22Dr.+Martin+Luther%27s+Complete+Writings%22&view=theater">Volume 21b</a>: Dr. Luther's Letters (part two)</p><p><a href="https://archive.org/details/st-l-22-deep-l-en/mode/2up?q=%22Dr.+Martin+Luther%27s+Complete+Writings%22&view=theater">Volume 22</a>: Colloquia or Table Talk</p><p><a href="https://archive.org/details/st-l-23-deep-l-en/mode/2up?q=%22Dr.+Martin+Luther%27s+Complete+Writings%22&view=theater">Volume 23</a>: Main index </p>James Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-57859996523001195852022-11-29T00:32:00.007-05:002022-11-29T10:55:28.543-05:00Erasmus, Romans 3:28 and Faith Alone: "Vox sola, tot clamoribus lapidata hoc saeculo in Luthero, reverenter in Patribus auditur"<div>Martin Luther is often criticized for allegedly adding the word "alone" to his German translation of Romans 3:28. Ironically, it was a Roman Catholic scholar that best defended Luther on this: Joseph A. Fitzmyer pointed out <a href="https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2016/02/translations-of-word-alone-in-romans.html">a number of people previous to Luther also saw the thrust of "alone" in Romans 3:28.</a> There's another popular historical snippet sometimes used similarly to defend Luther's translation, this time from Reformed theologian <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=Y_fu2XupxusC&dq=Italian%20Bibles%20of%20Geneva%20(1476)&pg=PA156#v=onepage&q&f=false">Charles Hodge</a>:</div><div><p></p><blockquote><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px;">That a man is justified by faith</i><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px;">. If by faith, it is not of works; and if not of works, there can be no room for boasting, for boasting is the assertion of personal merit. From the nature of the case, if justification is by faith, it must be by faith alone. Luther's version, therefore, </span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px;">allein durch den glauben</i><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px;">, is fully justified by the context. The Romanists, indeed, made a great outcry against that version as a gross perversion of Scripture, although Catholic translators before the time of Luther had given the same translation. So in the Nuremberg Bible, 1483, "Nur durch den glauben." And the Italian Bibles of Geneva, 1476, and of Venice, 1538, </span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px;">per sola fede</i><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px;">. The Fathers also often use the expression, "man is justified by faith alone;" so that Erasmus, </span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px;">De Ratione Concionandi</i><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px;">, Lib. III., says, "Vox </span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px;">sola</i><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px;">, tot clamoribus lapidata hoc saeculo in Luthero, reverenter in Patribus auditur." See Koppe and Tholuck on this verse.</span></blockquote><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px;"></span><p></p><span style="text-align: justify;">According to Hodge, Erasmus similarly knew that others previous to Luther used the word "alone" in Romans 3:28. Erasmus is claimed to have said, "<i>Vox sola, tot clamoribus lapidata hoc saeculo in Luthero, reverenter in Patribus auditur</i>" (The word alone, which has been received with such a shower of stones when uttered in our times by Luther, is yet reverently listened to when spoken by the Fathers). The quote seems suspicious. Luther began translating the New Testament in 1521 and released a finished version in 1522. Certainly Erasmus had some sympathy to Luther's cause early on, but by 1524 their polite ties were severed over the freedom / bondage of the human will and the relationship of faith and works. It would be surprising to find Erasmus defending Luther at any time on this issu</span><span><span style="text-align: justify;">e! </span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;"><br /></span></div><div>It seemed simple enough to search out the context of this statement from Erasmus (especially since it was a renowned Reformed scholar citing it!). However, the exact opposite occurred: I could not locate it. I did discover though that Erasmus said something like it without mentioning Luther... at all. </div><div><br /></div><div><b>Documentation</b></div><div>I'm going to work backward in searching for the sources Hodge mentions. He says, "<i>See Koppe and Tholuck on this verse</i>." "Tholuck" refers to Fred Augustus Gottreu Tholuck, <a href="https://archive.org/details/expositionofstpa00thol/page/n6/mode/1up">Exposition of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans: With Extracts from the Evangelical Works of the Fathers and Reformers</a> (Philadelphia: Sorin and Ball, 1844). Hodge certainly appears to be citing Erasmus via Tholuck verbatim on <a href="https://archive.org/details/expositionofstpa00thol/page/113/mode/1up?view=theater">page 113</a>. Notice the Erasmus citation is almost exact except Hodge cites "<i>De Ratione Concionandi, Lib. III</i>" while Tholuck cites "<i>De ratione conciondi 1.3</i>." </div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNJnj9CFC2fdoFuiJfufeLm2yEYQkpPqvpEL5Lia8ZP63pXqhgi-IrS-sIprh9Zr9TxzfS41P2PPqAiIKa3Zzp7FFGXbpRIJxwqP5gpI81YbugpRqyMNh0_FcYyp6d51PFJeOzRnZVvPgnQk5ou5q6SSOvifeJdRO_qVxt9odI-S0YJFRjncI/s454/tholuck.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="127" data-original-width="454" height="113" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNJnj9CFC2fdoFuiJfufeLm2yEYQkpPqvpEL5Lia8ZP63pXqhgi-IrS-sIprh9Zr9TxzfS41P2PPqAiIKa3Zzp7FFGXbpRIJxwqP5gpI81YbugpRqyMNh0_FcYyp6d51PFJeOzRnZVvPgnQk5ou5q6SSOvifeJdRO_qVxt9odI-S0YJFRjncI/w400-h113/tholuck.png" width="400" /></a></div><br /><div>"Koppe" appears to refer to <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=KRvtImPZaasC&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&dq=koppe%20epistle%20to%20the%20romans&pg=PA148#v=onepage&q&f=true">Johann Benjamin Koppe</a>, and I think Hodge had in mind Koppe's<i> Novum Testamentum Koppianum. </i> I could find no extant copies online to see exactly what Hodge was referring to from this source. Koppe wrote in the eighteenth century, so seeing exactly what Hodge was referring to would be interesting since it predates Tholuck's nineteenth century comment. </div><div><br /></div><div>"<i>De Ratione Concionandi</i>"refers to the book by Erasmus, <i>Ecclesiastes: On the Art of Preaching</i> (Ecclesiastes: sive de ratione concionandi) (1535). I spent some time searching the works of Erasmus for any of the volumes of "<i>De Ratione Concionandi</i>." Of the volumes I was able to locate, I found no instance of the exact quote "<i>Vox sola, tot clamoribus lapidata hoc saeculo in Luthero, reverenter in Patribus auditur</i>." I'm not alone in this. In the nineteenth century, James Morison did the same thing. <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=2kFVAAAAcAAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&dq=Critical%20Exposition%20of%20the%203rd%20Chapter%20of%20St%20Paul's%20Epistle%20to%20the%20Romans&pg=PA379#v=onepage&q&f=false">He states</a>, </div><blockquote>Tholuck says that Erasmus (Liber Concion. lib. iii.) remarks,—<i>vox sola, tot clamoribus lapidata hoc seculo in Luthero, reverenter in patribus auditur</i>,—“The word <i>alone</i>, which has been received with such a shower of stones when uttered in our times by Luther, is yet reverently listened to when spoken by the Fathers." Hodge repeats the quotation and the reference. We do not know where Tholuck picked it up. But while the observation seems to bespeak, by its peculiar felicity and piquancy, an Erasmian origin, it is certainly not to be found in that great repository of felicities, and wisdom, and wit, and semi-garrulities,—the <i>Liber Concionandi</i>.</blockquote><div>To answer Morison's question, Tholuck could have picked up the quote from any number of sources. </div><div>If one does <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=%22vox+sola+tot+clamoribus%22&biw=819&bih=494&sxsrf=ALiCzsbEVfuoFz5MzGjs7ZLNbZAQJJri5g%3A1669614188902&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1700%2Ccd_max%3A1800&tbm=bks">a search specific to eighteenth century books</a>, a number of hits appear with attribution to Erasmus. The quote goes back further. In the early seventeenth century, Lutheran theologian Johann Gerhard states, "<i>Erasmus wrote to someone: 'The word 'alone' which in our time has been assailed by so many outcries in Luther, is reverently heard and read in the fathers</i>" (<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=eIDeotTX0PwC&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&dq=%22vox%20sola%20tot%20clamoribus%22&pg=RA2-PA217#v=onepage&q&f=false">Latin source</a>, English translation from <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Justification-through-Faith-Theological-Commonplaces/dp/0758651406">On Justification through Faith - Theological Commonplaces</a>, p. 317). The quote makes it all the way back to the sixteenth century: In 1591, <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=96BoAAAAcAAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&dq=%22vox%20sola%20tot%20clamoribus%22&pg=PA306#v=onepage&q&f=false">Martin Chemnitz also cites it</a>: "<i>Therefore we can correctly say with Erasmus: 'This word sola, which has been attacked with so much noise in the era of Luther, was reverently heard and read among the fathers</i>'" (<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=%22therefore+we+can+correctly+say+with+Erasmus%22&sxsrf=ALiCzsZs1P9GC9TXobNKAovyCQE-jJozpA:1669650885961&source=lnms&tbm=bks&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj1ktOfntH7AhUuKlkFHTiVAa0Q_AUoBHoECAIQBg&biw=819&bih=494&dpr=1.25">English source</a>). Still though, there is no meaningful reference. There is <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=PppUAAAAcAAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&dq=%22vox%20sola%20tot%20clamoribus%22&pg=RA6-PA117-IA1#v=onepage&q&f=false">a sixteenth century source</a> that predates Chemnitz by ten years (1581) that includes some important aspects of the quote:</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiR9-XI0UEyy3l_i45VHUp9mCEvaFSnzl1yX7g3ENUYMEAOhFUq9qWxefVfkTFaZJwjcFPquqOmIpCpELv90zOZ2mL757T1xZ6ogyslPKorntMVbytcchtBLOX37g-HJ0HhfZj2aF2G_SLbRoOzxDzH5UOGtJBg7Ot7ryXyFYWJQRemnYb5Hiw/s539/10%20years.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="91" data-original-width="539" height="108" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiR9-XI0UEyy3l_i45VHUp9mCEvaFSnzl1yX7g3ENUYMEAOhFUq9qWxefVfkTFaZJwjcFPquqOmIpCpELv90zOZ2mL757T1xZ6ogyslPKorntMVbytcchtBLOX37g-HJ0HhfZj2aF2G_SLbRoOzxDzH5UOGtJBg7Ot7ryXyFYWJQRemnYb5Hiw/w640-h108/10%20years.png" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div>Notice some striking similarities to the quote under scrutiny. First, the source is said to be "<i>Eccl </i>3." Second, some of the quote is exactly presented: "<i>vox Sola, tot clamoribus hoc seculo lapidata</i>." There are blatant dissimilarities as well. First, Luther is not mentioned. Second, the church fathers are not mentioned, but rather, Hilary of Poitiers is. If one searches the writings of Erasmus focusing on Hilary rather than Luther, significant clues are revealed. Note the following observations from <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=V6_oCQAAQBAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PA236&dq=%22despite%20clear%20disagreements%20with%20the%20reformers%22&pg=PA236#v=onepage&q&f=false">The Collected Works of Erasmus</a>: </div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-LQxx__nutlkK1Fv8Fw1aVjaG5He-14K_heTGpxaM2tzVSJP-OP__NIkfy4r_t4MwDcdfv2Zxw7Pg8F32jYFINUmXJKy50JN6E8t5sBv-sLH32GBwkDrubX_rqR_8XFClHqDB3RcO8pKGCHcKd86OSwXxwc3wR2PEYEAnbkIW2mEfu_yHQP0/s579/erasmus.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="254" data-original-width="579" height="175" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-LQxx__nutlkK1Fv8Fw1aVjaG5He-14K_heTGpxaM2tzVSJP-OP__NIkfy4r_t4MwDcdfv2Zxw7Pg8F32jYFINUmXJKy50JN6E8t5sBv-sLH32GBwkDrubX_rqR_8XFClHqDB3RcO8pKGCHcKd86OSwXxwc3wR2PEYEAnbkIW2mEfu_yHQP0/w400-h175/erasmus.png" width="400" /></a></div><br /><div>The author cites "book 3 CWE 68 967" for footnotes 828 and 829. "CWE 68" stands for "Collected Works of Erasmus." "book 3" refers to "The Evangelical Preacher, book one (Ecclesiates sive de ratione confitendi) (1535)." This appears to correspond to the reference given above by Tholuck (<i>De ratione conciondi 1.3)</i> On page 966-967, Erasmus states: </div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLh6p17Irw6G7aKT6oHzHz5ndqgyF-LAHe2aEQLDGOTH21Hmhzuk4v2Wm_Xa3Ny34sjiTFEF81DaWrTFl3a2-8rBhoRXTs-sXa8ujtM-xvVVxq84GA-ckOusHJ_3LWgs6BkV0dUTRgxDPee8UOcDN2sgPZM0YQrAD1O-IiJAb4kg1owFc8GrA/s489/erasmus%201.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="261" data-original-width="489" height="171" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLh6p17Irw6G7aKT6oHzHz5ndqgyF-LAHe2aEQLDGOTH21Hmhzuk4v2Wm_Xa3Ny34sjiTFEF81DaWrTFl3a2-8rBhoRXTs-sXa8ujtM-xvVVxq84GA-ckOusHJ_3LWgs6BkV0dUTRgxDPee8UOcDN2sgPZM0YQrAD1O-IiJAb4kg1owFc8GrA/s320/erasmus%201.png" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjv2vAmYtjhMhAkHuijQ9Daj6aglAPap9ri61-SLQr8qHFGleyzcsHljBnNtYqVfb3MNz261ZH9WwRp7Nd1Hss7_fc3hdwLxXD96Ve2s6G4ICN8EQC-YiSu6S98HrBJtOA5NxF79gCkVIgjELFiZnPY0jffzgUzByCD7iuv1qAZMvxzycpclGo/s487/erasmus%202.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="373" data-original-width="487" height="245" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjv2vAmYtjhMhAkHuijQ9Daj6aglAPap9ri61-SLQr8qHFGleyzcsHljBnNtYqVfb3MNz261ZH9WwRp7Nd1Hss7_fc3hdwLxXD96Ve2s6G4ICN8EQC-YiSu6S98HrBJtOA5NxF79gCkVIgjELFiZnPY0jffzgUzByCD7iuv1qAZMvxzycpclGo/s320/erasmus%202.png" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div>Interestingly, footnote 1399 states, "<i>Erasmus is no doubt alluding to Martin Luther and the central theological issue of the Reformation, justification by faith alone (sola fides)</i>."<br /> </div><br /><div><b>Conclusion</b></div><div>I think it's probable to say that "book 3 CWE 68 967" (expounded above) is the original source of the quote eventually used by Hodge and others. I'm uncertain who added "<i>hoc saeculo in Luthero"</i> to the quote. Erasmus penned his original words in 1535. Martin Chemnitz was the first I could locate adding Luther to the citation (1591). Was it Chemnitz? I don't know. If it was, his basic crime would be adding explicit meaning to what Erasmus was probably implying (i.e., Luther) and changing Hilary to "fathers." Also, the context of the comment from Erasmus was not an exegetical exposition of Romans 3:28, but rather, a passing comment made on Matthew 9:6. What I find most interesting is that if Erasmus had Luther in mind, he penned these words about a decade after his harsh battle with Luther. I find that amazing: Erasmus was able to get beyond his personal encounter with Luther and still defend his translation of including "alone"... in a roundabout way. </div><div><br /></div><div><b>Addendum</b></div><div> </div><div><a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=YMZwEAAAQBAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PT82&dq=Erasmus%20%22faith%20alone%22&pg=PT82#v=onepage&q&f=false">D.A. Carson</a> posits the early Erasmus agreed with Luther in some sense about "faith alone." </div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqBjcdOYjUPuVjkiZTb5I1Cg4s98QaAdfEWdS9cpS_-MT4g7O5pburLHQvAEqnwbi7DUc7ASlmZPRzGELWCQXQbmynk3ward8eRsHsOlWL0y-8KtdtIvGv6Djjx5AqAO4LLE8cs5GSO6RkbnCKhaVEqg0rEFiiS1aFmZl1oLQcmDGjltNrzCo/s583/da%20carson.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="242" data-original-width="583" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqBjcdOYjUPuVjkiZTb5I1Cg4s98QaAdfEWdS9cpS_-MT4g7O5pburLHQvAEqnwbi7DUc7ASlmZPRzGELWCQXQbmynk3ward8eRsHsOlWL0y-8KtdtIvGv6Djjx5AqAO4LLE8cs5GSO6RkbnCKhaVEqg0rEFiiS1aFmZl1oLQcmDGjltNrzCo/w640-h266/da%20carson.png" width="640" /></a></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div><p></p></div></div>James Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-38032537064870564792022-11-23T10:42:00.001-05:002022-11-23T10:42:55.258-05:00Debunked Luther: No One Can Give Himself Faith, It is a Gift of God"Here's a Martin Luther quote found on a Facebook page dedicated to <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/ComeOutMyPeople/posts/10160288404339168/?__cft__[0]=AZUyLhFCJXcWconN_-p8ja1MVLvJYtqTEfWJSA-Qh_5S4WfPv2zOftyw1o1z5Ic2Ra8iTEIMxbh-Mq8cYymOReXHPX5oczTtxq5-tAE7_9ebPP4m3wpd6BaUD4IxyjDIDX_1ilhoqQhkHpDpaTjo2vOm_b4LkQkS6PpIlPjUM-pJ_nHUKDZIk92InTMa69R_glATe2bXq7ZvBo_bpwEr6FwN&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R">Martin Luther and the Reformation</a> (shared from another <a href="https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=pfbid0Fm9U6F2KXaygA9riwZxkRnuRzfgKvEDke53SGsA847FvogcRuW18AWbVgV25TbkRl&id=100009124806140&__cft__[0]=AZU67autrqjVd361k1vqffssGB3Tjo2jPzeRpZ5HW5v2t41N2W6Emjze0lcafy_ifq9KM2WcGm53yjjDPzCcWYCHm9HFxmUR-OB4W536LD16GPTcOS7GgIDtw3ENUVUU-ro&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R">FB page</a>)-<div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRAG6zoSK3VwbBCfd-OGWHaoS1U_4ckw1ASM-l1Nz0QPk_lZPDXytgECCmj6vdhak4eIHVU1P2d0egOuMHJrV3OBiEPljq_TE097QG9F3eqPw0kty2JszU_ycMeqI7n1Nq0IxYCTP8TI9I2uF9yIIezjxEaHESNw1vDEoxg3HWmyB8A4MgQ1s/s526/faith%20is.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="526" data-original-width="526" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRAG6zoSK3VwbBCfd-OGWHaoS1U_4ckw1ASM-l1Nz0QPk_lZPDXytgECCmj6vdhak4eIHVU1P2d0egOuMHJrV3OBiEPljq_TE097QG9F3eqPw0kty2JszU_ycMeqI7n1Nq0IxYCTP8TI9I2uF9yIIezjxEaHESNw1vDEoxg3HWmyB8A4MgQ1s/s320/faith%20is.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />Is this something Martin Luther wrote? I don't think so. Is it something he believed? Yes. <div><br /></div><div><b>Documentation</b></div><div>From a cursory search, I found no instances of the exact "<i>no one can give himself faith, it is a gift of God</i>" attributed meaningfully to Luther. The exact form of the quote though can be found in the writings of Soren Kierkegaard. In his <a href="https://archive.org/details/srenkierkegaards0004kier/page/352/mode/1up?view=theater">Journals and Notebooks</a> he states, </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1RCnJMlIK4-IP54e3SbBRqBCfaw_yun75vDmldXNTCL6xya6uRMcgpXWsu8ecEr9j8lDP_ev1YOOMzUAFsL-NYsUnAKuqoRgTSaowywzyc2lXDWdgev4vXC8WYdpoxiDmNgCfG3iFUxomqFXf8SN-mMoVvbQxUQPShftGWFQYmTtRRGLLSe0/s500/kierk.png"><img border="0" data-original-height="493" data-original-width="500" height="395" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1RCnJMlIK4-IP54e3SbBRqBCfaw_yun75vDmldXNTCL6xya6uRMcgpXWsu8ecEr9j8lDP_ev1YOOMzUAFsL-NYsUnAKuqoRgTSaowywzyc2lXDWdgev4vXC8WYdpoxiDmNgCfG3iFUxomqFXf8SN-mMoVvbQxUQPShftGWFQYmTtRRGLLSe0/w400-h395/kierk.png" width="400" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div><div><b>Conclusion</b></div><div>It's within the realm of possibility that some sort of English Luther quote in this exact form exists, but I did not locate anything in this exact English form meaningfully attributed to Luther. If the quote was taken from Kierkegard "<i>But no one can give himself faith, it is a gift of God I must pray for,</i>" notice the addition of the words, "<i>I must pray for</i>." In the context of Kierkegaard's remarks. he makes a concession that salvation has an aspect of human contribution. Kierkegaard follows up the comment by asking: is the desire to pray for faith also a gift of God? His point is that in some sense there must be a place for human contribution in salvation, however small, if not, the conclusion is "<i>fatalistic election</i>." </div><div><br /></div><div>Would Luther agree with Kierkegard? Granted, they were from different time periods with different concerns, however, I think Luther would oppose Kierkegard on the point. In his <a href="https://pages.uoregon.edu/dluebke/Reformations441/LutherPrefaceRomans.html">Preface to Romans</a> (cf. LW 35:371), Luther states: </div><blockquote>Faith is a work of God in us, which changes us and brings us to birth anew from God (cf. John 1). It kills the old Adam, makes us completely different people in heart, mind, senses, and all our powers, and brings the Holy Spirit with it. What a living, creative, active powerful thing is faith! It is impossible that faith ever stop doing good. Faith doesn't ask whether good works are to be done, but, before it is asked, it has done them. It is always active. Whoever doesn't do such works is without faith; he gropes and searches about him for faith and good works but doesn't know what faith or good works are. Even so, he chatters on with a great many words about faith and good works.</blockquote><blockquote>Faith is a living, unshakeable confidence in God's grace; it is so certain, that someone would die a thousand times for it. This kind of trust in and knowledge of God's grace makes a person joyful, confident, and happy with regard to God and all creatures. This is what the Holy Spirit does by faith. Through faith, a person will do good to everyone without coercion, willingly and happily; he will serve everyone, suffer everything for the love and praise of God, who has shown him such grace. It is as impossible to separate works from faith as burning and shining from fire. Therefore be on guard against your own false ideas and against the chatterers who think they are clever enough to make judgements about faith and good works but who are in reality the biggest fools. Ask God to work faith in you; otherwise you will remain eternally without faith, no matter what you try to do or fabricate.</blockquote><blockquote>Now justice is just such a faith. It is called God's justice or that justice which is valid in God's sight, because it is God who gives it and reckons it as justice for the sake of Christ our Mediator. It influences a person to give to everyone what he owes him. Through faith a person becomes sinless and eager for God's commands. Thus he gives God the honor due him and pays him what he owes him. He serves people willingly with the means available to him. In this way he pays everyone his due. Neither nature nor free will nor our own powers can bring about such a justice, for even as<b> no one can give himself faith</b>, so too he cannot remove unbelief. How can he then take away even the smallest sin? Therefore everything which takes place outside faith or in unbelief is lie, hypocrisy and sin (Romans 14), no matter how smoothly it may seem to go.</blockquote><div>From these paragraphs, it is possible to extrapolate the sentiment that faith is a gift of God. Some years back I did an entry on <a href="https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2012/03/did-luther-believe-faith-is-gift-of-god.html">Luther believing faith is the gift of God</a>. </div><div><br /></div>James Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-22979757578619201522022-11-06T15:27:00.006-05:002022-11-06T15:38:30.079-05:00Debunked Luther "I sin continually. But Christ has died, and forever lives, as my redeemer, priest, advocate, and King."<p>Here's a Martin Luther quote I came across on a Facebook page dedicated to <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/ComeOutMyPeople">Martin Luther and the Reformation</a> cut-and-pasted from a <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/MacArthur.111/posts/6257407530941948/">John MacArthur appreciation page</a>. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqn-At1-xpxFGQGNDgd1RlInVbPrCX1kYmMhAPGw5ZIjfh-XtIYlLznegjjC46vQNIZhPqHPxOdaR1dTaDEcsgQK6O53K4EtF1qD_oLanpXipVs5bsNZyZQnkyJAIxNWkCnHblEf446cJfhbi_O18Scp3uePxFyYQyQ40IG1990nuR4wdvYvk/s526/trueman.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="526" data-original-width="526" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqn-At1-xpxFGQGNDgd1RlInVbPrCX1kYmMhAPGw5ZIjfh-XtIYlLznegjjC46vQNIZhPqHPxOdaR1dTaDEcsgQK6O53K4EtF1qD_oLanpXipVs5bsNZyZQnkyJAIxNWkCnHblEf446cJfhbi_O18Scp3uePxFyYQyQ40IG1990nuR4wdvYvk/s320/trueman.jpg" width="320" /></a></div> <p></p><p>Is this something Martin Luther wrote? No!</p><b><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjipfQO3IVkanl6IoPvb0blzGwy5mz2Vvx9uIHz2pSw1STovUM4to1wRxLP64Gu2rEEgUjXhlpPYCmA4bDWG9LsyWrQymCjnQBbrOUqeX1YSrz7zWeHfvjLXuMp6aBBNxfD33PJywMUBNoinhaNAUfa8AZo7fXWWWhFa--kWr457IkEcwdBDcY/s777/trueman2.png" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="777" data-original-width="421" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjipfQO3IVkanl6IoPvb0blzGwy5mz2Vvx9uIHz2pSw1STovUM4to1wRxLP64Gu2rEEgUjXhlpPYCmA4bDWG9LsyWrQymCjnQBbrOUqeX1YSrz7zWeHfvjLXuMp6aBBNxfD33PJywMUBNoinhaNAUfa8AZo7fXWWWhFa--kWr457IkEcwdBDcY/s320/trueman2.png" width="173" /></a></div><br />Documentation</b><div>The quote in the picture above is said to come from "<i>Luther on the Christian Life by Carl Trueman</i>." Whoever concocted this picture probably had this book by Carl Trueman in mind: <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=gYKXBQAAQBAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PP1&dq=luther%20on%20the%20Christian%20life%20by%20Carl%20Trueman&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false">Luther on the Christian Life</a>. I do not own this book. Relying solely on the Google Books text search and Amazon's "<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Luther-Christian-Life-Cross-Freedom/dp/143352502X?asin=143352502X&revisionId=&format=4&depth=1">Look Inside</a>" text search of the book<span style="color: #0000ee;"><u>,</u></span> I did not find any trace of the quote. Perhaps whoever created this text and picture wanted only to document the picture used? Notice, the background picture of the quote is the exact front cover of Trueman's book. <br /><p>A cursory Google search of this quote reveals rather quickly who wrote it originally: John Newton. I found the quote in a book from Newton entitled, <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=lL9jAAAAcAAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q&f=false">Twenty-five Letters, Hitherto Unpublished</a>. The quote appears in a letter written March 17, 1757. The quote <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=lL9jAAAAcAAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&dq=%22I%20sin%20continually%20but%20Christ%20has%20died%22&pg=PA20#v=onepage&q&f=false">is found here</a>.</p><p><br /></p><b>Context</b></div><blockquote>What could have been done for me that the Lord has not done? yet still I am a cumberer of the ground; I am, by grace, kept from such sins as would dishonour my calling openly, and stumble my brethren, but the wickedness of my heart is amazing. I may especially mention three sins most unsuitable to men in general, but still more to believers, and, above all believers, most unsuitable to me, I mean pride, ingratitude, and insensibility. The instances in which the two former discover themselves are more in number than the hairs of my head; yet I am so much under the power of the third, that, for the most part, I sit still as if nothing were the matter. Thus much for the dark side. Blessed be God, amidst so many causes of mourning in myself, it is still my duty and my privilege to rejoice in the Lord: in him I have righteousness and strength, pardon and peace. I have sinned—<b>I sin continually</b>— <b>but Christ has died, and forever lives, as my Redeemer, Priest, Advocate, and King.</b> And though my transgressions and corruptions, my temptations and my enemies, are very many and very prevalent, the Lord, in whom I trust, is more and mightier than all that is against me. From this consideration I would adopt your inference, “What manner of persons ought we to be in all holy conversation and godliness?" It is to be lamented that any persons should so mistake the doctrine of free unchangeable grace, as to imagine it has a tendency to introduce licentiousness; but much more to be lamented, if a real believer should give occasion to such a reproach by his remiss, careless, or worldly behaviour. I hope I do in my heart detest and abhor the thought of continuing in sin, that grace may abound, but I fear my practice condemns me of it; for sure there are many who are not favoured with such a view of God's unchangeable love as I am, who walk in heaviness, and darkness, and fear, and yet are more zealous, humble, and sensible, more abounding in good works, more impressed with a sense of sin, and more careful in redeeming time than I am. My path lies between two dangerous extremes legality and presumption; and I am continually inclined to one or the other, according to the difference of my frames. Thus I am made up of contradictions.</blockquote><div><b>Conclusion</b></div><div>Luther did not write this quote, nor did Carl Trueman attribute the quote to Martin Luther in his book, <i>Luther on the Christian Life</i>. An immediate tip off that Luther didn't write it is that he did not use the phrase<i> prophet, priest, and king</i> in regard to Jesus Christ. Most often, the phrase is attributed to Eusebius and then popularized by John Calvin. In his book, <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=gYKXBQAAQBAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PP1&dq=luther%20on%20the%20Christian%20life%20by%20Carl%20Trueman&pg=PP1#v=snippet&q=%22prophet%2C%20priest%22&f=false">Carl Trueman points out</a>, </div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgrjSkJBmX_qLaZ4V-SLN-PEGBnStQ7MB2CuUDjJbBhSKEXjlfEnhQUPSPZozCyW3lud6YuXktutd2qKWRvHft80XcHykvD2T1M2ZHB0SR4TkRhVpXdyGrBSHiUmkAxKqEOwmnNigZLrGIjFgb1g5kt_1pcXFbN7hqZ7s42rcFqNcabgGXIdo/s401/prophet.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="164" data-original-width="401" height="164" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgrjSkJBmX_qLaZ4V-SLN-PEGBnStQ7MB2CuUDjJbBhSKEXjlfEnhQUPSPZozCyW3lud6YuXktutd2qKWRvHft80XcHykvD2T1M2ZHB0SR4TkRhVpXdyGrBSHiUmkAxKqEOwmnNigZLrGIjFgb1g5kt_1pcXFbN7hqZ7s42rcFqNcabgGXIdo/w400-h164/prophet.png" width="400" /></a></div><div>Trueman cites LW 31: 353-354. There Luther does affirm Christ as priest and king. Luther says, "<i>Now just as Christ by his birthright obtained these two prerogatives, so he imparts them to and shares them with everyone who believes in him... Hence all of us who believe in Christ are priests and kings in Christ, as 1 Pet. 2[:9] says; “You are a chosen race, God’s own people, a royal priesthood, a priestly kingdom, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light</i>" (LW 31:354). In my cursory search, I did not come across any instances of Luther referring to Jesus as "prophet" in the sense of the way it's used in "prophet, priest, and king." Did he ever do it? I don't know. </div><div><br /></div><div>A ridiculous aspect of this quote has to do with people I attempted to interact with that posted it. On both Facebook pages, I pointed out Luther did not write it. On the <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/ComeOutMyPeople/posts/10160249938024168/?__cft__[0]=AZXkQx3-8Tf4i1-y1uK-xVVWoRsbh5TMFEx2ne8pcd-SSvKFwyW_jDldAkW9Wm3Eamn9mS-HeSt0abkK-bF7_NUsxqLsVjW-bUqu3nfZWfvdy8LMXewLOCAr1u1fHif4OACYR8FCOWmemmQWxdFCFMgMZDey5NInSdeCtxmf7U8KM5QOq6_iE07Jflu_cLNBHUl862F6ZjWvQkhw22acvHkUHlXXhJ12vz-p3LODSqqgtQ&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R">Martin Luther and the Reformation</a> Facebook page, I left <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/ComeOutMyPeople/posts/10160249938024168/?comment_id=10160250972839168&__cft__[0]=AZXkQx3-8Tf4i1-y1uK-xVVWoRsbh5TMFEx2ne8pcd-SSvKFwyW_jDldAkW9Wm3Eamn9mS-HeSt0abkK-bF7_NUsxqLsVjW-bUqu3nfZWfvdy8LMXewLOCAr1u1fHif4OACYR8FCOWmemmQWxdFCFMgMZDey5NInSdeCtxmf7U8KM5QOq6_iE07Jflu_cLNBHUl862F6ZjWvQkhw22acvHkUHlXXhJ12vz-p3LODSqqgtQ&__tn__=R]-R">a brief comment</a> that Newton wrote it... which garnered no response. On the<a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/MacArthur.111/posts/6257407530941948/"> John MacArthur Appreciation</a> page, the comment I left was not allowed to be posted. The quote is no less true because Luther did not write it! </div>James Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-16081759146337466502022-10-22T01:24:00.000-04:002022-10-22T01:24:26.592-04:00Debunked Luther: "If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at the moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. "<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4q4DimVQsRh8SfnPbfjEEMdEEc3qiM3qfOG8GQNea8cvpBLeGNMpV0_4AJzIYnQfZdlaoRs7izzHi7pYLYfOTmGTJfOmp2FgAXopXTZpL4I0AbVove4IgJyL1n93u3U-GXVE6cbmJDzTEs-nJR-i45D6-I9Iy6OX4dK20hSoQRsNe2M5OZwY/s866/profess.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="866" data-original-width="500" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4q4DimVQsRh8SfnPbfjEEMdEEc3qiM3qfOG8GQNea8cvpBLeGNMpV0_4AJzIYnQfZdlaoRs7izzHi7pYLYfOTmGTJfOmp2FgAXopXTZpL4I0AbVove4IgJyL1n93u3U-GXVE6cbmJDzTEs-nJR-i45D6-I9Iy6OX4dK20hSoQRsNe2M5OZwY/s320/profess.png" width="185" /></a></div><br /><p>This quote has been debunked before. It strongly appears to be something Martin Luther never wrote. See Denny Burk's old treatment <a href="https://www.dennyburk.com/the-apocryphal-martin-luther/">here</a>, see also that put forth by <a href="https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/5-quotes-that-luther-didnt-actually-say/">The Gospel Coalition</a>. <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20140601222215/http://acroamaticus.blogspot.com.au/2009/11/luther-quote-that-wasnt.html">This link</a> (as far as I can tell) is now only publicly available via the Internet Archive, but its essence is captured <a href="https://creation.com/battle-quote-not-luther">here</a>. Let's give this quote a fresh look. Exactly where does this quote come from? </p><b>Documentation</b><div>Most documentation (if any) refers to other sources citing the quote. This is typical (it is akin to saying, "<i>Don't blame me, I got it from this source.... blame them!</i>"). Perhaps the most well-known person to cite the quote was <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=4Ninsl_6LLoC&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PA122&dq=%22If%20I%20profess%20with%20the%20loudest%20voice%22&pg=PA122#v=onepage&q&f=false">Dr. </a><span style="color: #0000ee;"><u>Francis Schaeffer,</u></span> but linking Luther to this quote goes at least as far back as <a href="https://archive.org/details/sim_sunday-school-times_1945-01-20_87_3/page/4/mode/1up?q=%22If+I+profess+with+the+loudest+voice%22&view=theater">1945</a>. It is simply amazing <a href="https://archive.org/search.php?query=%22If+I+profess+with+the+loudest+voice%22&sin=TXT&page=2">how many publications</a> have haphazardly utilized this quote. A primary source is sometimes mentioned: <a href="https://archive.org/details/werkekritischege0003luth/page/81/mode/1up?view=theater">WA (BR) 3:81-82</a>. This 1523 letter from Luther to Albrecht of Mansfield contains some similar sentiment but does not capture the full quote. </div><div><br /></div><div>The earliest use that has been located is in a nineteenth century book entitled, <i>Chronicles of the Schönberg-Cotta Family</i> (sometimes known as, <i>Our Neighbor Maritn Luther</i> or, <i>Luther by Those Who Knew Him</i>). The book is a historical novel, or more precisely, "historical fiction" about the life of Martin Luther written by <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=FdbXSdp-j9QC&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&ppis=_e&lpg=PP1&dq=taylor%20and%20Choi%2C%20Handbook&pg=PT256#v=onepage&q&f=false">Elizabeth Rundle Charles</a>. This author fictionally "<i>examined the life and personal influence of the young Martin Luther on the family of his printer.</i>" According to the reviews I've read of Rundle-Charles, she was a prolific author, her Luther novel though being her most popular book. Some years back I found a copy of it in a pile of disorganized books in an antique store. Her book apparently was popular enough that cheap copies are still laying around in junk stores. My copy states the following just previous to the contents page:</div><blockquote>The portions of these Chronicles which refer to Luther, Melancthon, Frederic of Saxony, and other historical persons, can be verified from Luther’s “Tischreden;” Luther’s “Briefe, Sendschreiben und Bedenken;” edited by De Wette; the four volumes called, “Geist aus Luther's Schriften,” edited by F. W. Lomler, C. F. Lucius, Dr. T. Rust, L. Sackreuter, and Dr. Ernst Zimmermann; Tutschmann’s “Friedrich der Weise;” the “History of the Reformation,” by Ranke; and that by D'Aubigné; with the ordinary English historical works relating to the period.</blockquote><div>I don't question that Rundle-Charles actually read these sources and utilized them for her fictional Luther account. <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=FdbXSdp-j9QC&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&ppis=_e&lpg=PP1&dq=taylor%20and%20Choi%2C%20Handbook&pg=PT256#v=onepage&q&f=false">One biography</a> says Rundle-Charles was instructed in "<i>numerous languages</i>" so perhaps she really did utilize these sources for her Luther citations. It's within the realm of possibility that her fictional Luther quotes accurately represent Luther. </div><div><br /></div><div><b>Context</b></div><div>Rundle-Charles presented fictional stories of fictional people who knew Luther. The story the quote occurs in is that of <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=AkcmAAAAMAAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&dq=%22If%20I%20profess%20with%20the%20loudest%20voice%22&pg=PA274#v=onepage&q&f=true">Fritz, a monk at the monastery in Eisenach</a>. She dates his story, April 2,1526. Fritz is presented as a zealous Luther supporter. Fritz finds himself among those who think with severe and hostile negativity towards Luther. He finds himself at an anti-Luther service "<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=AkcmAAAAMAAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&dq=%22If%20I%20profess%20with%20the%20loudest%20voice%22&pg=PA274#v=onepage&q&f=true">accidentally</a>." After the service, he returns to his "convent." <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=AkcmAAAAMAAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&dq=%22If%20I%20profess%20with%20the%20loudest%20voice%22&pg=PA275#v=onepage&q&f=true">He writes</a>, </div><div><div class="flow" style="margin: 0px;"><div class="gtxt_body"></div><blockquote><div class="gtxt_body">Mournfully I returned to my convent. In the cloisters of our Order the opinions concerning Luther are much divided. The writings of St. Augustine have kept the truth alive in many hearts amongst us; and besides this, there is the natural bias to one of our own order, and the party opposition to the Dominicans, Tetzel and Eck, Dr. Luther's enemies. Probably there are few Augustinian convents in which there are not two opposite parties in reference to Dr. Luther.</div><div class="gtxt_body"></div></blockquote><div class="gtxt_body"><blockquote>In speaking of the great truths, of God freely justifying the sinner because Christ died, (the Judge acquitting because the Judge himself had suffered for the guilty), I had endeavoured to trace them, as I have said, beyond all human words to their divine authority. But now to confess Luther seemed to me to have become identical with confessing Christ. It is the truth which is assailed in any age which tests our fidelity. It is to confess we are called, not merely to profess.<b> If I profess, with the loudest voice and the clearest exposition, every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christianity. Where the battle rages the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battlefield besides is mere flight and disgrace to him if he flinches at that one point.</b></blockquote></div></div><div class="flow" style="margin: 0px;"><blockquote>It seems to me also that, practically, the contest in every age of conflict ranges usually round the person of one faithful, Godsent man, whom to follow loyally is fidelity to God. In the days of the first Judaizing assault on the early Church, that man was St. Paul. In the great Arian battle, this man was Athanasius—" Athanasius contra mundum.” In our days, in our land, I believe it is Luther; and to deny Luther would be for me who learned the truth from his lips, to deny Christ. Luther, I believe, is the man whom God has given to his Church in Germany in this age. Luther, therefore, I will follow-not as a perfect example, but as a God-appointed leader. Men can never be neutral in great religious contests; and if, because of the little wrong in the right cause, or the little evil in the good man, we refuse to take the side of right, we are, by that very act, silently taking the side of wrong.</blockquote></div></div><div>Fictional Fritz goes on to tell of his persecutions for being a follower of Luther. "<i>When I came back to the convent I found the storm gathering. I was asked if I possessed any of Dr. Luther's writings. I confessed that I did. It was demanded that they should be given up</i>... <i>one of the older monks came to me and accused me of secretly spreading Lutheran heresy among the brethren..</i>. <i>The next day I was taken into the prison where John of Wesel died; the heavy bolts were drawn upon me, and I was left in solitude</i>." After multiple weeks in prison, he escaped. He ended up meeting Luther on his way to Worms, and thus the tale continues showering accolades on Luther from the perspective of Fritz, an enthusiastic supporter. </div><div><br /></div><div><b>Conclusion</b></div><div>It would be interesting to know exactly what Elizabeth Rundle-Charles had in mind from Luther when she penned the quote. In context though, Rundle-Charles does not attribute the quote to Luther, but rather to her fictional character Fritz. Therefore, not only are people attributing a quote to Luther that he never wrote, but the actual "person" who made the comment is a fictional character!</div><div><br /></div><div>Unlike some of the kinder earlier treatments debunking this quote, I find it appalling how many people have utilized the quote unchecked in published works. Published books typically are intended to generate income... for someone! For anyone using this quote in a published book intended to generate income in the last ten or fifteen years, there isn't a meaningful excuse: a simple Google search reveals the <i>Chronicles of the Schönberg-Cotta Family,</i> easily. </div>James Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-32353115625267816152022-10-18T18:17:00.020-04:002022-10-22T01:00:38.514-04:00Debunked Luther: "For feelings come and feelings go, and feelings are deceiving; My warrant is the Word of God, Nought else is worth believing..."<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3DQGCQStI7nGMwpeEssdwWitSwdErUMEFlezsgmzRrfEojfaUGzExzwg0W3rh-Z8lZjxWV_dXMaldVua0vDS5EqTERC193iKImjfzGvQkOMByCjEZSrh4AHiBTdoc3IOTvP760darAu-SSJ5kDCW52UT7mnWGEv_4cYLsziKYO26urFTh408/s526/poem%20by%20luther.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="518" data-original-width="526" height="315" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3DQGCQStI7nGMwpeEssdwWitSwdErUMEFlezsgmzRrfEojfaUGzExzwg0W3rh-Z8lZjxWV_dXMaldVua0vDS5EqTERC193iKImjfzGvQkOMByCjEZSrh4AHiBTdoc3IOTvP760darAu-SSJ5kDCW52UT7mnWGEv_4cYLsziKYO26urFTh408/s320/poem%20by%20luther.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2015/06/luther-for-feelings-come-and-feelings.html" style="text-align: left;">Back in 2015</a><span style="text-align: left;"> I looked at a poem attributed to Martin Luther. I have since determined its probable origin. Based on my findings presented below, I do not believe this poem was written by Luther:</span></div><div></div><blockquote><div>"For feelings come and feelings go, and feelings are deceiving;</div><div>My warrant is the Word of God, Nought else is worth believing.</div><div>Though all my heart should feel condemned, For want of some sweet token,</div><div>There is One greater than my heart, Whose Word cannot be broken.</div><div>I'll trust in God's unchanging Word, ‘till soul and body sever;</div><div>For though all things shall pass away, His Word shall stand forever."~(Martin Luther)</div></blockquote><div></div><div><a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=%22For+feelings+come+and+feelings+go%2C+and+feelings+are+deceiving%22&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS603US603&oq=%22For+feelings+come+and+feelings+go%2C+and+feelings+are+deceiving%22&aqs=chrome..69i57.3584j0j8&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8">A quick Google search</a> reveals how far this quote has traveled, and <a href="https://archive.org/search.php?query=%22feelings+come+and+feelings+go%22&sin=TXT&page=3">a text search of the Internet Archive</a> shows extensive use. A<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=%22For+feelings+come+and+feelings+go,+and+feelings+are+deceiving%22&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS603US603&sxsrf=ALiCzsbqk5cmrtuzZ_6wKQPe-w3qw3AcQA:1666149944170&source=lnms&tbm=bks&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj98sGcrOv6AhXvD1kFHdpzDeQQ_AUoA3oECAQQBQ&cshid=1666149976295904&biw=1536&bih=743&dpr=1.25"> Google Books search</a> demonstrates how often it has been published, particularly in the 21st century. Well-known names have cited it: Norman Geisler used a snippet of it in his book, <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=QbRPdxQme1MC&lpg=PT59&dq=%22feelings%20come%20and%20feelings%20go%2C%20and%20feelings%20are%20deceiving%22%20geisler&pg=PT59#v=onepage&q=%22feelings%20come%20and%20feelings%20go,%20and%20feelings%20are%20deceiving%22%20geisler&f=false">Christian Apologetics</a>. <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=_v4e4YUz5kAC&lpg=PA185&dq=%22feelings%20come%20and%20feelings%20go%22%20begg&pg=PA185#v=onepage&q=%22feelings%20come%20and%20feelings%20go%22%20begg&f=false">Alistair Begg</a> published it. <a href="https://archive.org/details/knowingwholetrut0000kenn/page/164/mode/1up?view=theater">D. James Kennedy's</a> 1985 book refers to a portion of it. </div><div><br /></div><div>The words of this poem are sometimes cited as a hymn: <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20170320015530/https://digitalsongsandhymns.com/songs/5096">God's Word Shall Stand Forever</a>, "<i>attributed to Luther.</i>" Since I first wrote about this poem in 2015, I've noticed many more links to it being a hymn / song. See for instance the incorporation of the poem into a song, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWJ2dIrrrmo">here</a> and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iyqv25fQJi4">here</a>. The musical arrangement appears to be by someone named Faye Lopez. </div><div><div><br /></div><div><b>Documentation</b><br />Most often, "Martin Luther" is cited as the author of this poem. Careful people have cited, "attributed to Martin Luther." Neither of these are helpful in locating the source! After searching multiple uses of the poem through the decades, the oldest use I could locate <a href="https://archive.org/details/sim_sunday-school-times_1929-07-13_71_28/mode/2up?view=theater">is from 1929</a>. Interestingly, an author other than Luther is cited, "W.M. Czamanske." I believe he is the author of this poem.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzDmhMxcPx1bivnoYKZn-CtwAaZCJXuzvCI2m4OFNF2AVcR7kJmlMnKnmuC1Q96IlNtzw06YXl0ZYaoq88PgNmLU3Y9MzeamPT-H46cprtY03bUtMYlzyuUxQZ2dsLyCaAd8ZQy7owD074v2eGUFKDFxs4k4_nd7rO02YdneOLSWuchqEK4WA/s359/cramanske.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="359" data-original-width="335" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzDmhMxcPx1bivnoYKZn-CtwAaZCJXuzvCI2m4OFNF2AVcR7kJmlMnKnmuC1Q96IlNtzw06YXl0ZYaoq88PgNmLU3Y9MzeamPT-H46cprtY03bUtMYlzyuUxQZ2dsLyCaAd8ZQy7owD074v2eGUFKDFxs4k4_nd7rO02YdneOLSWuchqEK4WA/s320/cramanske.png" width="299" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div><div>Who was he? Was he the W.M. Czamanske the Lutheran minister mentioned <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=6FBQAQAAMAAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&dq=W.M.%20Czamanske&pg=RA5-PA4#v=onepage&q&f=false">here</a>? It appears he had a knack for poetry. <a href="https://archive.org/details/sundayschooltime0088unse/page/668/mode/2up?view=theater">In this periodical</a>, he presents another rhyming Luther poem: </div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgApUri2gHiFzXfx77hYgZ8IP0dGn9AsZQim5ADWrTPJaBMWXqXBhjjlVy-Nta09aR0vLPvkpwNxcOOAMJIx-yq-rOlsrs8naHG22Q6ZK-FGTr8vQBIMiBkINGggK8qui7qlx_Yn6btBjsBjCD09pw0_ZVg0mE2fWgSx4LrzzLnIPo3pQUS6qk/s361/czam.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="361" data-original-width="292" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgApUri2gHiFzXfx77hYgZ8IP0dGn9AsZQim5ADWrTPJaBMWXqXBhjjlVy-Nta09aR0vLPvkpwNxcOOAMJIx-yq-rOlsrs8naHG22Q6ZK-FGTr8vQBIMiBkINGggK8qui7qlx_Yn6btBjsBjCD09pw0_ZVg0mE2fWgSx4LrzzLnIPo3pQUS6qk/s320/czam.png" width="259" /></a></div><br /><div>In the same magazine, <a href="https://archive.org/details/sundayschooltime0088unse/page/352/mode/2up?view=theater&q=czamanske">he offers a number of poems</a>. There was also a Wm. Czamanske that <a href="https://hymnary.org/person/Czamanske_WM">authored a number of hymns</a>. Was this the same person? <a href="https://blc.edu/comm/gargy/gargy1/elh.biographies.abcd.html">The Evangelical Lutheran Hymnary Handbook</a> states,<br /></div><div><blockquote><p class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; font-family: Times; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0.25in;"><b>Czamanske, William Martin, 1873-1964</b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; font-family: Times; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0.25in;">CZAMANSKE, William Martin (1873- ), was born August 26, 1873, at Granville, Wisconsin. He was graduated from Concordia College, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in 1894, and from Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, in 1898. Ordained and installed as pastor July 31, 1898, he served successively Lutheran churches, near Madelia, Minnesota, 1898-1902; West Henrietta, New York, 1902-1904; Rochester, New York, 1904 to 1910; and Sheboygan, Wisconsin, 1910-1951, when he entered retirement. He has contributed poems to the <i>Lutheran Witness, Sunday School Times, Etude, Expositor, Northwestern Lutheran, </i>and other church publications. He served as member of a subcommittee of the Committee on Hymnology and Liturgics for the Synodical Conference of North America, which edited <i>The Lutheran Hymnal.</i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; font-family: Times; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0.25in;"><b>tr. 186, 392</b></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; font-family: Times; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0.25in;"><b></b></p></div><div>The periodical the poem originally appeared in (cited above) was The <i>Sunday School Times</i>. From this early use from the <i>Sunday School Times</i>, the quote begins to multiply. For instance, in <a href="https://archive.org/details/sim_sunday-school-times_1939-12-30_81_52/page/961/mode/1up?view=theater">1939</a>, we find the following:</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZmeEDNMVxIAuRrajxDvXYe7oONmz9gtS5ydF704pDMkiVmAo14GfGhnpfdHHCuCNOaownafmGphBg2Q5xezujND1RWQ8RWI9k18XvIPcEu226SDdSDgtCduRYTTGKcMdCxMKk5TV9GencgtPfmLXzUwv30RUdOftsuPvrMXVWqKY7epPmf1c/s240/not%20dependent.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="164" data-original-width="240" height="164" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZmeEDNMVxIAuRrajxDvXYe7oONmz9gtS5ydF704pDMkiVmAo14GfGhnpfdHHCuCNOaownafmGphBg2Q5xezujND1RWQ8RWI9k18XvIPcEu226SDdSDgtCduRYTTGKcMdCxMKk5TV9GencgtPfmLXzUwv30RUdOftsuPvrMXVWqKY7epPmf1c/s1600/not%20dependent.png" width="240" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div><div>The poem continues to be cited through the decades. It would be interesting to see the full version of <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=mMQTAAAAIAAJ&q=%22feelings+come+and+feelings+go%22+Luther&dq=%22feelings+come+and+feelings+go%22+Luther&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sm2PVdSTFIH6-AH8lKDoCw&ved=0CEcQ6AEwCDgK">this snippet view from the 1943 Lutheran Witness</a> to see if Czamanske submitted it. Note this shorter version <a href="https://archive.org/details/N023411/page/1/mode/1up?view=theater">also from 1943</a> which is in the same format (and citation) as the Lutheran Witness</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_9NAO-R1-y7Ob2p_up_Hx0Vt0KFIRgMRaA_wM0pdbOBRg9iX6jTwvDuzH48RMvtEyu0wNtwip1N-c1dpkXyFXB1zLyN6teIVlXZoP6EPtGsO2-nIqEN-oFLBckrCgAiCd2AXDXjFeY-dVJY2yYyFWz_MPIsG4G-6jZKwCURbcqCidIUwZs2s/s325/luther%20sure.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="213" data-original-width="325" height="210" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_9NAO-R1-y7Ob2p_up_Hx0Vt0KFIRgMRaA_wM0pdbOBRg9iX6jTwvDuzH48RMvtEyu0wNtwip1N-c1dpkXyFXB1zLyN6teIVlXZoP6EPtGsO2-nIqEN-oFLBckrCgAiCd2AXDXjFeY-dVJY2yYyFWz_MPIsG4G-6jZKwCURbcqCidIUwZs2s/s320/luther%20sure.png" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=hS7R6eXeLsUC&q=Luther+%22For+feelings+come+and+feelings+go%22&dq=Luther+%22For+feelings+come+and+feelings+go%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjG48uCyOf6AhWWFVkFHdNcCHs4FBDoAXoECAgQAg">This book from 1956</a> attributes the quote to Luther, via Moody Monthly: </div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-LRXsRMcqgzFCy4HU7LqLWCBjBDO5RNJ4-3UV9cbjPuPGUiveInN5qceC93xFbfNE82UxfgtcVcAARWLgnR1ukVD4tB7w0RQKo_dwgIH5FjSTHey9e8f-sEjJiHZ0xkvCnMqk4xnCI_xVtjEHoRfIK1hhikTTMeBIGKqk9aASbQjX8xOhLcU/s299/feelings.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="299" data-original-width="297" height="299" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-LRXsRMcqgzFCy4HU7LqLWCBjBDO5RNJ4-3UV9cbjPuPGUiveInN5qceC93xFbfNE82UxfgtcVcAARWLgnR1ukVD4tB7w0RQKo_dwgIH5FjSTHey9e8f-sEjJiHZ0xkvCnMqk4xnCI_xVtjEHoRfIK1hhikTTMeBIGKqk9aASbQjX8xOhLcU/s1600/feelings.png" width="297" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div><div>
See also <a href="https://archive.org/details/brethrenevangeli73bret/page/n33/mode/1up?view=theater">this same text from 1951</a>, and its exact use in <a href="https://archive.org/details/sourcebookofpoet00brya/page/35/mode/1up?view=theater">1968</a>. </div><div><br /></div><div>I came across shorter versions that hint part of it originated in the late 1800's - early 1900's:</div><div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Martin Luther was once asked, "Do you feel as if your sins were forgiven?" "No," he returned, stoutly. "I don't feel that they are forgiven, but I know that they are, because God says so in his Word. [<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=YHlPAAAAYAAJ&lpg=PA1330&ots=cG1DbNj7qU&dq=%22Martin%20Luther%22%20%22feel%20as%20if%20your%20sins%22&pg=PA1330#v=onepage&q&f=false">source</a>]</blockquote>
In some early instances, the one asking Luther is Satan. Note the part of this paragraph from 1889:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Martin Luther, in one of his conflicts with the devil, was asked by the arch-enemy if he felt his sins forgiven. "No," said the great reformer, "I don't feel that they are forgiven, but I know they are, because God says so in His Word." Paul did not say, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt feel saved;" but, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." No one can feel that his sins are forgiven. Ask that man whose debt was paid by his brother, "Do you feel that your debt is paid?" "No," is the reply, "I don't feel that it is paid; I know from this receipt that it is paid, and I feel happy because I know it is paid." So with you, dear reader. You must first believe in God's love to you as revealed at the Cross of Calvary, and then you will feel happy, because you shall know that you are saved. [<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=TMYnAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA16#v=onepage&q&f=false">source</a>]</blockquote>It appears that part of the core of this quote has been around at least 100 years. It does sound suspiciously like a rewording of a <i>Table Talk</i> entry, but in my brief search of<a href="http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2014/09/old-english-editions-of-luthers-table.html"> the extant English versions</a> I didn't come across anything.</div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwWsVn0h_939X2oBzd-hiRbWg2mJylfIVLdveZtefQZI6nsna756rZ_2t6RmD3TuFBBvmLmcmkRzfrLuaE_LWmA5fP0FHNEhH5tEIOO3fHHpeUeOM2D6kn7063lHa-lQ6aXruMyQ/s1600/tumblr_mnjimxNmmS1r3dl6ko1_500.png" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwWsVn0h_939X2oBzd-hiRbWg2mJylfIVLdveZtefQZI6nsna756rZ_2t6RmD3TuFBBvmLmcmkRzfrLuaE_LWmA5fP0FHNEhH5tEIOO3fHHpeUeOM2D6kn7063lHa-lQ6aXruMyQ/s200/tumblr_mnjimxNmmS1r3dl6ko1_500.png" width="197" /></a></div>
<br /><b>Conclusion</b></div><div>My conclusion: Luther did not write this rhyming poem. Based on the usage I searched out, the original author was probably W.M. Czamanske. He appears to have had a poetical nature. If in fact he was a Lutheran minister, it would make sense why the theology echoed Luther. Rev. Czamanske did live to 1964, so perhaps saw that his poem was being utilized by others. I think he would be amazed to see how extensively his poem has been cited and that his words became Luther's words! </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>Addendum #1</b></div><div>Indeed, the sentiment of the quote could be demonstrated to be something Luther believed. Consider how easily it would have been for someone to read <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=L5xhAAAAcAAJ&dq=%22martin%20Luther%22%20%22forgiven%22%20devil%20sins%20feel&pg=PA144#v=onepage&q&f=false">this old English Table Talk statement</a> and summarize it in the one of the forms above:</div><div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
That the Forgiveness of sins must pass through all things.<br />
The law doth justify in no state, calling and art; impossible it is that every thing should go on in a straight line according to the Law, as we see in the grammar which is taught in schools; no rule is so common, which hath not an exception. Therefore, the forgiveness of Sins is needful through life, and is held out in all arts and sciences.
The forgiveness of sins is declared only in God's Word, and there we must seek it; for it is grounded on God's promises. God forgiveth thee thy sins, not because thou feelest them and art sorry, for that doth sin itself produce, and can deserve nothing; but he forgiveth thy sins because he is merciful, and because he hath promised to forgive for Christ's sake, his dearly beloved Son, and caused his word to be applied to thee: namely, “Be of good cheer, thy sins are forgiven thee.”</blockquote>
<div><b>Addendum #2</b></div>"So now turn from your conscience and its feeling to Christ who is not able to deceive; my heart and Satan however, who will drive me to sin are liars... You should not believe your conscience and your feelings more than the word which the Lord who receives sinners preaches to you... Therefore you are able to fight with your conscience by saying: You lie; Christ speaks truth and you do not." <a href="http://archive.org/stream/werkekritischege27luthuoft#page/223/mode/1up">WA 27, 223</a> (cf. Paul Althaus, <i>The Theology of Martin Luther</i>, <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=HSMozluuXS0C&lpg=PA59&dq=luther%20%22not%20believe%20your%20conscience%22&pg=PA59#v=onepage&q&f=false">p. 59</a>).</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Addendum #3</b></div><div><div><a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=Cc5kEAAAQBAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PT225&dq=luther%20%22feelings%20come%20and%20feelings%20go%22&pg=PT225#v=onepage&q=luther%20%22feelings%20come%20and%20feelings%20go%22&f=false">I found a book citing my 2015 blog entry</a> in regard to the poem: <i>Untrustworthy: The Knowledge Crisis Breaking Our Brains, Polluting Our Politics, and Corrupting Christian Community</i>. I know nothing about this book or author, but that she took the time to track down the source of Luther's poem is sometimes a good indication of the research put into the book. </div></div></div>James Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.com0