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)

  

Mary's Superpower of Invisibility

(Begin: Sarcasm alert)
Did Mary has the super-power of invisibility? She appears in brief historical narratives in the four Gospels, then at the end of the four Gospels, did she cloak herself with her superpower of.... invisibility? She uncloaks herself in Acts for a second or two, then she stays totally invisible for the rest of the New Testament! Did she secretly tell Paul, James, Peter, Jude, and the writer to the Hebrews not to mention her so as to keep her invisibility a secret? Paul may have slipped up a bit in Galatians 4 ("born of a woman"), and John got a little risky in Revelation 12... but he was careful enough to make it so we're not exactly sure if it's Mary he's writing about. It amazes me that the early church fathers and those from the medieval period missed this superpower! 

(End: Sarcasm alert)

While it may have been a concern throughout church history to properly define Mary, I see that concern more often as a long-winded rabbit trail initiated and provoked by a human gravity to violate the first commandment. The New Testament writers didn't spend a lot of time painstakingly defining every aspect of Mary or any other individual (although, we know much more about some people in the Bible to a greater extent than we know about Mary!). So along with those inspired writers, I don't see the God glorifying importance in doing so either. In my thinking, all the people God used salvifically as recorded in the pages of sacred scripture are important and worthy of honor... but by honor, I don't believe it's much more than saying, "Wow, I think it's wonderful that God used you in such a unique way to be memorialized in the pages of sacred scripture. Thank you!" Yes, yes, it was an incredible privilege for Mary to have the role she had, and yes, I'm aware of Luke 1:48. Yes, certain people in Scripture are used in greater ways than others. I get it...BUT: it is not "honor" to create theological aspects of Mary that are not found in the Bible. 

If Paul took a few chapters in one of his letters to expound on distinctly Roman Catholic Marian dogmas and that I needed the information to have a rich and deep daily understanding of Mary in order to grasp the Gospel, I'd sign up for that. This doesn't mean I don't think it's interesting, but it's not anything that I need to be thoroughly equipped for every good work (2 Tim. 3:17).

Lutheran Scholars Writing About Luther You Should Know: J.M Reu + My Two Cents on Academia

If I recall, there used to be meaningful search hits to J.M. Reu's Luther and the Scriptures via Google. Now they're gone. That's weird. J.M. Reu was an excellent trustworthy twentieth Century Lutheran scholar that I've utilized often. Back in 2011 I noted that I spent a lot of money purchasing this book on the left only to have it eventually appear online for free (this loss of money for old books that eventually come online has happened to me many times!). If you're interested in a clear and simple approach to Luther, Reu is good author to have in your library. His book, Luther's German Bible is one of the best books in English on the subject. Also, I just discovered a tribute book to J.M. Reu on the Internet Archive. J.M. Reu is the type of scholar I gravitate toward.

As of the writing of this entry, Wikipedia has a fairly innocuous short biography on him (Wiki is subject to change at the whims anonymous miscreants). Biola provides a decent bio. This bio states,

 He was criticized by some professional theologians because he was not coming up with some original nuance of theology. His answer was that he was not that kind of theologian. His calling was to collate and systematize the teachings of all the Lutheran theologians and communicate this to the lay members of Lutheran congregation by way of the students he was teaching in the seminary.

Higher Education and Publishing

If this anecdote is accurate, I can only channel my inner Wayne's World and say, "Not Worthy!" The current zeitgeist of higher education is fixated on publishing something "new" and original in order for someone to climb the ladder of higher education. I've had discussions with two friends involved in Philosophy. One earned his doctorate many years ago, and I've watched him struggle to earn a living with his degree. The other is working on his doctorate now. I listened to his struggle in putting together an original dissertation. My heart was breaking for him as I listened to him attempt to present something "new."   

True, I think there are gifted people out there that do achieve the goal of "new" and "groundbreaking," but they are not the majority. This scholastic goal has led to the influx of... junk, in all fields. For instance, I think there's a lot of junk in Luther studies particularly. Every year a new batch of books, studies, journal articles, etc. dedicated to Luther are released. They often present complicated arguments subject to the presuppositions and worldview of the author. Sifting through them sometimes is futile. Even understanding some of them is often futile. They seem to write books for the ivory towers of academia that only a small minority can comprehend. Many of the books / articles are also far too expensive to purchase... and quickly go out of print. Those of us in the trenches are unfortunately reliant on those that can sift out the main points from these expensive scholarly expeditions and spoon feed the main points to the rest of us. Hopefully, they get it right. 

Personal Stuff
Sometimes people wonder if I have any pedigree to be writing what I do. They're asking for credentials. Sure. I did my undergraduate work in Philosophy at a reputable college (I was double major in Philosophy and Communications), and I have two post graduate theological degrees from two respected conservative theological seminaries. I have been a member in good standing of a reputable conservative denominational church for over two decades and have served as an elder and teacher. I do have a Martin Luther book that's supposed to be published, but I have no control over what the publisher's timeline is. It is not a money-making venture.  I have also served as a researcher for this book. Granted, I don't agree with every conclusion this author makes, but I agree with many of them! 

Are these respectable credentials for me to write blog entries? For some people, yes, for others no. I get it... and I don't really care. Beggars All is a hobby for me. It is not a source of income. I write primarily for me about the topics I like. If someone benefits from them, that gives me a greater joy than what I already have in writing them for me. I'm fine with not creating anything new or original. If I were to have had an opportunity to interact with J.M. Reu, I would repeatedly thank him for avoiding the ivory towers of academia and providing good historical overviews that are practical and helpful.

Bogus Roman Catholic Memes #7

 This is a meme is often posted by Roman Catholics It's meant to demonstrate modern Protestants are not following the Roman Catholic Marian piety of the sixteenth century Reformers, especially using the phrase "Mother of God" like they did.  Here's how to respond:

1. For the Martin Luther quote: "The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart": In context, this quote is not a positive affirmation of Marian piety from Luther. Rather, the quote is part of a collection of sermons intended to wean people away from venerating the saints (including Mary). In context, Luther's point is that whatever respect Mary was due, the church of his day had collectively gone far beyond it. For full documentation of this quote, see: Luther: The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart.

2. For the John Calvin Quote: The most blatant error is that the quote in the meme is a mis-citation. Calvin did not write "Mother of God," but rather "mother of His Son."  Why is this important? Because Calvin avoided using the phrase, "Mother of God." According to Roman Catholic writer Thomas O'Meara, "Calvin nowhere calls Mary Theotokos or the Mother of God." O'Meara 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."Rome's defenders pour much more into the term "Mother of God" and Calvin realized this.n Calvin quote:  For full documentation of this quote, see: John Calvin on the Greatness of Mary.

3. For the Ulrich Zwingli quote: This one has bounced around the Internet for many years with a Roman Catholic tertiary source (not secondary!) used for documentation. I've done a detailed write up of this quote here. Interestingly, despite Zwingli's flowery Marian language, a number of scholars claim Zwingli did not adhere to Mary's Immaculate Conception... even the secondary Latin source this quote comes from says, "It is difficult to prove that Zwingli directly affirmed the doctrine of the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin" (E. Stakemeier, De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, (Rome, 1962), 455). The comment in context is a passing remark, not intended to be an exposition on Mary.

4. Conclusion: Zwingli, like Martin Luther, vehemently opposed a sine quo non of Roman Catholic Mariology: intercession. Rome's defenders seem to treat this denial like it's no big deal. However, all the distinctive Roman Catholic Marian attributes (Perpetual Virginity, Assumption, Immaculate Conception, etc.) were symbiotically related to her ability to intercede, in the sixteenth century and now. Take away Mary's ability to intercede, whatever is left really becomes a curiosity of history rather than something profoundly meaningful.

Addendum
Here's another version of the meme. Notice in the Calvin quote, "Mother of God" is now correctly, "Mother of His Son."

"A Broken Clock is Right Twice a Day"

There have a been a number of occasions in which someone has responded to me, "even a broken clock is right twice a day." I've had the comment directed to me personally and I've also had it directed toward Luther.  While the statement may appear to be logical, it's drenched in negative sentiment, and meant to be an insult.  It's tantamount to saying to someone, "I think you're a fool, but you got _____ correct. There are a few of reasons why I personally do not use this statement.

1."Even a broken clock is right twice a day" has the inference that someone is correct about something by luck or by chance. When used against me, it often infers that the conclusion I've reached on a topic is not the result of research and hard work. As my blog entries demonstrate, a lot of work goes into something before it's posted. 

2. "Even a broken clock is right twice a day" has the inference that someone is usually wrong on everything, but in a rare instance got something correct. I think this is just an expression of the ad hominem fallacy, of insulting someone personally even if one agrees with their point or conclusion. Rome's defenders have hurled this insult at me particularly when I present historical facts they've gotten wrong. They mention I'm correct and they're wrong but then proceed to insult me. 

3. I've seen "even a broken clock is right twice a day" applied to Luther after I point out that a defender of Rome trashes Martin Luther but then appeals to him positively. This is the same method of insult as described above.  My usual response is to turn the tables by showing that Rome's defenders are still using Luther as an authority.

For instance, I interacted with a defender of Rome that repeatedly uses this Luther quote: "In like manner He says, in Matthew xvi, to the one man Peter, who stands as the representative of the one and only Church" (A brief explanation of the Creed; Works of Martin Luther vol. 2 - p.373). This quote is meant to demonstrate that Luther ultimately believed Jesus established the pope / papacy in Matthew 16. Rome's defender ignored the fact that this writing was from 1520: a transitional year that ended with Luther being threatened with excommunication from the papacy and being officially excommunicated in January 1521. 

It is also rather odd since Luther went on to trash the pope and papacy numerous (if not countless!) times, demonstrated throughout his writings throughout the majority of his life. For instance, note these statements from Luther incorporated into The Book of Concord: 

[T]he pope is the real Antichrist who has raised himself over and set himself against Christ... [Tappert, T. G., ed. (1959). The Book of Concord the confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. (p. 300). Mühlenberg Press].

Accordingly, just as we cannot adore the devil himself as our lord or God, so we cannot suffer his apostle, the pope or Antichrist, to govern us as our head or lord, for deception, murder, and the eternal destruction of body and soul are characteristic of his papal government, as I have demonstrated in many books [Tappert, T. G., ed. (1959). The Book of Concord the confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. (p. 301). Mühlenberg Press].

Rome's defender rejected these statements and clung to his sole prooftext. At that point I simply continued to praise him for accepting Luther as an authority! 

Luther: “The most damnable and pernicious heresy that has ever plagued the mind of man is that somehow he can make himself good enough to deserve to live forever with an all-holy God”

 

Here's one meme-ing its way around cyberspace: 

“The most damnable and pernicious heresy that has ever plagued the mind of man is that somehow he can make himself good enough to deserve to live forever with an all-holy God.”--- Martin Luther

Where did it come from? Via a few cursory searches the earliest usage in this exact form I could find was from D. James Kennedy, Evangelism Explosion (1977), p.38

Notice Kennedy does not put the statement in quotes.  As far as I can tell, this is the source where this English quote originated from. I suspect he's paraphrasing Luther. From where? I do not know!

Martin Luther: If Your Spouse is Sick... Take a New Wife?

Here's an old character defaming Roman Catholic analysis of Martin Luther from the nineteenth century:

At the end of the second part of the famous sermon on matrimony Luther has some words of comfort for those, whose husbands or wives are ill. He will not allow such illness to be considered as a legitimate cause of divorce. „Blessed art thou, if thou acknowledgest such a grace, and servest thy sick partner willingly in the name of God. If thou sayest, thou canst not contain thyself, I answer: thou liest." But alas! Words! Words! We are used to see the „Reformer" change his opinion and contradict himself. In 1527 a case is brought before him, of a certain Hans Behem, whose wife is suffering from leprosy. Luther decides, that, if the wife consents, the husband may consider her as dead and proceed to a new marriage. Car tel est notre plaisir. (17)

(17) De Wette III. 194. This decision will also be found Tischr. II. c. 20. § 10S.

According to this nineteenth century Roman Catholic author, Martin Luther first stated that if a spouse is ill, that illness does not provide legitimate grounds for divorce. Then the author posits Luther is grossly inconsistent because later Luther approved of a man abandoning his sick wife and remarrying! This Roman Catholic author seals his interpretation with the French phrase, Car tel est notre plaisir (Because it is our will/pleasure) indicating that the husband could do whatever whimsically pleasures him, like swapping wives out when the first one breaks. 

Let's take a closer look and see if Luther was inconsistent and was suggesting licentious wife changing. 

Documentation
The quote above comes from a book by J. Verres, Luther an Historical Portrait, p. 211-212.  The 1884 version I utilized does not contain the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur. This book was quoted more frequently in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries than it is today. I've not uncovered much about this author other than he was a nineteenth century German Roman Catholic (as per his admission). There are a number of old reviews of Luther: An Historical Portrait.  Of the extant ones, most are favorable from Roman Catholic sources. Here though is a negative review. What's useful about this negative review is that it seems his contemporaries didn't know much about him either. Th review states, "Dr. Verres, we believe, a Catholic priest whom the vexatious Maigesetze compelled to find a second home in England." His book is best classified as belonging to the Roman Catholic period of destructive criticism of Martin Luther.

Two references are provided. The first is "De Wette III. 194." This refers to Dr. Martin Luthers Briefe. This is a collection of Luther's letters edited by Dr. Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette in the nineteenth century. This exact reference can be found here. It is a letter from Luther to Joachim von Weiszbach of Reinersdorf, August 23, 1527.To my knowledge, this letter has not been officially translated into English.  

The second reference is "Tischr. II. c. 20. § 10S." Verres includes a key to the abbreviations he used.  In his book, "Tischr" refers to the Tischreden, or Table Talk. He says the exact edition he used was: "Dr. M. Luther's sinnreiche Tischreden. 2 voll. Stuttgart und Leipzig 1836."  What Verres is citing is a second-hand source of comments Luther is alleged to have made, written down by his collogues and friends published after his death. These second-hand statements can be helpful as corroborating evidence for something Luther is known to have written or said while alive. The version / edition of Tischreden Volume 2 as cited by Verres does not appear to be available online as of the writing of this entry.  However, what Verres may be referring to is this Tischreden entry, WA Tr 6:267,6915. This text also provides some extra information.

Context

De Wette III. 194

English Translation from Google A.I.:

Grace and peace in Christ. Your Grace. I have received your letter concerning H. B., and at your request, this is my reply. Since the same H. B. neither knows nor is able, as he indicates, to manage his household without a wife, I neither know nor can prevent him from taking another wife to accept; he too is well excused by God, because a previous body willingly departed from him in this way, eternally forfeiting itself, thereby (justly) being considered dead and he himself being free to judge by her. But if she had not so completely consented, it would be another matter; for otherwise so much malice is undertaken everywhere in matters of God that it is not easy to admit so many offenses. With this, God be with you.") 1527

Alternate English A.I. Translation (DeepL):

I have received your letter concerning Hans Behem, and at your request, this is my answer: Since Hans Behem, as he indicates, neither knows nor is able to provide for his household without a wife, I cannot prevent or forbid him from taking another wife. Moreover, he is well excused before God because his previous wife willingly divorced him and eternally forgives him, so that she is justly considered dead and he himself is free from her judgment. If, however, she had not so completely consented, it would be a different matter. For otherwise, so much wantonness is practiced in marital matters that it is not easy to acknowledge so much offense. With this, God bless you. Given at Wittenberg on the eve of St. Bartholomew's Day, 1527.

 

WA Tr 6:267,6915. 

 

 English Translation from Google A.I.

6915. (FB. 4, 101 (43,108)) b the excommunication the marriage, D. M. L. objections to Joachim von Weißbach zu Reinersdorf; and this case was thus settled. (A.449; St.564; p. Append. 15) A woman had become exile, and willingly and without coercion entered the hospital and permitted her husband to take another. Thereupon, D. M. L. raised objections, as follows:

Grace and peace in Christ. Strict, firm, dear Lord and Friend! I have received your letter concerning Hans Behem, and at your request, this is my reply: Since Hans Behem, as he indicates, neither knows nor is able to provide for his household without a wife, I cannot prevent or forbid him from taking another wife. Furthermore, I believe he is well excused before God, because his previous wife willingly divorced him and has forgiven him, since she is rightfully considered dead and he himself is free from judgment. If, however, she had not so completely forgiven him, it would be a different matter. For otherwise, so much willful intent is taken in marital matters that it is not easy to accept so much wrongdoing. With this, God bless you. Given at Wittenberg on the eve of St. Bartholomew's Day, 1527.

DeepL English Rendering:

6915. (FB. 4, 101 (43,108)) b the divorce, D. M. L. Concerns about Joachim von Weißbach zu Reinersdorf; and this case was thus dealt with. (A.449; St.564; S. Append. 15) A woman had been divorced and had willingly and voluntarily entered the hospital and allowed her husband to take another wife. Upon this, D. M. L. raised the following concerns:

Grace and peace in Christ. Strict, steadfast, dear sir and friend! I have received your letter concerning Hans Behem, and at your request, this is my reply: If Hans Behem does not know how to manage his household, as he states, without a wife, then I do not know how to prevent or forbid him from taking another wife, and also, he is well excused before God, because his previous wife willingly divorced him, and he has forgiven her, since she is rightly to be considered dead and he himself is free from her. But if she had not been so completely lost, it would be another matter. For otherwise, so much arbitrariness is committed in matrimonial matters that it is not easy to grant so much forgiveness. With this, I commend you to God. Given at Wittenberg on the eve of St. Bartholomew's Day, 1527."

Additional Information

Google A.I.  English Translation

The woman who had been expelled willingly, without being forced by her husband, went to the hospital in Begaiv and allowed the man to woo another. Thereupon, D. M. L. sent a letter to Joachim von Weispach of Reyuersdorf, which was:

DeepL English Translation

The woman who was sent away willingly, without being forced by her husband, went to the hospital in Begaiv and told her husband to find another wife. Upon this, D. M. L. had the following thoughts about Joachim von Weispach zu Reyuersdorff:

Conclusion
While these are clunky A.I. English translations, there are easily discernable facts: On August 23, 1527, Luther received a letter from Joachim von Weiszbach of Reinersdorf on behalf of Hans Behem. Behem's wife was stricken by a disease and taken (or went willingly) to the hospital. At some point during this illness, the husband (Hans Behem) asked his wife for a divorce and permission to marry another since he could not care of his household on his own. The wife completely consented. Luther says, if this severely ill woman had not consented, he would have given different answer, implying a negative answer. 

Here is what's not easily discernable. I could locate no specific information about either Joachim von Weißbach zu Reinersdorf or Hans Behem. The text is unclear whether or not the woman had died at this point in the writing of the response of Luther's letter.

What then of the charge of Luther's charges leveled by Verres? First, the charge of Luther's gross inconsistency. Verres is contrasting this 1527 private letter with Luther's earlier 1522 treatise, The Estate of Marriage. Beggars All provides a detailed look at exactly what Verres was referring to. In that treatise, Luther symbiotically joined marriage and family together. In Luther's thinking, you cannot consider one without the other. Luther saw the goal of family as more than a direct command from God: it is "a divine ordinance [werck] which it is not our prerogative to hinder or ignore"(LW 45:18). Hence when Behem presented the hardship of caring for his household alone, Luther viewed a two-parent household over a single-parent household. Because of the symbiotic relationship between marriage and family, Luther's allowance is consistent. True, Luther did write in 1522 that one is not free to divorce a sick spouse, but that again is symbiotically related to family. If a spouse is sick and unable to bear children, the other spouse is not free to divorce but to accept the situation he has been placed in by God. In Behem's complicated situation, it appears by managing a household, children were involved, and the wife willingly granted permission to her husband to divorce her. But what the charge by Verres that Luther's view is Car tel est notre plaisir (Because it is our will/pleasure) indicating that the husband could do whatever pleasures him? This is not found in the letter at all, nor the earlier 1522 treatise, The Estate of Marriage.

Bogus Roman Catholic Memes #6: The Protestant Dilemma, Luther and Mary's Sinlessness

 Here's a Martin Luther meme found on Facebook:

How to respond:

1. Identify the argument: This is a typical Roman Catholic argument that if Martin Luther restored "Biblical Christianity" to its pure state, then all subsequent Protestants are obligated to follow everything he said in regard to Christianity. They argue that Luther believed in the Immaculate Conception of Mary, so this is contrary to modern Protestants that believe "all have sinned" including Mary. 

2. Locate the source: No source is given in the meme for the Martin Luther quote.  For this quote, Rome's defenders often cite either Luther's "Personal Prayer Book" or "Little Prayer Book" 1522.  This is old-school Roman Catholic Internet documentation that's vague enough to not be helpful. This text is easy enough to find: it has been translated into English in LW 43:40.

3. Present More Clarifying Information. At times Martin Luther's view of Mary was in flux, and this quote is a good example of it. Leading up to 1522, it can be documented that Luther wavered on making a definite conclusion on Mary's sinlessness. In 1521-1522, he seems to have finally concluded Mary was sinless. After this, his position changed. The best one can speculate is that for the majority of his career as a Reformer, he believed that at the conception of Jesus Christ, Mary was purified by the Holy Spirit. At Christ's conception the Holy Spirit sanctified Mary so that the child would be born with non-sinful flesh and blood. This means that at least up until the conception of Christ, Luther believed that Mary was not sinless. His mature position is not the 1854 dogma of the Immaculate Conception (Ineffabilis Deus). After Mary's conception of Christ, Luther places Mary among sinners (documented below). 

A question arises for Luther's later view: If Mary was purified or made sinless at the conception of Jesus, did she then go on to live a completely sinless life? Here are some statements from Luther in which he places her among sinful humanity after the birth of Jesus:

This should shut the mouths of vain babblers who too highly exalt the holy Virgin Mary and other saints as if they knew everything and could not err. In this place you hear that they err and blunder, not only by seeking Christ everywhere and not knowing where to find Him until they happen to come into the temple, but also by not understanding these words, with which He rebukes their lack of understanding  and says to them: "Did you not know that I must be in that which is My Father's?" The evangelist has intentionally pointed this out and will not conceal it, so that we will not allow such lying speech from foolish, inexperienced, and inflated teachers of works, who brag about the saints and even make them into idols (LW 76:202).

Original text: Hie mit ist den unnützen Schwetzern das maul gestopfft, so die Heilige Jungfraw Maria und andere Heiligen gar zu hoch heben, als haben sie alles gewust und nie nicht können jrren. Denn hie hörestu, wie sie jrren und straucheln nicht allein in dem, das sie Christum allenthalben suchen und nicht wissen zu finden, Bis sie ongefehr in Tempel komen, Sondern das sie auch dis Wort nicht verstehen, damit er jren unverstand straffet und zu jnen sagen mus: "Wisset jr nicht, das ich sein mus in dem, das meines Vaters ist". Das hat der Euangelist mit grossem vleis angezeigt und nicht wollen verschweigen, Auff das man solchen Lügenteidingen nicht stattgebe, so unverstendige, unerfarene und auffgeblasene Wercklerer von den Heiligen rhuymen und sie gar zu Abgöttern machen (WA 17.2:26). 

Whether they are called holy, learned, fathers, councils, or whatever else- it does not for that reason follow that they could not have erred and been wrong. Here we find that the mother of Christ, who had great understanding and enlightenment, was ignorant, since she did not think or know where to find Christ, and for that reason was rebuked by Him because she did not know what she should have known. If she blundered and through her ignorance came into such anxiety and sorrow that she even thought she had lost Christ, is it any wonder that other saints have often erred and stumbled when they went outside of Scripture and followed their own thoughts or dragged them into Scripture? (LW 76:204).

Original text: Hie wider sol man antworten, wie gesagt ist, aus disem Euangelio. Es heisse Heilig, Gelert, Veter, Concilia, oder was es sein mag, Wenn es gleich Maria, Joseph und alle Heiligen miteinander weren, So folget darumb nicht, das sie nicht haben können jrren und feilen. Denn hie hörestu, das die Mutter Christi, Welche doch hohen verstand und erleuchtung hat, in die unwissenheit kompt, das sie nicht weis noch dencket, wo sie Christum finden sol, Und darumb von im gestrafft wird, das sie solchs nicht weis, das sie doch wissen solte. Hat nu sie gefeilet und durch jre unwissenheit ist in solch angst und betrubnis komen, das sie meinet, sie habe Christum gar verloren, Was ists wunder, ob andere Heiligen offt geirret und gestrauchelt haben, wenn sie ausser der Schrifft gegangen und jren gedancken gefolget oder die selben in die Schrifft gezogen haben? (WA 17.2:28).

You say further: "Yes the church and the fathers had the Holy Spirit, who did not let them err." That can easily be answered from what has been said: No matter how holy the Church or the councils may be, they had no more of the Holy Spirit than Mary, the mother of Christ, who was also a member [of the Church], even at that time the most distinguished part of the Church. Even though she had been sanctified by the Holy Spirit, yet He sometimes let her err, even in the high matters of faith. For that reason it does not follow that the saints who have the Spirit cannot err and that everything they say must be correct. There still remains much weakness and ignorance even among the highest people. For that reason we must not judge doctrine and the matters of faith which come from the Holy Spirit according to personal holiness, for that can be all wrong. Rather, here you must come where God's Word is, for that is certain and does not err; there you certainly find Christ and the Holy Spirirt; there you can take your stand and remain against sin, death, and the devil (LW 76:206).

Original text: So sprichstu weiter: Ja, die Kirche und Veter haben den Heiligen Geist gehabt. Der lesst sie ja nicht jrren. Darauff ist leicht zu antworten aus dem, so gesagt ist, die Kirche oder Concilia sind so heilig als sie wollen, so haben sie den heiligen Geist nicht mehr denn Maria, die Mutter Christi, welche ist ja auch ein Gelied, ja, zu der zeit das furnemeste stück der Kirchen gewest. Und wiewol sie durch den heiligen Geist geheiliget ist, noch lesset er sie zu weilen auch jrren, auch in den hohen sachen des Glaubens. Darumb folget nicht, das die Heiligen, so den Geist haben, darumb nicht jrren können und alles muste recht sein, was sie sagen. Es bleibet noch viel schwacheit und unwissenheit auch in den höhesten Leuten, das man nicht nach personlicher Heiligkeit mus urteilen von der Lere und des Glaubens sachen, was aus dem heiligen Geist sey. Denn das kan alles feilen. Sondern hieher mustu komen, da Gottes wort ist, das ist gewis und feilet nicht, da findestu Christum und den heiligen Geist gewislich Und kanst darauff bestehen und bleiben wider Sunde, Tod und Teuffel (WA 17.2:30). 

I first mentioned these quotes as far back as 2006. Luther may have held to Mary's immaculate purification, but he did not hold that Mary remained sinless for the rest of her life after the birth of Jesus. For further discussion, see this link. 

Did Martin Luther say, “Love God? I hate Him!”?

This came up in a Roman Catholic vs. Protestant Facebook debate group:

“Love God?! I hate Him!" - Martin Luther. Question for Protestants who are not Anglican... Why would you listen to Martin Luther if he hates God?"

Lest one think this was an unbiased question from a sincere Roman Catholic participant, the same person went on to write, "let's not also forget he influenced Hitler with his Antisemitic writings" and "Martin Luther was evil." I was also informed that Martin Luther was in hell because of visions from a few saints. The intent of this question amounts to online rage bating.  

Let's take a closer look to see if Martin Luther really said he hates God.

Documentation

As is often the case from online hostile Roman Catholics, no documentation was provided. In the discussion I repeatedly asked for an actual quote, an actual context, and if possible, a meaningful link. The author of the question did not respond to this request. Very few Roman Catholic participants responded to this request. In fact, only one person ventured this proof:

Out of principle, I flatly rejected the A.I. method of lazy documentation. Would Rome's defenders step up and locate the quote? The same defender of Rome gave a few more tries with secondary links, even providing a link to R.C. Sproul's famous lecture on Luther. However, helpful Dr. Sproul's classic lecture is, it still doesn't show proper documentation. Even in the overview contained in his book, The Holiness of God, Dr. Sproul cites Roland Bainton's Here I Stand, a Martin Luther biography, not a primary source. The point in provoking Rome's defenders to search out a primary context is to have the correct document to determine who's correctly interpreting it.

Leaving this documentation cat and mouse game aside, there is no such exact quote from Luther in which he says, "Love God?! I hate Him!” I suspect the quote is a rendering of Luther's comment, "I did not love, yes, I hated the righteous God who punishes sinners..." being morphed with Dr. Sproul's classic lecture seeping into the collective unconscious of the Internet. 

If this is the correct quote, it's easy enough to locate. The primary source for would be Vorrede zum ersten Bande der Gesamtausgaben seiner lateinischen Schriften, Wittenberg 1545, located at WA 54:185. In English, this treatise is entitled, Preface to the Complete Edition of Luther’s Latin Writings, Wittenberg, 1545. The quote is found located at LW 34:336-337.

Context

Though I lived as a monk without reproach, I felt that I was a sinner before God with an extremely disturbed conscience. I could not believe that he was placated by my satisfaction. I did not love, yes, I hated the righteous God who punishes sinners, and secretly, if not blasphemously, certainly murmuring greatly, I was angry with God, and said, “As if, indeed, it is not enough, that miserable sinners, eternally lost through original sin, are crushed by every kind of calamity by the law of the decalogue, without having God add pain to pain by the gospel and also by the gospel threatening us with his righteousness and wrath!” Thus I raged with a fierce and troubled conscience. Nevertheless, I beat importunately upon Paul at that place, most ardently desiring to know what St. Paul wanted.

At last, by the mercy of God, meditating day and night, I gave heed to the context of the words, namely, “In it the righteousness of God is revealed, as it is written, ‘He who through faith is righteous shall live.’ ” There I began to understand that the righteousness of God is that by which the righteous lives by a gift of God, namely by faith. And this is the meaning: the righteousness of God is revealed by the gospel, namely, the passive righteousness with which merciful God justifies us by faith, as it is written, “He who through faith is righteous shall live.” Here I felt that I was altogether born again and had entered paradise itself through open gates. There a totally other face of the entire Scripture showed itself to me. Thereupon I ran through the Scriptures from memory. I also found in other terms an analogy, as, the work of God, that is, what God does in us, the power of God, with which he makes us strong, the wisdom of God, with which he makes us wise, the strength of God, the salvation of God, the glory of God.

And I extolled my sweetest word with a love as great as the hatred with which I had before hated the word “righteousness of God.” Thus that place in Paul was for me truly the gate to paradise. Later I read Augustine’s The Spirit and the Letter, where contrary to hope I found that he, too, interpreted God’s righteousness in a similar way, as the righteousness with which God clothes us when he justifies us. Although this was heretofore said imperfectly and he did not explain all things concerning imputation clearly, it nevertheless was pleasing that God’s righteousness with which we are justified was taught (LW 34:336-338).

Original text: 

Ego autem, qui me, utcunque irreprehensibüis monachus vivebam, sentirem coram Deo esse peccatorem inquietissimae conscientiae, nee raea satisfactione placatum confidere possem, non amabam, imo odiebam iustum et punientem peecatores Deum, tacitaque si non blasphemia, certe ingenti raurmuratione indignabar Deo, dicens: quasi vero non satis sit, miseros peecatores et aeternaliter perditos peccato originali omni genere calamitatis oppressos esse per legem decalogi, nisi Dens per euangelium dolorem dolori adderet, et etiam per euangelium nobis iustitiam et iram suam intentaret. Furebam ita saeva et perturbata conscieutia, pulsabam tarnen importunus eo loco Pallium, ardentissime sitiens scire, quid S. Paulus vellet.

Donec miserente Deo meditabundus dies et noctes connexionem verborum atteuderem, uempe: lustitia Dei revelatur in illo, sicut scriptum est: lustus ex fide vivit, ibi iustitiam Dei coepi intelligere eam, qua iustus dono Dei s vivit, nempe ex fide, et esse hanc sententiam, revelari per euangelium iustitiam Dei, scilicet passivam, qua uos Deus misericors iustificat per fidem, sicut scriptum est: lustus ex fide vivit. Hie ine prorsus renatum esse sensi, et apertis portis in ipsam paradisum intrasse. Ibi continuo alia mihi facies totius scripturae apparuit. Discurrebam deinde per scripturas, ut habebat lo memoria, et coUigebam etiam in aliis vocabulis analogiam, ut opus Dei, id est, quod operatur in nobis Deus, virtus Dei, qua nos potentes facit, sapientia Dei, qua nos sapientes facit, fortitudo Dei, salus Dei, gloria Dei.

lam quanto odio vocabulum 'iustitia Dei' oderam ante, tanto amore dulcissimum mihi vocabulum extollebam, ita mihi iste locus Pauli fuit vere is porta paradisi. Postea legebam Augustinum de spiritu et litera S ubi praeter spem offendi, quod et ipse iustitiam Dei similiter interpretatur: qua nos Deus induil, dum nos iustificat. Et quamquam imperfecte hoc adhuc sit dictum, ac de imputatione non clare omnia explicet, placuit tarnen iustitiam Dei doceri, qua nos iustificemur (WA 54:185-186).

Conclusion

This context provides Luther's detailed account of his discovery of justification by faith alone. It is one of the few detailed biographical accounts written by Luther himself. Even with this firsthand information, historians have not been able to conclusively determine the exact date or exact place in which the events described occurred. There have been a number of theories as to the specific date in which Luther came to his understanding of justification by faith alone.

The pertinent aspect of the context is that Luther did not leave the statement, "I did not love, yes, I hated the righteous God" hanging or representative of his total life. He goes on to describe his experience of coming to grasp that "the righteousness of God is that by which the righteous lives by a gift of God, namely by faith" (LW 34:337). He states he arrived at the opposite of hating the righteousness of God:

Here I felt that I was altogether born again and had entered paradise itself through open gates... And I extolled my sweetest word with a love as great as the hatred with which I had before hated the word “righteousness of God.” Thus that place in Paul was for me truly the gate to paradise (LW 34:337).