Ulrich Zwingli Denial the Canonicity of the Book of Revelation, Revisited

Did the early Protestant Reformer Ulrich Zwingli deny the canonicity of the book of Revelation? Apparently so.  An earlier Beggars All entry documented a quote demonstrating it. That quote is sometimes linked to this other Zwingli quote: 

"The Apocalypse has no savour of the mouth or mind of John. I can, if I so will, reject its testimonies."

This entry will not seek to argue otherwise: the evidence suggests Zwingli did deny the canonicity of the book of Revelation. Rather, the purpose is to take a closer look at this quote, correctly document it, and explore the context. This quote has complicated documentation. The reason is due to a seemingly inadvertent error in documentation from the nineteenth century. What were Zwingli's reasons for his rejection of Revelation in this context? We'll see he did not go deep into his reasons, but he did go on to positively interpret a passage in Revelation to refute Roman Catholics using the book.  

Documentation
The quote in the English form presented seems to come from the theologian William Barclay:

Zwingli unequivocally rejected it: "With the Apocalypse we have no concern, for it is not a biblical book.... The Apocalypse has no savour of the mouth or mind of John. I can, if I so will, reject its testimonies." (William Barclay, Many Witnesses, One Lord, 87).

For the second quote here under scrutiny, Barclay doesn't document it, but others do. Church historian Phillip Schaff writes: "In another place he says: "Apocal. liber non sapit os et ingenium Joannis." De clar. Verbi Dei, p. 310." Here's where the documentation gets complicated. Schaff cites "De clar. Verbi Dei, p. 310." I searched a lot for this source:  De claritate verbi Dei, or in English, Of the Clarity and Certainty of the Word of God.  A solid English translation is easily available, as are the original language sources (there does not appear to be multiple differing original langue versions (i.e. content) of this treatise like there are with some of Luther's writings).  However, I was directly looking for an old edition in which the quote appears on page 310. That does not seem to exist. I'm going to posit it doesn't exist. I suspect Dr. Schaff may have utilized an earlier secondary source without checking the reference

Zwingli, De clar. verbi dei, p. 310: Apocal. liber prorsus non sapit os et ingenium Joannis. Possum ergo testimonia citata si velim rejicere. The same author declares (Werke, II. 1, p. 169): Us Apocalypsi nemend wir kein Kundschafft an, denn es nit ein bibl. Buch ist.

I think this reference is erroneous. The reason why I say this is that the quote corresponds exactly to page 310 in Huldrici Zuinglii Opera, volumen primum. This volume does contain De claritate verbi Dei, but the quote is found in the later presented treatise Exposito et Confirmatio Articulorum Sive Conclusionum (1523). It makes sense to me that nineteenth century writers were typically relying on this standard collection of Zwingli's writings. I don't think the author intended to obfuscate the reference. It seems innocuous. If I'm correct, I've debunked a very old documentation error. 

The correct primary source therefore is the treatise Exposito et Confirmatio Articulorum Sive Conclusionum (1523). This is Zwingli's detailed explanation of his 67 Articles. These 67 Articles were presented as a public disputation against Roman Catholics in January 27, 1523. This explanatory treatise was presented July 14, 1523 (half a year later). The text in question is in regard to Article 20: "That God desires to give us all things in his name, whence it follows that outside of this life we need no mediator except himself." To my knowledge, no complete English translation of this treatise is available. 

The following are pictures of pages 310-311-312 from Huldrici Zuinglii Opera, volumen primum. I've included these multiple pages to present Zwingli's full use of Revelation. Also included is a complimentary Geran version. Rather than commission someone to do an extended English translation of these passages, am online translator was utilized. While these are not perfect, they do provide the gist of Zwingli's main points.   

Context

Rough English Translation from Google A.I.

Finally, they bring out two verses from the Apocalypse. The second is Rev. 7:8 [5:8], where it is written: When the Lamb had taken the book, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, having harps and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints, and they sing a new song. Here the pontiffs shout in ovation: Do you not hear the saints here offering our prayers to God and praying for us? I answer: Were angels then made divine after this life? For it is the duty of angels to offer our prayers to God, as you also teach. Angels are sent to serve men; divine ones are not sent. Therefore angels are not divine. The minor proposition is clear since the contrary cannot be proved from the Scriptures. But that angels are sent, as the major proposition has, is clear from Scripture Heb. 1:11. and in many other places. It follows, then, that the offering of the twenty-four elders is not an offering of our prayers, unless you wish to understand it by the holy saints who are still on earth; but you are not accustomed to do so: for in this way many arguments with which you contend in vain would fall. It remains for you, therefore, that the twenty-four elders offer their prayers to God for us; but I will now prove that the aforesaid words have no meaning. The book of Revelation, as Jerome testifies, was not numbered among the canonical books by the ancients; besides, it was written by no teacher of the evangelist John, but by some other bishop of Ephesians; and this book does not at all reflect the genius and mouth of the Apostle. I could therefore reject the testimonies cited, if I wished; but there is no need. Let the Revelation remain in its place! But the words adduced here do not have the meaning which you are trying to wring out. That John, whoever he was, wished to outline in obscene words the redemption of Christ; then his doctrine which the Father revealed to us through him; the calling of all Jews and Gentiles, the glory and majesty of Christ, the joys of the blessed, the punishments and signs which God will inflict on us. Therefore, between these ineffable joy of the gods and the reverent adoration he introduces under the person of the twenty-four elders, who indicate their adoration by visible signs of crystal vessels, which were full of odors, demonstrating by a certain similarity taken from human uses, that the praises of the gods are as pleasing to God as odors are to us. This adoration of the gods (which I understand to be nothing else but the milky contemplation of the face of God, in which they are all absorbed) the same John expressed in another figure, namely in these words: And when the living creatures give glory and honor and blessing to him who sits on the throne, who lives forever and ever, the twenty-four elders fall down before him who sits on the throne, and worship him who lives forever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying: You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and be praised. Here it becomes clear that John wished to foreshadow that indescribable joy taken from the courts of princes, and the familiarity of the divine with God, under a certain similitude. For the human mind does not comprehend heavenly things, unless foreshadowed by certain earthly things. Therefore, there are no harps or bowls or crowns or such minute and frivolous things in heaven; but since these are used among us in the greatest joys, John meets our weakness with these things, foreshadowing to us in a certain way the joy and happiness of the divine, which no mortal can express in its entirety. The prayers of the saints, therefore, here are nothing else than that adoration of the twenty-four elders with which they adore God for all eternity. For in the greatest tranquility, security and peace, and in the contemplation of the face of God, the friends of God continually rejoice and are nourished, and with the greatest gratitude they sing praises. Then προσευχαὶ (which word John uses here) signifies in Greek, according to the testimony of Suida, the union of man with God, but the conversation of the human mind with God; we interpret it as prayer or supplication. The prayer of the saints, therefore, is a certain pleasing and joyful adoration, by which they look up to God, praise and adore him, as the following words declare. For after the prayers of the saints follows: And they sing a new song to God, saying: You are worthy to take the book and open its seals, because you were killed and redeemed us through your blood. In proper and eloquent words he explains what the prayers of the saints are, namely praise and thanksgiving. action by which they pursue the lamb Christ. 

Another place is Apocalypse. VIII 3, 4. But nothing will be accomplished by these words of the pontiffs, even if they were correctly interpreted, except that the angels of God offer our prayers to God. For here too they use saints in their custom for gods. The sense would therefore be to offer the prayers of the gods to God, from which sense a certain new error creeps in. But I have no reproach here; the interpreter is at fault, who added the word de, which corrupts the whole sentence. For he says: That he might offer them from the prayers of the saints, etc. If you examine them rightly, they do not have de. The words can be explained thus: And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer, and many incenses were given to him that he might offer them to the prayers of the saints; soon: And the smoke of the censers ascended with (not from) the prayers of the saints out of the hand of the angel before God. Again, the splendor of the courtly apparel, treated with a likeness, overshadows the praises of the gods. For when the twenty-four elders thus worshipped and poured out certain pleasing prayers: the angel accompanied the incense added. Then Augustine Homily 6. on the Apocalypse makes Christ from the angel, teaching that all our vows, all our prayers are offered to God and made acceptable through Christ, who offered himself for us a pleasing and sweet-smelling odor to God. Let the pious here observe the error of those who teach and defend the intercession of the gods; and not only the error, but also the malice and deceit, with which they have dared to twist the divine Scriptures to their own lust. Nor is there anything for anyone to fear, even if they continue to twist other places besides those cited: for the scripture will be safe enough, which they bring out either twisted or diminished. This is a solid foundation, that God alone is to be adored, that God alone is to be invoked, that from this one we must hope, which not even Satan can shake off.

There is also a complimentary German text of Zwingli's detailed explanation of his 67 Articles from 1523 (Article 20) found in Sämtliche Werke, Volume 2 208-209-210-211. This text reads:

Rough English Translation from Google AI:

Finally, they refer to two places from the Apocalypse, that is, from the Book of Revelation.

The first is from Revelation 5: When the Lamb had taken the book, the four beasts and the twenty-four old men fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp and a golden cup or vessel similar to a drinking glass What florins were full of fragrance or taste,” what adornment are the beds of the saints? Here they say: Do you hear that the saints offer up our prayer to God? Or that they intercede for us? Answer: Are they then made to be angels after this time? (The angels' office is to present our prayer to God, as you say). Must you say: No! For the angels are sent to minister to men, and men who have died are not sent to do so; for there is no knowledge of this in Scripture, but much about the ministry of the angels in Hebrews 1 and elsewhere. Thus it follows that the offering of the 24th of the ages is not a presentation of our prayer, or else You must name the saints here for the devout Christians, but that is not correct; for thus many arguments or proofs against this approach fall short. It also remains that you say: "The 24 ancient worshipers, God grant their prayers for us," which is not at all the meaning of Scripture, as I intend to demonstrate, but firstly, that this book of Apocalypse is not among the ancients.

The sacred books are listed, as Jerome indicates. Secondly, it is not attributed to a truly learned John the Evangelist, but to a John who is also a bishop in Ephesus; for it has no taste of the heart and spirit of John. For what reasons I might well reject the teachings presented to me, where I thought they might trouble me; but there is no need for that. Remain apocalyptic, however it may be, but this place does not have the meaning that you could possibly deduce from it. This John, with hidden words, intended to paint the redemptive Christ, his teachings which God has revealed to us through Him, the calling of all Jews and heathens, the glory and honor of Christ, the joy of the blessed, and some punishments and signs that God will send upon us. And among other hidden things, he indicated the joy and chaste worship of the blessed (under the 24th ancient meaning; who worshiped them with visible signs of crystalline vessels, which are full of fragrant aromas), suggesting that they are as pleasing to God now, dwelling with Him, as a fragrant aroma is to us at this time. Such adoration of the blessed, which I cannot understand otherwise, neither the joyful contemplation of the face of God, in which they are completely fed and swallowed up, was depicted by John in a different way in the 4th chapter [Rev. 4.97], as follows: When the animals had worshipped God, etc., the 24 ancient ones fell down before the one who sat on the throne, and worshiped the living one for eternity, and cast their Schappel or Krentz for the throne, speaking: Lord, you are worthy that honor should be bestowed upon you, etc. In these words one hears that this John wanted to express the joy and conviviality of the blessed in the form of a great manor, on which one needs such ornaments; not that there is such bad joy in heaven as we can understand, but that he met the lesser of our understanding according to his measure. Thus, the prayers of the saints are called nothing other than the enthronement that the ancients offered to the eternal God for eternity, in that they eternally rejoice in peace and friendship in the presence of God and the world, indeed, are eternally grateful for such grace. This word is also called "orationes" by the Greeks, proseuchai [προσευχαί], which is nothing other than what Suidas speaks of, neither a union of God and man, nor a dialogue of our mind with God; this is what we call a "prayer"; but more will come from this later. That this word, the prayer of the saints, should thus be taken for the thankful, joyful adoration of the blessed, is indicated by the following words, which follow after him, when he speaks in a concluding passage or conclusion: What are the tastes of the prayers of the blessed, and singing a new song, saying: You are worthy to take the book and its seals open to us; for you were slain and bought us from all the world, etc. He then expresses in his own words what the prayers are, namely a praise of the blessed, which they have offered to the lamb Christ.

The other place is in the Apocalypse, chapter 8 [Rev. 8:37]. And so that we may briefly come to that, these same words are not relevant, even if they are well translated. For they could not bring anything else from it than that the angels of God answered our prayer; for they could not take the holy one otherwise for the blessed, as their custom is. And who then understands the meaning that the angels offer up the prayers of the blessed, which, however, would be a new one. But I do not advise you here; the fool is guilty and they are not; he has added a small Latin word "de"; that has distorted the whole meaning when he says: 'Ut daret de orationibus sanctorum etc.'. The actual meaning of the Greek words has "de" and sounds like this: And another angel came and stood by or above the altar, having a golden perfume vessel, and he was given many flavors or perfumes, which he added to the prayers of the blessed on the golden altar before the throne.And the fragrance of the sweetness arose with the prayers of the blessed from the hand of the angel before God. Here everyone notices well that John again says nothing other than: When the 24 elders had made their prayers, the angel (associated with Thura) also added a fragrant fragrance to them, etc. In addition, Augustine himself, in Apocalypsim Homelia 6 (whether they are true), makes Christ the reason that all our prayers are accepted by God through the Lord Christ; for he offered himself to God a fragrant fragrance for us. 

Conclusion
It seems obvious that Zwingli did not accept the canonicity of Revelation, and he did so very early in his Reformation career (1523). His reasoning appears to rest entirely on previous precedent in church history: particularly if canonicity rested on apostolic authorship, the centuries of doubts about who the writer of Revelation actually was played heavily in Zwingli's reasoning.  This differs from Luther's early rejection. Luther did utilize the precedent of church history but went beyond it to initially discrediting the consistency of its content with the rest of the New Testament (he later though came to accept the canonicity of Revelation). I suspect that Zwingli's rejection was not influenced by Luther, but rather by the Roman Catholic Desiderius Erasmus. Zwingli was extremely fond of Erasmus, and I think it would be ironic to discover that Zwingli's rejection was influenced by a Roman Catholic! In fairness to Rome's defenders, I have not located the exact comments from Erasmus questioning the authorship of Revelation. It's said multiple times on various webpages, but I've yet to come by the exact comments from Erasmus.

An interesting aspect of this context is that Zwingli does not simply reject Roman Catholic argumentation relying on Revelation to prove the intercessory prayers of the saints. Rather, the crude English translation above states, "Let the Revelation remain in its place!" He goes on to exegete the passages Rome's defenders were relying on. Zwingli concludes, "The prayers of the saints, therefore, here are nothing else than that adoration of the twenty-four elders with which they adore God for all eternity." While I'm not overly fond of Zwingli, I appreciate his efforts to positively interact with a text he did not think canonical. 

Luther: “There are as many sects and creeds as there are heads." A Simple Response

 Here's a blast from my past. One of Rome's defenders posted the following:

“There are as many sects and creeds as there are heads. One denies baptism, another rejects the sacrament, another invents a world between this and the Last Day… No peasant is so rude as to boast that he knows more about the Scriptures than all the ministers.”

Even Martin Luther knew sola scriptura was a mess. You people are going to be confused and divided forever until the protestant movement finally goes extinct.

This was one of the first obscure Luther quotes that interacted with when this blog was still a toddler. There are a number of detailed Beggars All entries on this quote. However, I see that I've never provided a simple clutter-free explanation of this quote. Here's how to respond:

1. Ask For a Reference: Kudos to any defender of Rome that provides a meaningful reference on this quote (it rarely happens). This text is from Sendschreiben an die Christen zu Antwerpen, "The Letter of Doctor Martin to the Christians of Antwerp" (April, [25?] 1525). It is scheduled to for a fresh English translation in an upcoming volume of Luther's Works. As of the writing of this entry, this letter can be found beginning at WA 18:547 (with the quote in the second paragraph on the same page). A partial old English translation can be found here. 

2. Put the Quote in Context: The letter written to warn Antwerp of radical leaders and groups during the peasant uprising. The peasants had sporadic outbursts of violence previous to their great uprising in the spring of 1525. Luther was very aware of the peasant situation. He had personally visited some of the peasants and was almost killed by them. Charismatic leaders spurred them on, using religion as part of the motivation to violently revolt against the establishment. Luther was aware of these charismatic peasant leaders, and wrote against them, and also to warn Antwerp. Is this letter Luther admitting "sola scriptura is a mess"? Absolutely not. It's describing Luther's lament over radical leaders misusing the Scriptures and misleading the people. In fact, he says these radicals were sent by the Devil to torment him. He describes the devastating effect of the Devil, who, Luther says, was at peace in his papal fortress, but now with the Gospel being loudly proclaimed, must find a different way to keep men enslaved to sin and darkness.

Why Defend the Reformers?

kkk

Why defend the Reformers? Here are some wise words from William Cunningham, The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation:

Protestants, of course, do not regard the Reformers as either infallible or impeccable. They believe that most of them held views, upon some points, more or less erroneous, and that all of them gave abundant evidence that they were stained with the common infirmities of humanity. But they regard them as men who were specially qualified and raised up by God for the advancement of His own cause, for bringing out the buried truth and reforming the corrupted church, who were guided by God's word and Spirit to views, in the main accurate, of the leading principles of Christian doctrine, and who, in the habitual tenor of their lives, furnished satisfactory evidence of acting under the influence of real religion and genuine piety.

Believing this concerning the Reformers, Protestants feel it to be both their duty and their privilege to defend them from the assaults of adversaries, and especially to refute anything that may seem to militate against the truth of the statement now given, of what they believe as to the general character and position of these illustrious men. The great general position which Romanists are anxious to establish by all they can collect against the Reformers, from their writings or their lives, from their sayings or their doings, is this, that it is very unlikely that God would employ such men in the accomplishment of any special work for the advancement of His gracious purposes. In dealing with this favorite allegation of Romanists, Protestants assert and undertake to prove the following positions:

1st, That the allegation is irrelevant to the real merits of the controversy between us and the Church of Rome, which can be determined only by the standard of the written word;

2d, That the allegation is untrue,—in other words, that there is nothing about the character of the Reformers as a whole which renders it in the least unlikely that God employed them in His own special gracious work; and,

3d, That the general principle on which the allegation is based can be applied in the way of retort, with far greater effect, to the Church of Rome. Protestants, by establishing these three positions, effectually dispose of the Romish allegation. [source]

Bogus Roman Catholic Memes #10

This entry will look at the first teddy bear: "We do not deny that the Papacy is the true Church of God." -Martin Luther, 1545. If you know anything about Luther's view of the papacy in 1545, this Roman Catholic teddy bear appears to be suffering from severe stupidity.

Go ahead and Google search ""We do not deny that the Papacy is the true Church of God." You'll probably get what I did: "No results found for "We do not deny that the Papacy is the true Church of God." If you add the word "Luther" along with the quote, Google's A.I. states, 

That statement, "We do not deny that the Papacy is the true Church of God," is not something Martin Luther would have said, as he famously identified the papacy as the seat of the Antichrist, a force opposing Christ and hindering salvation through works rather than faith alone, though he acknowledged true Christians existed within the Catholic structure. Luther's core belief was that the Pope, by claiming supreme authority, usurped Christ's role, making the papacy the very opposite of God's true church, which he saw centered on Scripture and faith in Christ.

That Google's A.I. says something like this doesn't necessarily mean it's correct. This time though it's nailing it. It's not hard to do for Luther's view of the papacy in 1545. This was the year he published Against the Roman Papacy an Institution of the Devil. This was not an ecumenical treatise. Luther was thoroughly convinced that the Papacy was an institution of the Devil. This is diametrically opposed to Luther believing the Papacy was "the true church of God" as the cute little teddy bear in the picture posits. Whatever book that teddy bear is reading, it isn't anything presenting correct historical information. 

Luther begins the treatise by saying, "The Most Hellish Father, St. Paul III, in his supposed capacity as the bishop of the Roman church..." (LW 41:263). It gets more increasingly more invective as the treatise goes on. He refers to pope and cardinals as "devilish scum in Rome" (LW 41:264).

No man can believe what an abomination the papacy is. A Christian does not have to be of low intelligence, either, to recognize it. God himself must deride him in the hellish fire, and our Lord Christ, St. Paul says in 2 Thessalonians 2 [:8], “will slay him with the breath of his mouth and destroy him by his glorious coming.” I only deride, with my weak derision, so that those who now live and those who will come after us should know what I have thought of the pope, the damned Antichrist, and so that whoever wishes to be a Christian may be warned against such an abomination (LW 41:273-274).

Until now we had to believe that the pope was the head of the church, the most holy, the savior of all Christendom. Now we see that he, with his Roman cardinals, is nothing but a desperate scoundrel, the enemy of God and man, the destroyer of Christendom, and Satan’s bodily dwelling, who, through him, only harms both church and state, like a werewolf, and mocks and laughs up his sleeve when he hears that such hurts God or man—more of this later (LW 41:277-278).

...[I]t would be best for the emperor and estates of the empire to let the blasphemous, abominable rascals and damned scum of Satan in Rome just go to the devil (LW 41:279).

And such accursed villains want to convince the world that they are head of the church, the mother of all churches, and masters of the faith. Why even if we were stones and wooden blocks, we could see by their works throughout all the world that they are lost, desperate children of the devil and also mad, crude asses in Scripture. Someone probably would like to curse them so that they might be struck down by lightning and thunder, burned by hellish fire, have the plague, syphilis, epilepsy the plague of St. Anthony, leprosy, carbuncles, and all the plagues—but these are all caresses, and God has long ago punished them with greater plagues, just like God’s despisers and blasphemers should be punished, Romans 1 [:26–27], namely, that in sanity they have become so obviously mad and raving that they do not know whether they are or want to be male or female; they are not ashamed in the presence of women, and their mothers, sisters, and grandmothers are among those forced to see and hear such things of them, to their great distress. Shame on you, popes, cardinals, and whatever you are at the curia, that you are not afraid of the cobblestones upon which you ride, which would like to swallow you! (LW 41:288-289).

The quotes above were only taken from Luther's introduction to this treatise! Quotes like these from the entire 1545's Against the Roman Papacy an Institution of the Devil could fill this blog entry to the point of absurd overkill. A great overview of this treatise is found in Mark U. Edwards, Luther's Last Battles, 182-200. I would agree with Edwards when he states, "This treatise is the most violent and vulgar to issue from Luther’s pen" (185). For those of Luther's detractors that think Luther's most derogatory polemical writing was On the Jews and Their Lies, I would argue Against the Roman Papacy an Institution of the Devil surpasses it. Was he being so severe because of biological hatred towards the papacy? No. Edwards explains:

There can be little doubt that the violence and the vulgarity was intentional and well-considered on Luther’s part. He was utterly convinced that the papacy, as the antichrist, the devil’s foremost minion, deserved every word of it — and worse. He was contending not against men but against powers and principalities of darkness. To fail to see this dimension of the struggle would be to misunderstand completely Luther’s intention behind the treatise (189).

I think the worst of this treatise is that it was published including eight cartoons depicting Luther's abhorrence of the Papacy as well its symbiotic relationship to the devil. He didn't draw the cartoons, but commissioned Lucas Cranach to do them. One could try and place the blame for the severe depictions on Cranach, but they were published with Luther's approval. These cartoons contained visual presentations of his arguments:

Then we should take him—the pope, the cardinals, and whatever riffraff belongs to His Idolatrous and Papal Holiness—and (as blasphemers) tear out their tongues from the back, and nail them on the gallows in the order in which they hang their seals on the bulls, even though all this is mild compared to their blasphemy and idolatry. Then one could allow them to hold a council, or as many as they wanted, on the gallows, or in hell among all the devils (LW 41:308).

Edwards includes all of the commissioned woodcut cartoons and says this is the visual presentation that Luther intended (p.191):

Luther did not apologize for this violent invective against the papacy, but doubled down on it when criticized (Edwards, 199).

Conclusion
It never ceases to amaze me how some of Rome's defenders are so clueless about the Reformation and Luther particularly. One of them took the time to make this cutesy meme with a fake quote said to be from 1545, the very year Luther published his most extreme treatise on the papacy! Clueless, utterly clueless!

Addendum: Luther's Violent Rhetoric
But what of Luther's violent rhetoric? I've never sought to downplay this or cover it up. As far back as the beginning of this blog, one of my first posts was Martin Luther's Volatile Language. As I stated there:

For Luther, his use of scatological language exposes the Devil, who has hidden himself in the papacy, behind the Turks, and in the theology of Judaism. Since it is the Last Days, Satan must be resisted with all one’s might: with as much energy and all the vehemence possible. By exposing Satan in these systems, Satan becomes enraged and fights harder against God. By fighting harder, the Last Day approaches quicker.

Luther also felt he was following the example of Christ. Luther asks rhetorically if the Lord used abusive language against his enemies: “Was he abusive when he called the Jews an adulterous and perverse generation, an offspring of vipers, hypocrites, and children of the Devil?… The truth, which one is conscious of possessing, cannot be patient against its obstinate and intractable enemies.”1 In similar fashion, Luther responded to his opponent Latomus:

“He [Latomus] says that I lack the evangelical modesty which I enjoin, and that this is especially true of the book in which I replied to the sophists of Louvain when they condemned my teachings.  Now I have never insisted that anyone consider me modest or holy, but only that everyone recognize what the gospel is. If they do this, I give anyone freedom to attack my life to his heart’s content. My boast is that I have injured no one’s life or reputation, but only sharply reproached, as godless and sacrilegious, those assertions, inventions, and doctrines which are against the Word of God. I do not apologize for this, for I have good precedents. John the Baptist [Luke 3:7] and Christ after him [Matt. 23:33] called the Pharisees the “offspring of vipers.” So excessive and outrageous was this abuse of such learned, holy, powerful, and honored men that they said in reply that He had a demon [John 7:20]. If in this instance Latomus had been judge, I wonder what the verdict would have been! Elsewhere Christ calls them “blind” [Matt. 23:16], “crooked,” “liars,” “sons of the devil” [John 8:44, 55]. Good God, even Paul lacked evangelical modesty when he anathematized the teachers of the Galatians [Gal. 1:8] who were, I suppose, great men. Others he calls “dogs” [Phil. 3:2], “empty talkers” [Tit. 1:10], “deceivers” [Col. 2:4, 8]. Further, he accused to his face the magician Elymas with being a “son of the devil, full of all deceit and villainy [Acts 13:10].” (LW 32:141-142].

1. Martin Luther as cited by Eric Gritsch, “The Unrefined Reformer” Christian History, 39 (vol. XII, No. 3), 36.

I can understand Luther's eschatological underpinnings and actually appreciate how seriously he took living in the last days. I realize this was a key factor in the way he wrote about those he perceived to be enemies of the Gospel. While I do not condone how he expressed himself, I do admire him for taking his convictions seriously. This seriousness is generally lacking now. I can also understand Luther as a person of his time period: violent rhetoric was more acceptable then (and abhorred now). Was Luther serious in his violent language? I don't think so, but if any of the authorities acted on Luther's comments, I'm not sure how much he would've protested that in 1545.

I do not condone Luther's violent rhetoric and see it as an area that demonstrates he was a fallible and sinful human being. This violent rhetoric is only an aspect though of who he was. After reading Luther now for over twenty-five years, the violent rhetoric aspect isn't pronounced or his fixation. To characterize the man on a small percentage of his writing isn't fair. 

Nod do I live in the sixteenth century, so I ascribe to the language sentiment of my time period in the part of the world I live in. I live in a world in which calling for violence on those I disagree with is not acceptable. I'd rather live in this time period and write than in the sixteenth century and write. I do not call for my perceived enemies to be physically persecuted, nor do I want them to call for my physical persecution. I will not though back down from challenging their ideas. If I think someone is wrong, eternally wrong, I will not hide that fact and agree all roads lead to God. or "we're all Christians" even if we disagree on the very meaning of the Gospel. Over the years, I've also sought to tone down the personal attack rhetoric that's very characteristic of online debating, particularly the Protestant vs. Roman Catholic online debating. Yes, I was caught up in that early on, and it took time to shed off that way of online interaction. Some of the nastiest people I've interacted with online over the years have been Rome's defenders. As much as possible, I try to avoid them now or at least try to not get caught up in the heat of the moment.  

St. Augustine's Prayed to the Blessed Virgin Mary?

 In my Facebook feed, I came across the following prayer of Saint Augustine to Mary:

O blessed Virgin Mary, who can worthily repay thee thy just dues of praise and thanksgiving, thou who by the wondrous assent of thy will didst rescue a fallen world? What songs of praise can our weak human nature recite in thy honor, since it is by thy intervention alone that it has found the way to restoration. Accept, then, such poor thanks as we have here to offer, though they be unequal to thy merits; and receiving our vows, obtain by thy prayers the remission of our offenses. Carry thou our prayers within the sanctuary of the heavenly audience,and bring forth from it the antidote of our reconciliation. May the sins we bring before Almighty God through thee, become pardonable through thee; may what we ask for with sure confidence, through thee be granted. Take our offering, grant us our requests, obtain pardon for what we fear, for thou art the sole hope of sinners. Through thee we hope for the remission of our sins, and in thee, O blessed Lady, is our hope of reward. Holy Mary, succour the miserable, help the fainthearted, comfort the sorrowful, pray for thy people, plead for the clergy, intercede for all women consecrated to God; may all who keep thy holy commemoration feel now thy help and protection. Be thou ever ready to assist us when we pray, and bring back to us the answers to our prayers. Make it thy continual care to pray for the people of God, thou who, blessed by God, didst merit to bear the Redeemer of the world, who liveth and reigneth, world without end. Amen.

I had never heard that Augustine prayed to Mary, so this provoked my attention. This prayer of Augustine's to Mary is found on various webpages... typically undocumented. For instance, the website, Learn Religions attributes the prayer to Augustine and uses it to illustrate "both Christian reverence for the Mother of God and the proper understanding of intercessory prayer... We pray to the Blessed Virgin so that she might present our prayers to God and obtain forgiveness from Him for our sins." This website claims "Our content is rigorously researched and written by writers who are experts in their fields." We'll see that they dropped the ball, there's no proof Augustine penned these words. In fact, it's been established who wrote the prayer, and it was not Augustine.

Documentation
I checked a number of links citing the prayer attributing it to Augustine without finding any meaningful documentation. But various clues did arise. Allegedly, the prayer comes with significant papal approval and an indulgence of fifty days!

Our Sovereign Pontiff Pius IX., at the prayer of several devout persons, vouchsafed to grant, by a Rescript of the Segretaria of the Memorials, dated May 19, 1854 -

The indulgence of fifty days, every time that, with contrite heart, the following prayer is said to the most holy Virgin, extracted from the eighteenth Sermon of St. Augustine, De Sanctis.

This source also provides a Latin text demonstrating the prayer has circulated as attributed to Augustine for a long time. 

However, this webpage definitively states the following: 

Written by Bishop Fulbert of Chartres (ca 951-ca 1029), it appears in his Sermo IX, De Annuntiatione Dominica. The prayer is sometimes attributed to St. Augustine, Book 10, Sermon 18, de Sanctis, since Bishop Fulbert's sermon appeared in the collected works of St. Augustine at one time. However, it is now known that the sermon is not Augustine's, but Bishop Fulbert's.

Conclusion
Textual criticism once again to the rescue! Augustine did not write this prayer. It would be interesting to know when the "collected works of St. Augustine" incorrectly attributed the prayer to Augustine was published. It would also be interesting to have documentation in regard to the fifty-day indulgente granted by Pius IX for the recitation of this prayer and if he specifically mentions Augustine. That would actually be sadly humorous if true, that the pope granted an eternal fifty-day indulgence based on a mis-attributed prayer. 

A general question though still remains unanswered: did Augustine pray to Mary? A simple Google A.I. search says,

Yes, St. Augustine prayed to the Virgin Mary, asking for her intercession to help him find forgiveness and grace, viewing her as a powerful advocate to present his prayers to God, a practice consistent with early Christian reverence for saints. He expressed deep devotion, believing she, as the Mother of God, could help his prayers reach God and secure pardon for his sins, and his writings highlight her unique role and holiness, influencing later Marian traditions.

The links Google provides though are not helpful. One older source states of Augustine:

Invocation of Angels and Saints.‡‡ On this we have thirteen passages quoted; all, save one, refer to the departed praying for those on earth. Even in this view Augustine expresses a doubt. "The question is indeed a great one, not to be discussed at present whether, or how far, or in what way, the spirits of the dead know the things which happen in our regard." That is a very different question from praying to them for their help and assistance, and our pleading their supposed superabundant merits on our behalf. True, the compilers cite the case alleged to be recorded by Augustine (p. 377), of " a certain woman, who seeing that her child was dead and irreparably lost," ran with the dead body to a place dedicated to "the blessed Martyr Stephen, and began demanding her son from him," and to "restore her son." And accordingly we are told that her son came to life! Well! if such was the genuine production of Augustine, all we can add is, that it is very different from his other sentiments expressed on the subject of prayers; and I venture to assert that no lay Roman Catholic of the present day will believe that such a circumstance ever took place. Modern Romanists under similar circumstances, if they offered up any prayer at all, would invoke the Virgin Mary, not Stephen!

According to this old author, Augustine did not invoke Mary in prayer. 

Did John Calvin Insist Mary be Called the Mother of God?

This little blurb above appeared in a Catholic vs. Protestant Facebook group. I'm going to skip past Luther and Zwingli because they both did positively use the title "Mother of God." However, with John Calvin it's a different story.  John Calvin did not insist Mary be called the Mother of God and shied away from using it. He also warned others not to use it.

Roman Catholic scholars know this. For instance, Roman Catholic writer Thomas O'Meara states, "Calvin nowhere calls Mary Theotokos or the Mother of God." O'Meara also states, "...the reason for his hesitancy on the use of the term 'Mother of God' seems to be based upon a fear of falling into what he saw as the excesses of the past." O'Meara documents this from  letter Calvin wrote "to a French Calvinist community in London in 1552."  Calvin wrote September 27, 1552 to the French Church in London. They had written to him and asked, "Is it lawful to call Mary the Mother of God?" Calvin responds, 

Concerning the other debatable points, I doubt not but there may have been somewhat of ignorance in their reproving the way of speaking of the Virgin Mary as the mother of God, and together with ignorance, it is possible that there may have been rashness and too much forwardness, for, as the old proverb says, The most ignorant are ever the boldest. However, to deal with you with brotherly frankness, I cannot conceal that that title being commonly attributed to the Virgin in sermons is disapproved, and, for my own part I cannot think such language either right, or becoming, or suitable. Neither will any sober-minded people do so, for which reason I cannot persuade myself that there is any such usage in your church, for it is just as if you were to speak of the blood, of the head, and of the death of God. You know that the Scriptures accustom us to a different style; but there is something still worse about this particular instance, for to call the Virgin Mary the mother of God, can only serve to confirm the ignorant in their superstitions. And he that would take a pleasure in that, shews clearly that he knows not what it is to edify the Church.

Original text: Quant aux autres pointz quilz ont debatu, ie ne doute pas quil ny ayt eu de l'ignorance en ce quilz ont reprouvé ceste facon de parler que la vierge Marie soit mere de Dieu, et avec l'ignorance il se peut faire quil y ayt eu temerité et audace trop grande, comme le proverbe ancien dit que les plus ignorans sont les plus hardiz. Cependant pour aller en rondeur fraternelle avec vous, ie ne puis dissimuler qu’on trouve mauvais que ce tiltre soit ordinairement attribué aux sermons a ceste vierge, et de ma part ie ne scaurois trouver tel langage ne bon, ne propre, ne convenable. Aussi ne feront toutes gens de sens rassis. Parquoy ie ne me puis persuader quil y ayt eu tel usage en vostre eglise, car cela seroit autant comme de parler du corps, du sang, de la teste, de la mort de Dieu. Vous scavez que l'escriture nous acoustume a ung autre stile, mais il y a pis en cecy pour le scandale. Car de dire la mere de Dieu pour la vierge Marie, ne peut servir qu’a endurcir les ignorans en leurs superstitions. Et celuy qui se plairoit en cela, monstreroit bien quil ne scait que c’est d'edifier l’eglise (Corpus reformatorum 42:363).

 O'Meara concludes,

It is not an explicit rejection of Ephesus—for which Calvin has great respect—but rather the effect which this title had on devotional life in the past that explains why Calvin preferred other titles for Mary.

This is exactly why John Calvin avoided "Mother of God" and why many Protestants do today. Dr. James White once described this title as "the single most misused theological term around." Contemporary Protestants distance themselves from the title, "Mother of God" for good reason. The term has evolved in its usage. What was once a rich theological term expressing a doctrinal truth about Jesus Christ developed into venerating over-the-top praise to Mary and a focus on her intercession. The gist of the term became heavily Mariological in popular piety abandoning its Christological heritage (see my old comments here on this).  Calvin rightly says, "...for to call the Virgin Mary the mother of God, can only serve to confirm the ignorant in their superstitions."

Elsewhere Calvin stated:

For the Sorbonnists, who so often make mention of their herd, (gregis,) have here proved, that they are a herd of swine. That invocation of the Virgin which they have hitherto used in seeking the grace of the Spirit, who sees not to be execrable blasphemy? to say nothing of those titles full of anathema, by which, while they would honor the Virgin, they most grievously insult her, calling her “the Queen of Heaven, and Treasury of Grace.” We hear how Christ tells us, that he will send the Spirit of truth from the Father, and bids us ask in his own name, (John 14:26; 15:26). This, therefore, is the right rule of asking, and the sure method of obtaining. But to flee to the Virgin, passing by Christ, and in prayer to address her instead of God, who sees not to be a profane practice? It is assuredly altogether alien from the Word of God. Nay, there is extant a Canon of the fourth Council of Carthage, forbidding the invocation of saints at the altar. Here, also they (the Sorbonne) give a still clearer manifestation of their absurdity, when they say that this salutation is prescribed to us by the gospel. It is true, Gabriel was sent, as Luke relates, to salute the Virgin in these terms; but are we Gabriel? When was this ever commanded to us? What access have we to the Virgin, for the purpose of holding conference with her? Besides, why use the salutation at the time when they implore the influence of the Spirit, unless to pervert it into a form of prayer?

Original text: Nam quod toties gregis sui faciunt mentionem Sorbonistae, se certe gregem porcorum esse hic prodiderunt. Invocationem Virginis, qua usi sunt antehac, ad petendam spiritus gratiam, quis non videt exsecrabilem blasphemiam esse? ut elogia illa anathematis plena omittamus, quibus dum Virginem volunt honorare, gravissimo probro afficiunt, quum reginam coeli et thesaurariam gratiae appellant. Audimus quid doceat Christus: missurum se a patre spiritum veritatis: illum ut petamus in suo nomine, iubet (Ioann. 14, 26 et 15, 26). Haec igitur iusta petendi regula, et certa obtinendi ratio est. Ad Virginem autem confugere, Christo praeterito, eamque in precatione compellare, non Deum, quis non profanum esse morem videt? A verbo sane Dei prorsus est alienus. Quin etiam exstat decretum concilii Carthaginensis quarti: quod vetat sanctos ad altare invocare. In eo quoque suam insulsitatem apertius etiamnum produnt, quum dicunt salutationem hanc nobis ab evangelio praescribi. Missus est quidem Gabriel, ut Lucas narrat, qui hoc modo Virginem salutaret: sed an sumus Gabrieles? Ubi hoc nobis unquam mandatum est? Quis ad Virginem nobis accessus patet, ut cum ea colloquamur? Ad haec, quorsum tunc salutatio, quum spiritus gratiam implorant, nisi ea precationis vice abutantur? (Corpus Reformatorum 35:44).

Martin Luther's View on Prescribing Marital Intercourse?

 Here's one from a Martin Luther-friendly Facebook group:

I do not believe this is either an authentic quote from Martin Luther or even a second-hand Table Talk statement. It's my opinion this quote with this documentation entered cyberspace via a web-article that provided incorrect research. The quote is an unattributed proverb that picked up Martin Luther as its originator in the nineteenth century.   Let's take a look at how I arrived at this conclusion.

Documentation
The first thing to notice with this quote is that it is purported to be a Table Talk statement. The Table Talk is a collection of secondhand comments written down by Luther's friends and students, published after his death. It often falls on deaf ears when I point out that Luther didn't write the Table Talk. Since the statements contained therein are purported to have been made by Luther, they should serve more as corroborating second-hand testimony to something Luther is certain to have written. Easily verifiable are the many comments from Luther about marital sex published with his approval while he was alive. I am not familiar though with him writing or saying this particular sentiment as purported either while alive or via a published Table Talk utterance after his death. Frankly though, it wouldn't surprise me if he did say it!

This Facebook post provides a reference: "watr 6,247,24." This is a reference to the 6th volume of Luther's Tichreden  (Table Talk), page 247 as part of the official Weimar edition of Luther's writings. I'm assuming "24" is the line number. When I check WA Tr 6:247, I do not see this quote anywhere on the page. Line 24 would fall in this paragraph: 

It isn't there. A Google AI English rendering states, 

Such a fellow is D. Jäckel, who is imprisoned in Leipzig and despised by everyone; for he is said to be capable of more than preaching. He had my miller Auna S. wooed, but I sent word to him: That shall never happen. And to the maiden: If you want him, then get away from me immediately! I will neither hear of you nor see you! The same thing happened to him with Mayor H. K., when he had his daughter wooed.

I asked for further clarification. Again the WA Tr 6:247, 24 reference was cited, but I was also provided with documentation from the English edition of Luther's Works (LW):

now, the english translation of the weimar edition (wa tr 6, 247, 24) can be found in luther's works (philadelphia edition), vol. 54: table talk (pp. 139–140, no. 3701, ca. 1538–1542). there it reads literally:“twice a week is the due of women; it hurts neither you nor me, and makes the year one hundred and four.” the original german passage appears in martin luther's table talks, weimar edition (wa tr) 6, 247, 24: “die woche zwer, der weiber gebühr, schadet weder mir noch dir machts jahr hundert und vier.”

I checked the Table Talk in the Philadelphia edition of Luther's Works (LW 54). The quote was not on pages 139-140. The entries on those pages are from 1532, not "ca. 1538-1542." The entry numbers on pages 138-139 are 1325, 1326, 1327, 1329, not "no. 3701." In LW 54, entry 3701 is found on pages 261-262... and the quote is not there.  In the Weimar edition, Table Talk 3701 is found in WA Tr 3:545-546. The quote is not there either. Nowhere in LW does it say in English, “twice a week is the due of women; it hurts neither you nor me, and makes the year one hundred and four.” I'm entirely confused by the LW follow-up documentation! 

Where then did this information come from? I suspect it was taken from a webpage article entitled Meister Eckhart´s Mystik und der "fröhliche Wechsel" bei Martin Luther. This paper states,

Daß Sexualität Modus und sakramentaler Ausdruck der Ehe ist, hat Luther nicht bestritten, ist doch heute noch in evangelischen Familien eine genaue Zahlenangabe über den zuträglichen ehelichen Sexualverkehr sprichwörtlich geronnen im Umlauf.[286]

[286] WATR 6,247,24 „Die Woche zwier, der Weiber Gebühr, schadet weder mir noch dir, macht's Jahr einhundert- und vier.“

Google translate:

Becoming one flesh is an expression for marriage. Luther did not deny that sexuality is the mode and sacramental expression of marriage, and even today, a precise numerical guideline regarding appropriate marital sexual intercourse is still proverbially circulating in Protestant families. [286]

[286] WATR 6,247,24 "Twice a week, that's a woman's due, it harms neither me nor you, making it one hundred and four times a year."

I can't know for sure this is where the quote was taken from, but the similarities suggest there is a potential collaboration. As per Google AI, it concludes the quote is attributed to Luther, but not proven to be his:

Authorship: Although the quotation is attributed to Luther in many collections, its actual origin has not been proven beyond doubt historically. It appears increasingly in this form in collections of proverbs of the 19th century.

I agree with Google AI. There are nineteenth century occurrences of the quote found via simple searches. For instance, here's one from 1838 mentioning it is "Luther's rhyme":

This 2013 book appears to have done the necessary work of trying to trace the quote down to its source:

Google AI English translation:

In Wilhelm Wander's fifth volume of his German Proverbs Lexicon, published in 1880, the saying reads: "Two weeks, the women's fee, harms neither me nor you, makes one hundred and four in a year." Wander cites the oldest known evidence to date, three collections of German proverbs. Wilhelm Körte was the first to attribute the saying to the Reformer in 1837. Josua Eiselein adopted it in 1840, and finally It can be found in Karl Simrock's work from 1846. None of the three authors provide a source. Wander also quotes a variant appropriate to the "nation of love" from a book on French proverbs published in 1841: "Il faut se resveiller deux foys la nuit pour vendre le bien de sa femme" (One must wake up twice in the night to give one's wife what she deserves). Whether there were any connections between the German and French variants in the form of migration remains to be determined. It is not impossible, as Paris was a popular place of exile for German artists, especially in the 1830s. Heinrich Heine and Ludwig Börne are examples. 

It should be noted in passing that Luther, in reference to Luke 18:9-14, repeatedly recommends performing another action, namely fasting, twice a week, for example in a sermon on August 31, 1522. But this, being quite the opposite of the saying under discussion, can hardly be considered its source.

Conclusion
The quote "twice a week is the due of women; it hurts neither you nor me, and makes the year one hundred and four" or it's English variant, "Twice a week, is a woman's due, harms neither me nor you" does not appear to be from Martin Luther at all. Therefore, it is false that "martin luther to married couples prescribed intercourse at least twice a week as the correct quota, no matter what."

Catholic Answers Says the Canon of Scripture Could Include More Books if the Eastern and Western Churches Unite

 This is from 2024:

Catholic Answers Says the Canon of Scripture Could Include More Books if the Eastern and Western Churches Unite?

I watched this video from Catholic Answers. Check this out:

Catholic Answers: "An interesting question concerns what would happen if we and the Eastern Orthodox reunited.  One of the things that I strongly suspect would happen is we would say, "Okay, the issue of the exact border of these books did not divide us before the separation, and so it doesn't need to divide us now." In fact, I was reading just yesterday a quotation from Joseph Ratzinger, where he said that in order to reunite with the Orthodox, we shouldn't require more of them than what they believed before the separation, and they should not regard anything that's happened in Catholicism since the separation is heretical.  So we'd have a situation where within the Catholic Church, you have two opinions. Applying that to the canon, you would have one opinion in the  Western Church that, "Okay, the proto-canonicals  and the seven deuterocanonicals that Catholics  accept are Scripture, and within the reunited  Eastern Orthodox Churches, you would have the  opinion that the proto-canonicals and the seven  plus books that are deuterocanonical that they  accept are Scripture, and these two views could  live alongside each other without a problem." Let a few centuries go by, the Church might decide to revisit the question and hypothetically could accept those books, but we're getting into pretty speculative territory here." 

Luther: "I Prefer a Dead Rather Than a Disobedient Son." Child Abuse?

 Here's a strange one I came upon:

Luther was a stern disciplinarian with his children. On one occasion, he commented that he would prefer to have a “dead rather than a disobedient son” (Luther, WA, TR 5: 489, n. 6102). On another occasion, he forbade his son to see him for three days as punishment for his disobedience. At the end of the period, he required the boy to write a letter begging his father' forgiveness.

This is the first time I've run across this quote. It must not be one that Luther's detractors find all that compelling! However, after digging around a bit I discovered it's one of the passages used to prove Martin Luther's abuse of children. Let's take a closer look to see what's going on.

Documentation

This snippet above comes from a 2012 article entitled, Martin Luther on Marriage and Family from Andrews University by a member of the faculty. A quick Google search immediately linked me to a snippet from an old 1932 periodical:

Finding a full view of this old article was futile. The similarities though between the two snippets strongly suggests to me that the former may have relied on this old article, unattributed. It looks like some of the words have been altered in order to avoid plagiarism. It's either a bizarre coincidence, or the former utilized the historical content of the later. 

However, what is provided in a meaningful reference:  "Luther, WA, TR 5: 489, n. 6102." This refers to the standard German collection of Luther's writings, the Weimar edition (WA). The "TR" refers to "Tischreden," in English known as the Table Talk. I never tire of pointing out the Table Talk is a collection of secondhand comments written down by Luther's friends and students, published after his death. It often falls on deaf ears when I point out that Luther didn't write the Table Talk. Since the statements contained therein are purported to have been made by Luther, they should serve more as corroborating second-hand testimony to something Luther is certain to have written. " 5: 489" refers to the volume and page number in WA TR. "n. 6102" refers to the utterance number of the statement from Luther found on page 489. Unfortunately, I was not able to determine which of Luther's associates recorded this particular remark.

Table Talk utterance 6102 is not contained in the standard English edition of Luther's Works (LW). to my knowledge, none of the earlier English editions of the Table Talk include this utterance. The line in question is "Ich wollt lieber einen todten denn einen ungezogenen Sohn haben." 

Context 

Google AI rendering:

6102. (B. 1, 253) Martin Luther refused to accept his eldest son John for three whole days, although he had humbly supplicated in writing, interceding with his mother, Doctor Iona, Doctor Cruciger and Philip. To whom he replied: I would rather have a dead son than a disobedient one. Paul did not say in vain that a bishop (B. 1, 254) should be such as rules his house well and educates his children well, so that others may be edified and not scandalized. We are set in a high place as an example to all, and our children are a scandal to others; so the boys want to take advantage of our privileges. Finally, even though he often sins, I never or rarely repent, and it happens to us according to the proverb: The evils of our house are the last to be experienced; when all the people have carried us through all the streets, we will experience them first. Therefore he must be punished, and we must not be connived at.

Conclusion

Contrary to the paper from Andrews University, it appears to me this Table Talk statement is not referring to two separate instances of discipline of Luther's oldest son. Rather, not talking to his son for three days and then saying he would rather have a “dead...  than a disobedient son” is the same occurrence. Also of note is Luther's oldest son was named Hans. The Table Talk says "loannem" (John). Lest there be any confusion, this is the Latin way to write "Hans."

I certainly see that this second-hand statement demonstrates Luther was a strict disciplinarian.  On the other hand, the statement does not prove Martin Luther abused his children... there's no record of that. The usual canard is that Luther was an abused child, not that he himself was an abuser of children.  However, I did discover that there are those sifting Luther's writings and charging him of child abuse.  In another on-line paper a writer makes insightful observations:

Anne Waldschmidt kindly mentioned work by Christian Mürner (1996), a disability activist who denounces the usual catalogue of supposed Luther-crimes, i.e. wanting to kill disabled children, rebellious peasants and Jews, with focus on the strange boy at Dessau. That work hardly aims for a balanced view of Luther and disabled people in historical context; yet it does discuss some primary Luther texts and quotes a few more writers in German on allied topics.

-snip-

Christian Mürner (1996), weaving together sources out of context, seems to suggest that little Hans really was in danger: in disciplining his children, supposedly Luther "would not even shrink from murder" (quoting Carl-Heinz Mallet, "nicht einmal vor einem Mord zurückgeschreckt"). This is supported by Luther's 'threat' that "Ich wollt lieber einem toten denn einen ungezogenen Sohn haben", with an unspecified Biblical saying that the Parents' will is God's will, and one should kill disobedient children ("Er beruft sich auf die Bibel, 'der Eltern Diener, under der Eltern Wille is Gottes Wille. Der heisst under gebeut, dass man ungehorsame Kinder töten soll.'") The latter could perhaps refer to the Torah provision, that parents might bring their son before the city elders and accuse him of being stubborn and rebellious, profligate, drunken and leading a riotous life. If proven, the community could stone the delinquent (Deuteronomy 21: 18-21); though in practice, such a penalty was not carried out without serious warnings and community action to correct the behaviour problems (Hertz, 1952, pp. 841-842, 845). One can apply this kind of rhetoric to Luther only by imagining that he was a wild, crazy man in his home, liable to break out and attack his own small children with axe or hammer. Luther's many students and companions, friends and guests, who saw and recorded his everyday behaviour, somehow never met this homicidal maniac.

 

Bogus Roman Catholic Memes #9

 

This is a Martin Luther meme typically posted by Rome's defenders. I've noticed that out of all the Roman Catholic "Luther" memes circulating, there seems to be a majority expressing something about Martin Luther's view of Mary. Weird. 

How to Respond:

1. Begin with the provided documentation, "Martin Luther Explanation of the Magnificat, 1521." If you search Luther's exposition of the Magnificat, you will not find this exact quote in this form. The quote is actually a truncated English version from an article entitled, "Was Luther a Marian Devotee?" by Roman Catholic scholar William Cole. See my detailed explanation here. 

2. Luther's exposition of the Magnificat was originally viewed as an attack on popular sixteenth century Mariology by Rome's sixteenth century defenders. See my detailed examination here.  Times have changed... now Rome's defenders use it to promote their current understanding of Mariology.

3. Did Luther "honor" Mary. Yes... but what is meant by "honor"? Roman Catholic apologists need to define their terms. They need to be able to tell you what Marian "honor" is. They cannot be allowed to equivocate: Luther saying nice things about Mary does not equal Rome's version of devotion / honor. Force them to provide an official statement from the Magisterium.  Then, apply that official statement to Luther’s writings. I do not deny that Luther spoke favorably about Mary, but when Roman Catholics say "honor" or “devotion”, they mean something quite different than Protestants. In fact, in Luther's exposition of the Magnificat he says, "Whoever, therefore, would show her the proper honor must not regard her alone and by herself, but set her in the presence of God and far beneath Him, must there strip her of all honor, and regard her low estate, as she says..." (LW 21:322). And also, "all those who heap such great praise and honor upon her head are not far from making an idol of her..." (LW 21:322).

4. Was Luther invoking Mary as an intercessor when he writes, "Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God"? No! In context Luther is exhorting people to consider themselves low and humble and in awe of God's grace, like Mary:

Whoever, therefore, would show her the proper honor must not regard her alone and by herself, but set her in the presence of God and far beneath Him, must there strip her of all honor, and regard her low estate, as she says; he should then marvel at the exceedingly abundant grace of God, who regards, embraces, and blesses so poor and despised a mortal. Thus regarding her, you will be moved to love and praise God for His grace, and drawn to look for all good things to Him, who does not reject but graciously regards poor and despised and lowly mortals. Thus your heart will be strengthened in faith and love and hope. What do you suppose would please her more than to have you come through her to God this way, and learn from her to put your hope and trust in Him, notwithstanding your despised and lowly estate, in life as well as in death? She does not want you to come to her, but through her to God.

Again, nothing would please her better than to have you turn in fear from all lofty things on which men set their hearts, seeing that even in His mother God neither found nor desired anything of high degree. But the masters who so depict and portray the blessed Virgin that there is found in her nothing to be despised, but only great and lofty things—what are they doing but contrasting us with her instead of her with God? Thus they make us timid and afraid and hide the Virgin’s comfortable picture, as the images are covered over in Lent. For they deprive us of her example, from which we might take comfort; they make an exception of her and set her above all examples. But she should be, and herself gladly would be, the foremost example of the grace of God, to incite all the world to trust in this grace and to love and praise it, so that through her the hearts of all men should be filled with such knowledge of God that they might confidently say: “O Blessed Virgin, Mother of God, what great comfort God has shown us in you, by so graciously regarding your unworthiness and low estate. This encourages us to believe that henceforth He will not despise us poor and lowly ones, but graciously regard us also, according to your example.” (LW 21:322-323).

Bogus Roman Catholic Memes #8

 

Here's a meme that highlights the 1519 Leipzig debate between Martin Luther and the Roman Catholic theologian John Eck.  The Luther character asks where prayers for the dead are in the Bible, the Eck character responds with 2 Maccabees 12:43-46. 

The Argument: The issue of "prayers for the dead" is symbiotically related to purgatory. Proving the first becomes a prooftext for the other. Rome's defenders often argue that Eck trapped Luther into denying the seven books of the Old Testament Apocrypha at this moment of the debate. That is, in order to deny prayers for the dead and the reality of purgatory, Luther was forced to deny the infallible authority of the Apocrypha. It is at this juncture in which Luther decided to remove the seven books of the Apocrypha from the Biblical canon. 

How to Respond:

1.Luther went into the Leipzig debate still affirming the reality of Purgatory (though with reservations) and still adhered to it for a while after the Leipzig debate, probably rejecting it sometime in 1520. 

2. There is no meaningful proof that the Leipzig debate was the point in which Luther rejected the Apocrypha. If one searches Luther's writings, he consistently quoted from the Apocrypha in the same way both before and after the Leipzig debate. 

3. Luther did not accept the Apocrypha and then reject it. He never accepted it as primary infallible Scripture. Luther was schooled in a tradition that gave the Apocrypha secondary non-canonical status.

4. Rome's defenders typically only provide evidence Luther rejected 2 Maccabees and then make the illogical leap that he rejected the entire Apocrypha because of Eck's trap at the Leipzig debate. Evidence is not offered as to why the other books were rejected by Luther, it is assumed. 

For further reading, see my old AOMIN entries in which I critiqued Roman Catholic Apologist Gary Michuta's book, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger:

• Why Gary Michuta Says Protestant Bibles Are Smaller (1)
• 
  
• Why Gary Michuta Says Protestant Bibles Are Smaller (#2)