Luther Movie (2003) Reviews

[source]
Reviews of the movie LUTHER (2003) from faculty of the Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg. Original comments here: http://www.ltsg.edu/luthercolloquy/themovie.htm

Luther:
Rebel, Genius, Liberator
A Film by Eric Till, Released in September 2003

Reviews by:

Pastor Henry Morris
Dr. Kirsi Stjerna
Pastor Richard Koenig
Dr. Eric Gritsch

LUTHER — Harmless Bio-Pic That Gives Just Enough of Luther’s Life To Be Useful
Review by the Rev. Henry E. Morris

Unlike Martin Luther, the new movie about him is rather pleasant but not compelling. The film depicts famous vignettes from his life: the lightning induced vow to join a monastery, the moment of panic during his first Mass, the posting of 95 Theses on the Wittenburg Church door, but does not convey the gravity of these events. At the end of the film we are not sure what Luther has accomplished and not aware of the powerful forces both within him and around him that drove him to greatness.

The Luther we see in LUTHER is, for the most part, nice. One doesn’t have to look far into his writings to wonder where they got that idea. Imagine Martin Luther strolling the center aisle at Mass delivering sweet toned homilies about how loving God really is. The passionate, combative, highly polemical Luther does not appear much in this film. More’s the pity. He is a lot more interesting than the kindly town parson depicted here.

The terrible consequences of the Peasant Rebellion are depicted powerfully in sobering scenes of devastation. Instead of showing us the slaughter, the film shows us the slaughtered. Piles of bodies, whole villages, charred ruins filled with death. It is enough to make us wonder how the growing Reformation movement ever could have produced something this awful. Unfortunately, such questions remain unaddressed in this film. We see a stunned Luther brooding over the destruction, but get no hint that he might be aware of his responsibility for it. In this film, Luther grieves over this holocaust because he loves the people and God loves the people and well, it’s just not right to butcher them.

The film is not without its charms. Peter Ustinov shows us a wily Frederick the Wise. We can see how Frederick earned his sobriquet. Having undercut his own huge investment in relics by supporting Luther, we can see his dawning realization that betting on actual Grace, while righteous, will not be good for business. But he realizes the immense political importance of undermining the Roman authority and is persistent in his efforts to do so. Watching him work the Emperor and the Imperial system is the most fun we’re going to have at this movie.

And there is something to be said for depicting Luther as approachable. I like to think of him as one who would extend himself for a miserably poor woman and her disabled daughter and would take pity on the family of a young man who commits suicide. His famous rapport with his students is hinted at in the delivery of a hilarious lecture in which the foibles of papal Rome are lampooned with gusto.

What we have here is a harmless bio-pic that gives us enough of the outline of Luther’s life to be useful as an introduction. I can’t imagine that this is what the film makers were hoping to achieve. Alas, a movie about Luther that lacks depth is an achievement of sorts.
_________________________________________

The Luther Movie: Too Much Left in the Shadows
review by Kirsi I. Stjerna

Real life is often much juicier than any movie script-writer can offer. Certainly this is true with Martin Luther whose life is about as rich a source for a great movie as there is. One does not need to add any hyperbole or drama in the story – there’s blood and passion, there’s brain and politics, there’s love and sex, there’s courage and conviction, there’s corruption and correction. Why add anything more – or leave anything out?

Why then is it so hard to make an excellent movie true to Luther? Perhaps his early opponents were right, that he has at least seven heads and to try to imagine them all in one movie may just be simply possible. As it is also not that easy for us to imagine time other than ours, even with all the historical data we have been able to gather so far.

I’m not saying that the new movie on my favorite historical figure is bad. Nor am I giving it an excellent grade. It could have been outstanding if the “other sides” of Luther had been included, and if some unnecessary historical mistakes had been eliminated.

I saw the new Luther movie in Hanover Value Cinemas with my two elementary school age children and scoped a couple of seminarians there also. In a way the movie would well serve as seminarians’ training tool: “Watch the movie and catch the errors and gaps!” It well serves as an efficient, entertaining test for one’s Luther Trivia.

Who would I recommend the movie to, other than seminarians who need to see all that there is to see about Luther out there? I think I need to see it again to give a firm recommendation of the targeted audience. But after first viewing, I would not say I would not recommend the movie to children under certain age – there’s a lot to learn from the 16th century life through the beautiful and dark images in the movie and Ralph Fiennes is, in the words of my daughter, “pleasant to look at” – but it requires constant commentary and explanation.

My children who I thought are immune to violence and scary movies (thanks to Nickelodeon and the Cartoon Network) got actually scared with this movie after the first five minutes. There was something very dark about the movie, not merely the quantity of blood shed or the number of amputated limbs, but something else — the tone of the movie. It was full of angst and darkness and agony. I spent the two hours of the movie assuring the little Luther fanatics that “it will get lighter” after the “wedding scene.” I assured them that there was more to Luther than this.

It never got lighter. There really was no wedding scene. There barely was Katarina von Bora – which is too bad, because the actress could have really portrayed her well, I think.

As the movie does point out, Luther getting married was such a huge step, a scandal, thus it would have merited more of a celebration in the movie, not to mention bringing up the obvious effects of his marriage in his personality, life and life experiences, beer drinking and eating, as well as his thinking and writing. I personally was waiting to see how the movie would change when Katie enters the picture and six children are being born and Luther transitions from the solitary monk-preacher of reform to a husband, father, and jovial host in his noisy, crowded Augustinian monastery turned into a “parsonage.” None of that happened in the movie.

The movie ended too soon, but even so, by 1530’s, several results of their love had been given birth. Witnessing the birth of his children and loving them and witnessing his wife mother their children was in all a transforming experience for Luther, and it shows in his writings.

For those movie viewers who do not know this very important part of Luther’s personal and public life leave the movie with an incomplete image of Luther. A stereotypical and old-fashioned I would say, an image drawing from sources not drawing from the most recent and significant research on Luther’s life, personality, marriage, love life, and other such influences that shaped his theology and contribution significantly and in part made him the exceptional theologian he became.

As important as Luther’s criticism of the apparent abuses and corruption in the church and the abusive theology of the time is, also important are his insights on the sacredness of life in all vocations, the presence of God in all the aspects of human life, including the personal domestic arena and human relations. As invested as Luther was in purifying the teaching of the gospel and religious practices, he was equally passionate about the need to educate, teach and nourish the Christian faith at homes and with children; this was the occasion for his Catechisms, which undeniable represent his most lasting legacy as a teacher in the church. The movie could have done more this emphasis.

There were several exaggerations or simple historical inaccuracies – unfortunate and
unnecessary – and for listing of those I’d refer to Dr. Eric Gritsch’s review (see below). I share his disappointment that certain precious details have been messed with for movie making purposes, all of which eats away some of the movie’s credibility and frustrates all Luther lovers. One has to have the basic facts of Luther’s life and the main events around him correctly told in order to understand him. That is as important as the authenticity of the costumes.

Speaking of authenticity, I am not sure at which speed Luther’s dietary changes caused him to gain weight – thanks to Katie Luther, most certainly – but we all know that he did not maintain Ralph Fiennes’ figure for too long after getting married. I suppose it would have been too much to ask from Fiennes to “do the Robert De Niro thing”, for the sake of authenticity.

Also, I wished Andreas Karlstadt had gotten more of a role in the movie. His contribution, for better and worse, in the early days of Reformation is more important than the movie’s illustration. But, I guess Karlstadt must suffer being misconstrued and relegated (as is Katie) to the shadows of Luther.

Personally I found most irritating the simplicity with which the story of Martin’s and Katarina’s meeting and mating was told. There is much mystique about the beginnings of their relationship while their love has been made quite public by Luther himself. The complex story of the two would have deserved more attention – and also added a significant dimension to the movie.
If the movie wanted to show what was important and dear to Luther, it did fail in leaving Luther’s beloved “partner in calamities” and his children in the shadows of a legend.

Humbly speaking
Kirsi Stjerna, Director of the Institute for Luther Studies, 2001-
Nov. 6, 2003

______________________
Pretty Picture — But Not Luther and Not the Reformation
Review by the Rev. Richard Koenig

Well, I saw it. Took the train all the way into South Station in Boston where I met a friend who accompanied me to Kendall Square to see “Luther.”

I think the 2 and 1/12 stars the Globe critics gave it was generous.

I didn’t recognize this Luther. He was a nice guy, courageous, but not the Luther who closed with God in a titanic struggle for grace.

It was all too easy. Sure, he had a few bad moments but Staupitz assured him that God was not angry with him but he was angry with God.And so he seemed to say, OK, and then went out to crack jokes as he preached to his congregation and began to tweak the authorities.

I kept thinking of “A Man for All Seasons” ( Peter O’Toole?) and how his struggles were portrayed. “Luther” doesn’t come close.

The PBS Luther did better. So did the 1952 version which at least told us how he got to justification before launching his Reformation.
Even Osborne’s play (on which the film was purportedly based-not so) took a stab at this and had Luther arriving at what the Bible meant by the righteousness of God while sitting on the john.

The trailer said nice things. The credits went on for ages and told us that Martin Marty and Tim Lull and Clancy Kleinhans were consulted along the way with others.

It is a pretty picture, in spite of some dead peasants and a poor little peasant woman who with her crippled child lay dead (crutches by her side) as a result of the Peasants War. But it isn’t Luther or the Reformation. Maybe in part, but not in the round. But again it’s hard to depict what it’s like to go through Anfechtungen to the point where one is near despair only to come face to face with a God who against all logic forgives.

Use with caution.
October 4, 2003

___________________________________

“LUTHER” A Review of Its Historicity
Review by the Rev. Dr. Eric W. Gritsch

Though well directed, acted and dramatically impressive, some caution needs to be exercised when the film might be used for education based on historical evidence. There is always room for “dramatic license”, but when dealing with such influential historical figures as Martin Luther a fundamental loyalty to historical facts must be preserved. I only focus on some basic facts which have been ignored, indeed abused, in the sequence of portraying Luther as a man who changed world history, as the film correctly assumes.

1. Luther’s first celebration of the Mass revealed his great anxiety about the priestly power to bring Christ from heaven to the altar. He wanted to leave the altar, but was signaled by his prior to continue. There is no evidence that he spilled the wine. Moreover, his father attended with many members of the family, gave 20 guilders as a gift to the monastery and, despite some criticism of Luther for becoming a monk rather than a lawyer, the father stayed and enjoyed the celebration. He did not leave after a public outburst of anger, as the film alleges.

2. The Uprising of the Peasants made Luther so angry that he called for their killing as a divine mandate since the peasants identified the freedom in the gospel with violent liberation from their feudal landlords. About 5000 peasants were finally massacred in the so-called battle of Frankenhausen, Saxony; their “noble” opponents lost six men. The spiritual leader of the rebellious peasants in Saxony was not Carlstadt, but Thomas Müntzer who was executed. All rebellious peasants in German territories numbered about 60.000. About 6000 were killed, not 100.000 or more, as the film alleges.

3. The Augsburg Confession was developed and drafted by Melanchthon who met with and was supported by princes and other officials. Luther met with princes a year after the Diet of Augsburg, in 1531 at Smalcald when supporters founded the military Smalcald League to defend themselves against Catholic attacks. Luther never met with princes in connection with the Augsburg Confession and had no leading role in its production, as the film alleges.

4. Luther and Frederick the Wise had only a relationship through Spalatin in order to protect the prince from any accusation of personal contact with the heretical professor. Consequently, Luther never saw him (except from a distance at the Diet of Worms in 1521). The moving scene of Luther handing his prince the German Bible never took place, as the film alleges.

5. Luther at the Wartburg is the one part of his life when he agreed to hide, indeed change his appearance by being disguised as a German knight known as “Squire George” (“Junker Jörg”). While it is not necessary to show Luther with beard and knightly dress (though it would have enhanced the film), it is important that he returned to Wittenberg on his own, against the orders of Frederick the Wise. The prince did not issue a call for his return, as the film alleges.

Other minor historical flaws could be pointed out, such as the use of a legend that his spouse “Katie” had been smuggled in herring barrels with other nuns into Wittenberg. It is uncertain where the nuns were hidden during their secret journey. Some sources talk about empty barrels, others add “herring”. But no Luther scholar has confirmed the “smelly” part of the story.

Instead of highlighting a legend, the film could have portrayed in some fashion one of the most dramatic events in Luther’s career, the Leipzig Debate on July 4, 1519 with John Eck—the only occasion when he was granted his wish for a free, scholarly disputation. The American audience would have enjoyed this “Fourth of July” event in Luther’s life.

It should have been easy to receive some expert technical advice for the production of such a significant film which, after all, was sponsored by Lutherans in the United States and in Germany. History itself is a powerful medium. In the case of Luther, the historical facts themselves are just as dramatic as any film maker could make them through “dramatic license” without much concern for historicity.

The Rev. Eric W. Gritsch, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor of Church History
Gettysburg Lutheran Seminary
First Director of the Institute for Luther Studies (1961-94)
Member of the International Congress for Luther Research
Director of the Forum for German Culture
Zion Church of the City of Baltimore

Reformation Day: Brief Overview of the 95 Theses

Within the 95 Theses, there is nothing distinctly Lutheran or Protestant. There is no discussion of justification by faith through grace. The selling of the general indulgence by Tetzel was commissioned by the Pope in order to finance the building of St. Peter’s Cathedral. The common people thought they were buying the forgiveness of sins. Luther’s Theses are a reaction to the misuse of penance and indulgences. This was not an act of rebellion, but a simple call for discussion among monks and clergy. The indulgence originally was a granted permission to relax or commute the penance imposed upon a repentant sinner as an outward sign of sorrowIn understanding Luther's Theses of 1517- Attention should be focused on these:

THESIS 1: When the Lord calls us to repent, he meant the entire life of a believer is one of penance.

THESIS 2: Matthew 4:17 means “repent”, not “do penance”. This verse does not refer to the sacrament of penance

THESIS 3: Repentance is both internal and external. *Luther not attacking the sacrament of penance or the institution of indulgences, but the gross abuse of the indulgence.

THESIS 6: The pope cannot remit guilt, but only declare it has been remitted by God. The pope’s power is limited. He does not remit guilt, he administers the remittance.

THESIS 8: The cannons of penance only apply to the living, not the dead. This is an abuse of the sacrament of penance. Luther is attacking a papal policy only 50 years old.

THESIS 27: There is no “springing from purgatory” when the indulgence is paid (against Tetzel, and the paying of a general indulgence.)

THESIS 32: All those who believe in Eternal security because of letters of indulgence are eternally damned with their teachers. (The church never taught this, but Luther sees this implication drawn by common people)

THESIS 71: The indulgence “idea” that satisfaction can be reduced by an action of the church is valid. Luther shows He is only attacking the abuse of penance and the indulgence.

THESIS 81-82: The papacy is brought into disrepute by the sale of indulgences. The papacy has become hard to defend.THESIS 82: Laity asks, “Why doesn’t the pope just let everyone out of purgatory by an act of love, rather than redeeming souls for money to build a church?”

The Catholic View Of The Material Sufficiency Of Scripture

I’ve been thinking about a statement that Roman Catholic blogger Nicholas Hardesty recently made about Cyril of Jerusalem:

“The point is that I don't see "solo" or "sola" in the paragraphs from Cyril's Lectures that you cited. I think that a balanced look at how he viewed both the authority of Scripture and the authority of the Church shows that he is speaking of the material sufficiency of Scripture, not its formal sufficiency.”

For some, it might be strange to hear a Roman Catholic affirm the material sufficiency of Scripture. The idea that the Scriptures are “materially sufficient” simply means the entire content of revelation is in the Scriptures, or that divine revelation is contained entirely in Scripture. That is, all the doctrines Christians are to believe are found in the Bible. Catholic advocates of this view would include John Henry Newman and Joseph Ratzinger, and Yves Congar.

This sounds pretty good doesn’t it? Why in the world do Catholics and Protestants bicker about Scripture when we both believe the same thing? Well it isn’t that simple. Along with affirming totum in Scriptura, Catholics who maintain material sufficiency also hold “Tradition” likewise contains the entire content of revelation: “totum in traditione”. Thus, two vehicles carry God’s special revelation in total: Scripture and Tradition. Both are infallible in the Catholic view.

To my understanding, this is not the official view of the Roman Catholic Church. Rather, it is one acceptable view within their sect. The other would be the view that part of God’s special revelation is contained in the Scripture, and part is contained in tradition. This would be the partim-partim view. In this view, the Bible is “materially insufficient”. The New Catholic Encyclopedia states of those who hold this view, “Neither tradition nor Scripture contains the whole apostolic tradition. Scripture is materially (i.e., in content) insufficient, requiring oral tradition as a complement to be true to the whole divine revelation” [Source: New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967) Vol 14, p.228].

The obvious irony is that on such an important basic concept of the exact location of all and the extent of all divine revelation, Roman Catholics can’t tell you with certainty to what extent and where it is completely. Trent’s wording that addresses this is vague enough to allow for either material sufficiency (including complete infallible tradition), or the partim-partim view. Thus, some Catholics may hold partim-partim, pleading with you to accept the entirely of God’s revelation, or another may hold to the materially sufficient view, pleading with you to accept that all the doctrine contained in the Bible that gradually grew and is understood more fully as history progresses. Both of these views though require one added ingredient: an infallible magisterium that can infallibly define and infallibly interpret God’s revelation for you. In the partim-partim view, the infallible magisterium can tell you with certainty what infallible extra-biblical tradition is and can interpret the Bible for you. In the material sufficiency view, the infallible magisterium can tell you what doctrines are contained explicitly and implicitly in Scripture and Tradition, as the biblical revelation grows and develops. They can interpret these truths for you.

Both views come with a set of problems. For the partim-partim view, James White has pointed out, “Aside from the fact that the passages cited from the Bible do not support the entire concept of extrabiblical revelation in the form of oral traditions, the Roman apologist cannot demonstrate the existence of this kind of tradition in history. The novel concepts that have been made dogma in later years were not in any way a part of the record of the early Church. Though Roman Catholic historians view the writings of the early Fathers as a witness to this tradition, those writings present the single most telling objection to this theory concerning the oral traditions. It is not possible to defend the idea that such doctrines are directly, actually, historically, apostolic in origin” [Source: James White, The Roman Catholic Controversy (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1996), 78].

The Roman Catholic who holds to the material sufficiency of Scripture also faces difficulties. He usually states something like “the content of divine revelation is found explicitly and implicitly in Scripture.” His task is little like the children’s game Where’s Waldo Now: he has to prove to you that such things like the Immaculate Conception, the Bodily assumption of Mary, Papal Infallibility are contained in the Scriptures. Ask him to show you in the Bible where it is implicitly or explicitly taught that the Pope can only make infallible proclamations on doctrines having to do with faith and morals.

The Romanist material sufficiency view solves the problem the partim-partim view has: there is no need to historically trace and verify such non-Biblical concepts the like the Immaculate Conception, the Bodily assumption of Mary, or Papal Infallibility. That these concepts can’t be found in early tradition is no longer a problem, for the Romanist material sufficiency view holds that the seeds of these doctrines are found in the Bible and Tradition. The problem though raised for this view is the biblical proof offered for particular doctrines. It’s interesting (and sad) to watch the extremes that Roman Catholic apologists will go to to prove a non-Biblical doctrine from the Bible. For example, Patrick Madrid find’s Mary’s Immaculate Conception foreshadowed in Genesis 1, and finds parallels between Mary’s Immaculate Conception and the Ark of the Covenant.

So what about Roman Catholic blogger Nicholas Hardesty’s point about Cyril of Jerusalem? Indeed, Cyril believed in the material sufficiency of Scripture. We can also agree that Cyril probably believed in apostolic tradition as well, but this tradition was nothing else than the same material contained in the Bible. It was not extra-biblical material like that said to be contained in Tradition by those who hold the partim-partim view. Cyril exhorts his pupils to memorize that which he is to teach them. He then says in 5:12-

“So for the present listen while I simply say the Creed, and commit it to memory; but at the proper season expect the confirmation out of Holy Scripture of each part of the contents. For the articles of the Faith were not composed as seemed good to men; but the most important points collected out of all the Scripture make up one complete teaching of the Faith. And just as the mustard seed in one small grain contains many branches, so also this Faith has embraced in few words all the knowledge of godliness in the Old and New Testaments. Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them an the table of your heart.”

The “traditions” he is giving them is a recitation of the Creed. According to Cyril, The Creed finds its sole substantiation in the Scripture. The Creed is based solely on the Scripture. Thus, the Creed is only authoritative in how closely it conforms to Scripture.

I can also agree with Nicholas that Cyril believed there was a teaching magisterium within the early church. Sola Scriptura never denies the office of pastor/teacher. The church is described as the “pillar and supporter of the truth”- it not the final arbiter of the truth. The “pillar” holds something up- that is, the truth- but she (the church) is to remain subservient to it. Note Cyril’s words:

“Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures” [Source: NPNF2, Vol. VII, Catechetical Lectures, Lecture IV.17].

‘Now mind not my argumentations, for perhaps thou mayest be misled but unless thou receive testimony of the Prophets on each matter, believe not what I say: unless thou learn from the Holy Scriptures concerning the Virgin, and the place, the time, and the manner, receive not testimony from man. For one who at present thus teaches may possibly be suspected: but what man of sense will suspect one that prophesied a thousand and more years beforehand? If then thou seekest the cause of Christ's coming, go back to the first book of the Scriptures” [Source: NPNF2, Vol. VII, Catechetical Lectures, Lecture XII.5].

Cyril of Jerusalem Revisted....Again

I happened to venture over to Nicholas Hardesty’s phatcatholic apologetics blog. Nick has one of the more aesthetically pleasing blogs- the layout is well done, and there are enough links on his sidebar to keep one busy for quite some time. Nicholas has taken interest in my brief entries on Cyril of Jerusalem:

Cyril of Jerusalem and Sola Scriptura

Cyril of Jerusalem on the Canon

Cyril of Jerusalem Revisted: On The Material and Formal Sufficiency of Scripture

Nicholas must have written some sort of response to these entries (I never saw it). In a blog post he mentions:

“James Swan has sparked my interest here recently. He proposed, originally in the CARM forum but also on his blog, that Cyril of Jerusalem, a great Father of the Church, believed in sola scriptura. This is an astounding claim to say the least, and I was interested to dig deeper into Cyril's Catechetical Lectures and find his beliefs on the matter. I found some good stuff, which I shared with Mr. Swan. For a while I had our debate over this on my blog, but I have decided to take it down and wait for it to develop further before I show it to the world.”

Well, I wasn’t aware of being in a “debate.” Really, in my thinking, debates have rules and are moderated. I prefer to see most of these internet interactions as “discussions”. Usually, in these discussions, it normally comes down to who can outwrite who. Even with Nicholas, i'm not even sure where our major differences lie in our understanding of Cyril. My view of Cyril is that with respect to ultimate authority, his was not the modern-day Roman Catholic ecclesiastical position (sola ecclesia), but rather conformity to the truth of Scripture. In the modern Roman Catholic view of authority, Scripture and Tradition are sub-authorities governed by the ultimate authority of the Church (sola ecclesia). Of course, Roman Catholics usually strongly deny this charge. But, here's a small example: The Pope is said to only speak infallibly when he pronounces on faith and morals. Okay...says who? Does the Bible say this? No. Search the Bible from cover to cover, you will not find such a statement. The Roman Catholic Church declared this. They attempt to cull prooftexts, but none really comes close to justifying such a statement.

I am not an expert on Cyril- in fact, I often learn a great deal when discussing various issues with others, this will probably be no exception. Cyril was more than his oft-quoted Catechetical Lectures. A fair amount of historical information exists about his life and interaction with the church of his day. For instance, Cyril and Jerome didn’t quite agree on everything. Some scholars have pointed out that that Jerome wrote negatively against Cyril because of personal dislike. Cyril had a rocky time in the church. Some scholars hold that even his office at Jerusalem was acquired underhandedly. Throughout his career, allegations of Arianism followed Cyril- but none ever stuck.

That being said, I do have some quotes from Cyril on his view of Scripture that I’d like to post. I’ve included links to the actual texts for further context. The majority of these quotes can also be found in Volume 3 of the King / Webster set on Holy Scripture. One thing appears certain with Cyril- he doesn't agree with the underlying presuppositions of the Roman Catholic Church, that certain doctrines find their certainty outside of Scripture, proclaimed to be true by unwritten extra-Biblical tradition or papal pronouncement.

“Have thou ever in thy mind this seal, which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures. For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures” [Source: NPNF2, Vol. VII, Catechetical Lectures, Lecture IV.17].

“Now these the divinely-inspired Scriptures of both the Old and the New Testament teach us. For the God of the two Testaments is One, Who in the Old Testament foretold the Christ Who appeared in the New; Who by the Law and the Prophets led us to Christ's school. For before faith came, we were kept in ward under the law, and, the law hath been our tutor to bring us unto Christ. And if ever thou hear any of the heretics speaking evil of the Law or the Prophets, answer in the sound of the Saviour's voice, saying, Jesus came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfil it. Learn also diligently, and from the Church, what are the books of the Old Testament, and what those of the New. And, pray, read none of the apocryphal writings: for why dost thou, who knowest not those which are acknowledged among all, trouble thyself in vain about those which are disputed? Read the Divine Scriptures, the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, these that have been translated by the Seventy-two Interpreters” [Source: NPNF2, Vol. VII, Catechetical Lectures, Lecture IV. 33].

“Of these read the two and twenty books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings. Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church. Far wiser and more pious than thyself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books. Being therefore a child of the Church, trench thou not upon its statutes. And of the Old Testament, as we have said, study the two and twenty books, which, if thou art desirous of learning, strive to remember by name, as I recite them. For of the Law the books of Moses are the first five, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. And next, Joshua the son of Nave, and the book of Judges, including Ruth, counted as seventh. And of the other historical books, the first and second books of the Kings are among the Hebrews one book; also the third and fourth one book. And in like manner, the first and second of Chronicles are with them one book; and the first and second of Esdras are counted one. Esther is the twelfth book; and these are the Historical writings. But those which are written in verses are five, Job, and the book of Psalms, and Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, which is the seventeenth book. And after these come the five Prophetic books: of the Twelve Prophets one book, of Isaiah one, of Jeremiah one, including Baruch and Lamentations and the Epistle; then Ezekiel, and the Book of Daniel, the twenty-second of the Old Testament”[Source: NPNF2, Vol. VII, Catechetical Lectures, Lecture IV.35].

“Then of the New Testament there are the four Gospels only, for the rest have false titles and are mischievous. The Manichaeans also wrote a Gospel according to Thomas, which being tinctured with the fragrance of the evangelic title corrupts the souls of the simple sort. Receive also the Acts of the Twelve Apostles; and in addition to these the seven Catholic Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude; and as a seal upon them all, and the last work of the disciples, the fourteen Epistles of Paul. But let all the rest be put aside in a secondary rank. And whatever books are not read in Churches, these read not even by thyself, as thou hast heard me say. Thus much of these subjects"[Source: NPNF2, Vol. VII, Catechetical Lectures, Lecture IV. 36].

“But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures. For since all cannot read the Scriptures, some being hindered as to the knowledge of them by want of learning, and others by a want of leisure, in order that the soul may not perish from ignorance, we comprise the whole doctrine of the Faith in a few lines. This summary I wish you both to commit to memory when I recite it, and to rehearse it with all diligence among yourselves, not writing it out on paper, but engraving it by the memory upon your heart, taking care while you rehearse it that no Catechumen chance to overhear the things which have been delivered to you. I wish you also to keep this as a provision through the whole course of your life, and beside this to receive no other, neither if we ourselves should change and contradict our present teaching, nor if an adverse angel, transformed into an angel of light should wish to lead you astray. For though we or an angel from heaven preach to you any other gospel than that ye have received, let him be to you anathema. So for the present listen while I simply say the Creed, and commit it to memory; but at the proper season expect the confirmation out of Holy Scripture of each part of the contents. For the articles of the Faith were not composed as seemed good to men; but the most important points collected out of all the Scripture make up one complete teaching of the Faith. And just as the mustard seed in one small grain contains many branches, so also this Faith has embraced in few words all the knowledge of godliness in the Old and New Testaments. Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them an the table of your heart” [Source: NPNF2, Vol. VII, Catechetical Lectures, Lecture V.12].

“And again, Go to the bee, and learn how industrious she is(4): how, hovering round all kinds of flowers, she collects her honey for thy benefit: that thou also, by ranging over the Holy Scriptures, mayest lay hold of salvation for thyself, and being filled with them mayest say, How sweet are thy words unto my throat, yea sweeter than honey and the honeycomb unto my mouth” [Source: NPNF2, Vol. VII, Catechetical Lectures, Lecture IX, 13].

“What else is there that knoweth the deep things of God save only the Holy Ghost, who spake the Divine Scriptures? But not even the Holy Ghost Himself has spoken in the Scriptures concerning the generation of the Son from the Father. Why then dost thou busy thyself about things which not even the Holy Ghost has written in the Scriptures? Thou that knowest not the things which are written, busiest thou thyself about the things which are not written? There are many questions in the Divine Scriptures; what is written we comprehend not, why do we busy ourselves about what is not written? It is sufficient for us to know that God hath begotten One Only Son” [Source: NPNF2, Vol. VII, Catechetical Lectures, Lecture XI.12].

“And first let us inquire for what cause Jesus came down. Now mind not my argumentations, for perhaps thou mayest be misled but unless thou receive testimony of the Prophets on each matter, believe not what I say: unless thou learn from the Holy Scriptures concerning the Virgin, and the place, the time, and the manner, receive not testimony from man. For one who at present thus teaches may possibly be suspected: but what man of sense will suspect one that prophesied a thousand and more years beforehand? If then thou seekest the cause of Christ's coming, go back to the first book of the Scriptures” [Source: NPNF2, Vol. VII, Catechetical Lectures, Lecture XII.5].

“Was it without reason that Christ was made Man? Are our teachings ingenious phrases and human subtleties? Are not the Holy Scriptures our salvation? Are not the predictions of the Prophets? Keep then, I pray thee, this deposit undisturbed, and let none remove thee: believe that God became Man. But though it has been proved possible for Him to be made Man, yet if the Jews still disbelieve, let us hold this forth to them What strange thing do we announce in saying that God was made Man, when yourselves say that Abraham received the Lord as a guest?" [Source: NPNF2, Vol. VII, Catechetical Lectures, Lecture XII.16].

“Spiritual in truth is the grace we need, in order to discourse concerning the Holy Spirit; not that we may speak what is worthy of Him, for this is impossible, but that by speaking the words of the divine Scriptures, we may run our course without danger. For a truly fearful thing is written in the Gospels, where Christ has plainly said, Whosoever shall speak a word against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in that which is to come” [Source: NPNF2, Vol. VII, Catechetical Lectures, Lecture XVI.1].

“Let us then speak concerning the Holy Ghost nothing but what is written; and whatsoever is not written, let us not busy ourselves about it. The Holy Ghost Himself spoke the Scriptures; He has also spoken concerning Himself as much as He pleased, or as much as we could receive. Let us therefore speak those things which He has said; for whatsoever He has not said, we dare not say” [Source: NPNF2, Vol. VII, Catechetical Lectures, Lecture XVI.2].

“The Father through the Son, with the Holy Ghost, is the giver of all grace; the gifts of the Father are none other than those of the Son, and those of the Holy Ghost; for there is one Salvation, one Power, one Faith; One God, the Father; One Lord, His only-begotten Son; One Holy Ghost, the Comforter. And it is enough for us to know these things; but inquire not curiously into His nature or substance: for had it been written, we would have spoken of it; what is not written, let us not venture on; it is sufficient for our salvation to know, that there is Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost” [Source: NPNF2, Vol. VII, Catechetical Lectures, Lecture XVI.24].

“For now, as well as then, we candidly own that our weakness is overwhelmed by the multitude of things written. Neither to-day will we use the subtleties of men, for that is unprofitable; but merely call to mind what comes from the divine Scriptures; for this is the safest course, according to the blessed Apostle Paul, who says, Which things also we speak, not in words which man's Wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual” [Source: NPNF2, Vol. VII, Catechetical Lectures, Lecture XVII.1].

“By all these proofs, and by more which have been passed over, is the personal, and sanctifying, and effectual power of the Holy Ghost established for those who can understand; for the time would fail me in my discourse if I wished to quote what yet remains concerning the Holy Ghost from the fourteen Epistles of Paul, wherein he has taught with such variety, completeness, and reverence. And to the power of the Holy Ghost Himself it must belong, to grant to us forgiveness for what we have omitted because the days are few, and upon you the hearers to impress more perfectly the knowledge of what yet remains; while from the frequent reading of the sacred Scriptures those of you who are diligent come to understand these things, and by this time, both from these present Lectures, and from what has before been told you, hold more steadfastly the Faith in "One God The Father Almighty; And IN Our Lord Jesus Christ, His Only-Begotten Son; And IN The Holy Ghost The Comforter." Though the word itself and title of Spirit is applied to Them in common in the sacred Scriptures,-for it is said of the Father, God is a Spirit , as it is written in the Gospel according to John; and of the Son, A Spirit before our face, Christ the Lord , as Jeremias the prophet says; and of the Holy Ghost, the Comforter, thee Holy Ghost, as was said;-yet the arrangement of articles in the Faith, if religiously understood, disproves the error of Sabellius also” [Source: NPNF2, Vol. VII, Catechetical Lectures, Lecture XVII.34].

“And many are the proofs concerning the life eternal. And when we desire to gain this eternal life, the sacred Scriptures suggest to us the ways of gaining it; of which, because of the length of our discourse, the texts we now set before you shall be but few, the rest being left to the search of the diligent” [Source: NPNF2 Vol. VII, Catechetical Lectures, Lecture XVIII.30].

“Now these the divinely-inspired Scriptures of both the Old and the New Testament teach us. For the God of the two Testaments is One, Who in the Old Testament foretold the Christ Who appeared in the New; Who by the Law and the Prophets led us to Christ's school. For before faith came, we were kept in ward under the law, and, the law hath been our tutor to bring us unto Christ. And if ever thou hear any of the heretics speaking evil of the Law or the Prophets, answer in the sound of the Saviour's voice, saying, Jesus came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfil it . Learn also diligently, and from the Church, what are the books of the Old Testament, and what those of the New. And, pray, read none of the apocryphal writings: for why dost thou, who knowest not those which are acknowledged among all, trouble thyself in vain about those which are disputed? Read the Divine Scriptures, the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, these that have been translated by the Seventy-two Interpreters” [Source: NPNF2, Vol. VII, Catechetical Lectures, Lecture IV. 33].

Addendum: Defined Biblical Texts of the Roman Catholic Church

Just a quick follow up to my previous entry:

“Very few texts have in fact been authoritatively determined and ‘there consequently remain many important matters in the explanation of which sagacity and ingenuity of Catholic interpreters can and should be freely exercised…” [Source: Dom Bernard Orchard, M.A., ed., A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (London: Thomas Nelson, 1953), p.60, first column (as cited by David T. King, Holy Scripture: The Ground And Pillar of Our Faith Volume 1 (WA: Christian Resources inc, 2001), 223].

“The number of texts infallibly interpreted by the Church is small…It has been estimated indeed that the total of such texts is under twenty, though there are of course many other indirectly determined”[Source: Dom Bernard Orchard, M.A., ed., A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (London: Thomas Nelson, 1953), p.59, second column ((as cited by David T. King, Holy Scripture: The Ground And Pillar of Our Faith Volume 1 (WA: Christian Resources inc, 2001), 224]. King mentions this commentary lists Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah 53, and 2 Maccabees 12:43 as infallibly defined, but gives no evidence to prove the assertion.

“The Council of Trent teaches that Rom., v, 12, refers to original sin (Sess. V, cc. ii, iv), that John, iii, 5, teaches the absolute necessity of the baptism of water (Sess. V, c. iv; Sess. VII, De bapt., c. ii), that Matt., xxvi, 26 sq. is to be understood in the proper sense (Sess. XIII, cap. i); the Vatican Council gives a direct definition of the texts, Matt., xvi, 16 sqq. and John, xxi, 15 sqq. Many more Scripture texts are indirectly defined by the definition of certain doctrines and the condemnation of certain errors” [Source: The Catholic Encyclopedia, Entry: Biblical Exegesis].

"...the Church by no means prevents or restrains the pursuit of Biblical science, but rather protects it from error, and largely assists its real progress. A wide field is still left open to the private student, in which his hermeneutical skill may display itself with signal effect and to the advantage of the Church. On the one hand, in those passages of Holy Scripture which have not as yet received a certain and definitive interpretation, such labors may, in the benignant providence of God, prepare for and bring to maturity the judgment of the Church; on the other, in passages already defined, the private student may do work equally valuable, either by setting them forth more clearly to the flock and more skillfully to scholars, or by defending them more powerfully from hostile attack" [PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS, On The Study Of Holy Scripture (Encylical Of Pope Leo XIII, November 18, 1893].

More Fun With The Catholic Encyclopedia

Tidbits from the Catholic Encyclopedia on the job the infallible church has done in 2000 years of infallible biblical interpretation:

“The Catholic commentator is bound to adhere to the interpretation of texts which the Church has defined either expressly or implicitly. The number of these texts is small, so that the commentator can easily avoid any transgression of this principle.”source

"...the Holy Fathers, we say, are of supreme authority whenever they all interpret in one and the same manner any text of the Bible, as pertaining to the doctrine of faith or morals; for their unanimity clearly evinces that such interpretation has come down from the Apostles as a matter of Catholic faith...This unanimity is not destroyed by the silence of some of the foremost Fathers, and is sufficiently guaranteed by the consentient voice of the principal patristic writers living at any critical period, or by the agreement of commentators living at various times; but the unanimity is destroyed if some of the Fathers openly deny the correctness of the interpretation given by the others, or if they explain the passage in such a way as to render impossible the explanation given by others."

So there you have it: in 2000 years the infallible church took care of a few scripture passages. Great job.

The infallible church also looks to the unanimous consent of the fathers for some help in figuring out the Bible. Let’s try this for some ‘certainty’. We’ll start with the Fathers’ comments on Matthew 16:18- “The Patristic Exegesis of the Rock of Matthew 16:18.” After reading this link, the line above from the Catholic Encyclopedia really has an interesting ring to it: "...the unanimity is destroyed if some of the Fathers openly deny the correctness of the interpretation given by the others, or if they explain the passage in such a way as to render impossible the explanation given by others."

John Calvin’s Response to the Doctrine of an “Infallible Church”

Roman Catholics adhere to the infallible Bible, but also contend that an “infallible church” is needed as well. John Calvin took a look at this notion in his treatise, Articles Agreed Upon by the Faculty of Sacred Theology of Paris, in Reference to Matters of Faith at Present Controverted; with the Antidote.

Argument: Every Christian is bound firmly to believe, that there is on earth one universal visible Church, incapable of erring in faith and manners, and which, in things which relate to faith and manners, all the faithful are bound to obey.

Response from John Calvin:

That there is an universal Church, that there has been, from the beginning of the world, and will be even to the end, we all acknowledge. The appearance by which it may be recognized is the question. We place it in the word of God, or, (if any one would so put it,) since Christ is her head, we maintain that, as a man is recognized by his face, so she is to be beheld in Christ: as it is written,

Where the carcass is, there will the eagles be gathered together,” (Matthew 24:28.)

Again,

“There will be one sheepfold, and one Shepherd,”( John 10:16.)

But as the pure preaching of the gospel is not always exhibited, neither is the face of Christ always conspicuous, (1 Corinthians 11:19.) Thence we infer that the Church is not always discernible by the eyes of men, as the examples of many ages testify. For in the time of the prophets, the multitude of the wicked so prevailed, that the true Church was oppressed; so also in the time of Christ, we see that the little flock of God was hidden from men, while the ungodly usurped to themselves the name of Church. But what will those, who have eyes so clear that they boast the Church is always visible to them, make of Elijah, who thought that he alone remained of the Church? ( 1 Kings 19:10.) In this, indeed, he was mistaken, but it is a proof that the Church of God may be equally concealed from us, especially since we know, from the prophecy of Paul, that defection was predicted, ( 2 Thessalonians 2:3.)

Let us hold, then, that the Church is seen where Christ appears, and where his word is heard; as it is written, “My sheep hear my voice,” (John 10:27 ;) but that at the instant when the true doctrine was buried, the Church vanished from the eyes of men. This Church, we acknowledge with Paul, to be the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3,) because she is the guardian of sound doctrine, and by her ministry propagates it to posterity, that it may not perish from the world. For, seeing she is the spouse of Christ, it is meet that she be subject to him. And, as Paul declares, (Ephesians 5:24; 2 Corinthians 11:2, 3,) her chastity consists in not being led away from the simplicity of Christ. She errs not, because she follows the truth of God for her rule; but if she recedes from this truth, she ceases to be a spouse, and becomes an adulteress.

Let those who tie down the Church to power in its ordinary sense, and to other external pomp, hear what Hilary says on that subject: “We do wrong in venerating the Church of God in roofs and edifices. Is it doubtful that in these Antichrist will sit? Safer to me are mountains, and woods, and lakes, and dungeons, and whirlpools; for in these, either hidden or immersed, did prophets prophesy.”

Source: John Calvin, Selected Works of John Calvin Vol. 1 (169-171) (Ages digital Library, 2000).

Cyril of Jerusalem Revisted: On The Material and Formal Sufficiency of Scripture

I began responding to a blogback comment from my entry, Cyril of Jerusalem And Sola Scriptura, and it began to take on a life of its own. Due to its length, I figured it should probably be its own blog entry. A Catholic blogger I link to has been stopping by and commenting. Of course, Catholics are welcome to comment. I get all sorts of comments (sometimes fresh comments on blog entries from months ago). I don’t always get a chance to respond to everything- my apologies. My time commitments don’t allow me to respond to everything.

I’ve put my response in dialog form. We begin this discussion with my comment: Cyril definitely believed the church has authority, as do I. The issue is what Cyril believed was the ultimate authority for Christian truth. Keep this point in mind: I contend Cyril affirmed the Church must be subordinate to the authority of the Scriptures. He did not teach an infallible Magisterium, or an infallible extra-biblical tradition. This sets him in direct conflict with modern-day Roman Catholics.

phatcatholic said:
“Well, I could have sworn that you said, either on your blog or in the CARM debate, that Cyril believed that Scripture was the "sole authority," in which case you would be incorrect because he obviously views the Church to be authoritative as well. But, I can't seem to find that now. Perhaps someone else said it.”

I don’t think I ever used the words “sole authority”. I did frequently refer to “ultimate authority” in the CARM discussion. If I used the words “sole authority”, I’d like to see the context I said them in. My position has usually been expressed in terms of ultimate authorities and sub-authorities, as do most strong advocates of sola scriptura. Scripture teaches that there must be a teaching ministry in the church (Eph. 4:11-16). Thus, Scripture affirms and teaches the need for a sub-authority beneath it. That sub-authority though is not infallible, and must be subject to the very words of God as found in the Scriptures.

phatcatholic said:
“With your comment, I see that you believe Cyril was a "sola" scripturist, not a "solo" scripurtist. I have always been confused by this distinction. It just seems like a desparate attempt to acknowledge the role of Tradition and of our ancient creeds yet still maintain the "ultimate" authority of Scripture.”

The distinction “solo Scriptura” was popularized by Keith Mathison in his book The Shape of Sola Scriptura. Mathison argues that sola scriptura is not a rejection of tradition or the subordinate authority of the church. Rather, in Mathison’s view, sola scriptura rejects relativistic individualism (solo scriptura) and also a rejection of Rome’s “two source” view of revelation.

My view of Cyril is that with respect to ultimate authority, his was not the modern-day Roman Catholic ecclesiastical position (sola ecclesia), but rather conformity to the truth of Scripture. In the modern Roman Catholic view of authority, Scripture and Tradition are sub-authorities governed by the ultimate authority of the Church (sola ecclesia).

phatcatholic said:
“In the "sola" understanding, is the Church (or Tradition) really that much of an "authority" in the life of a protestant if it gets dismissed every time it disagrees with his interpretation of Scripture? In that system, Church doesn't seem like much of an authority at all. But, perhaps this is a digression.”

In my church, we have confessions of faith which define and explain the beliefs we adhere to. These also serve as a means in evaluating persons for church membership, and roles in the church, and also function as rule for church discipline. These sub-standards are more than a paragraph or two. They comprise nearly 100 pages. They are basically a systematic theology.

phatcatholic said:
“The point is that I don't see "solo" or "sola" in the paragraphs from Cyril's Lectures that you cited. I think that a balanced look at how he viewed both the authority of Scripture and the authority of the Church shows that he is speaking of the material sufficiency of Scripture, not its formal sufficiency.”

A few things- First, an irony. David King points out that “…nearly every theologian from the Council of Trent to Vatican I (a span of about 300 years) understood the teaching of Trent to be a denial of both the material and formal sufficiency of Scripture” (Holy Scripture, Vol 1, p.183). I realize there is debate within the Catholic community on this point- for instance, Yves Congar would admit the material sufficiency of Scripture: “…we can admit sola Scriptura in the sense of a material sufficiency of canonical Scripture. This means that Scripture contains, in one way or another, all truths necessary for salvation.” [Cited by James Akin, “Material and Formal Sufficiency,” This Rock 4, no. 10 (October 1993): 15].

The Reformers maintained that the Scriptures were materially sufficient: there was not additional infallible God-breathed revelation preserved in “Tradition”. I would argue Cyril felt likewise. Cyril exhorts his pupils to memorize that which he is to teach them. He then says in 5:12-

“So for the present listen while I simply say the Creed, and commit it to memory; but at the proper season expect the confirmation out of Holy Scripture of each part of the contents. For the articles of the Faith were not composed as seemed good to men; but the most important points collected out of all the Scripture make up one complete teaching of the Faith. And just as the mustard seed in one small grain contains many branches, so also this Faith has embraced in few words all the knowledge of godliness in the Old and New Testaments. Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them an the table of your heart.”

The “traditions” he is giving them is a recitation of the Creed. According to Cyril, The Creed finds its sole substantiation in the Scripture. Thus, the Creed is only authoritative in how closely it conforms to Scripture.

William Webster points out:

“…Cyril used the verb form of the word tradition (paradidosthai) to refer to the handing down of the faith, saying that no teaching of the faith is to be delivered or ‘traditioned’ apart from the Scriptures. He is insistent that if a doctrine is not written it cannot be known and is to be rejected. He rejected speculation on subjects not written in Scripture. Furthermore, he stated that his Lectures contained the entirety of the faith with nothing omitted.” (Holy Scripture, Vol 2, p.51-52).

Now about Cyril and formal sufficiency. You will need to argue that he understands the teaching magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church to be an infallible authority. Patrick Madrid attempts to do this: “Cyril’s Catechetical Lectures are filled with his forceful teaching on the infallible teaching of office of the Catholic Church (18:23)…” But actually, Cyril didn’t say in 18:23 that the church taught infallibly. Rather he held the church teaches “completely” or “precisely”. Find me a statement from Cyril that admits and supports an infallible church. We’ll see in a moment that in 5:12 presents an awkward problem for those who seek to do this.

phatcatholic said:
“Lecture 5:12 is a critical piece of this context. Look at what it says again: "But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures" (5:12). Catechumens are to keep that only which is 1. Delivered to thee by the Church (this would be Tradition). 2. Built up strongly out of all the Scriptures.”

But also take a closer look at 5:12. Cyril notes: “For though we or an angel from heaven preach to you any other gospel than that ye have received, let him be to you anathema.” Who is the “we” Cyril is referring to? If it is an authority like the teaching magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church, why does Cyril imply non-infallibility? He allows the possibility that the “we” could possibly teach another gospel. This is an awkward problem.

phatcatholic said:
“But, what is that which is delivered by the Church and attested in the Scriptures? It is the Teaching of Christ, the Deposit of Faith handed on to the apostles. That is what is important to Cyril, and as a bishop he would have felt a great responsibility to preserve Apostolic teaching. The Church and the Scriptures are rules (and equal rules) because they both attest to this Deposit. That is what the Catholic Church believes and that is what Cyril believed.”

I agree with your statement except for the last two sentences: “The Church and the Scriptures are rules (and equal rules) because they both attest to this Deposit. That is what the Catholic Church believes and that is what Cyril believe.” This is an unproven assumption. Cyril doesn’t affirm an infallible Church in his writings. We saw this earlier in Cyril’s warning of anathema. On the other hand, Cyril repeatedly upholds the infallibility and perfection of the Scriptures- exhorting his readers to read them, and to even subject his writings to them:"Now mind not my argumentations, for perhaps thou mayest be misled but unless thou receive testimony of the Prophets on each matter, believe not what I say: unless thou learn from the Holy Scriptures concerning the Virgin, and the place, the time, and the manner, receive not testimony from man."

phatcatholic said:
“How could one say that Cyril believed the Church to be something he could toss aside whenever it disagreed with him? Cyril specifically says that it is the Church who:--"teaches universally and completely one and all the doctrines which ought to come to men's knowledge" (18:23)--is "the pillar and ground of the truth" (18:25; quoting 1 Tim 3:15)--is the one in whom we should ever abide (18:26)--has "power without limit over the whole world" (18:27)--delivers instruction for eternal life (18:28).”

This is an argument based on a false assumption. You assume that for Cyril the church must be an infallible equal rule with Scripture. Cyril never says this. In other words, you’re reading something into the text that’s not there. In fact, I, deny the infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church and can affirm everything you’ve quoted from Cyril above. The citations you’ve culled do not require the church to be infallible in order to be affirmed.

phatcatholic said:
“I think you have severely downplayed Cyril's understanding of the role of the Church. In Cyril's mind, the Church is not an inferior rule. Instead, the Church is just as much a guide as the Scriptures, and a doctrine taught by the Church is just as sure as a doctrine taught in Scripture.”

No- I’ve presented what Cyril believed to be the ultimate rule of faith, and you have attempted to confuse the teaching role of the church with an infallible church.

The Bondage of the Will and the Reformed Confessions

Question: My understanding (which may very well be incorrect) is that Luther's view of original sin is very much similiar to Calvin's T in his TULIP (total Depravity) Is this true, or could someone tell me the similarities and differences between the two?

The “Calvinistic” doctrine of Total Depravity can be stated as such:

1. God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that it is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined to good, or evil.

2. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom, and power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to God; but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it.

3.Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.

4. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he freeth him from his natural bondage under sin; and, by his grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so, as that by reason of his remaining corruption, he doth not perfectly, nor only, will that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.

5. The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to good alone, in the state of glory only.

Source: Westminster Confession of Faith

One can see the confession what is meant by “Total Depravity”. Total Depravity means that humans are unable to do anything “good” in its ultimate sense. By "ultimate sense", I mean, a spiritually dead sinner is unable to perform an action motivated by the love of God. Hence, a spiritually dead sinner who is in bondage to sin cannot "choose Christ" without God first setting the sinner free from his bondage to sin. People though, are capable of doing “good” acts in a certain sense. The Canons of Dort say:

"There remain, however, in man since the fall, the glimmerings of natural understanding, whereby he retains some knowledge of God, of natural things, and of the difference between good and evil, and shows some regard for virtue and for good outward behavior. But so far is this understanding of nature from being sufficient to bring him to a saving knowledge of God and to true conversion that he is incapable of using it aright even in things natural and civil. Nay further, this understanding, such as it is, man in various ways renders wholly polluted, and hinders in unrighteousness, by doing which he becomes inexcusable before God."

Here are some quotes from Dr. Luther that I think agree with the above cited Reformed Confessions:

"Free-will is plainly a divine term, and can be applicable to none but the divine Majesty only: for He alone " doth, (as the Psalm sings) what He will in Heaven and earth." Whereas, if it be ascribed unto men, it is not more properly ascribed, than the divinity of God Himself would be ascribed unto them: which would be the greatest of all sacrilege. Wherefore, it becomes Theologians to refrain from the use of this term altogether, whenever they wish to speak of human ability, and leave it to be applied to God only. And moreover, to take this same term out of the mouths and speech of men; and thus to assert, as it were, for their God, that which belongs to His own sacred and holy Name. . . ."

"But, if we do not like to leave out this term altogether, (which would be most safe, and also most religious) we may, nevertheless, with a good conscience teach, that it be used so far as to allow man a " Free-will," not in respect of those which are above him, but in respect only of those things which are below him: that is, he may be allowed to know, that he has, as to his goods and possessions, the right of using, acting, and omitting, according to his " Freewill ; " although, at the same time, that same " Free-will " is overruled by the Free-will of God alone, just as He pleases: but that, God-ward, or in things which pertain unto salvation or damnation, he has no " Free-will," but is a captive, slave, and servant, either to the will of God, or to the will of Satan."

Source: Bondage of the Will, (Translated by Henry Cole) Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1931), 76-79.

“A man void of the Spirit of God, does not evil against his will as by violence, or as if he were taken by the neck and forced to it, in the same way as a thief or cut-throat is dragged to punishment against his will; but he does it spontaneously, and with a desirous willingness. And this willingness and desire of doing evil he cannot, by his own power, leave off, restrain, or change; but it goes on still desiring and craving. And even if he should be compelled by force to do any thing outwardly to the contrary, yet the craving will within remains averse to, and rises in indignation against that which forces or resists it. But it would not rise in indignation, if it were changed, and made willing to yield to a constraining power. This is what we mean by the necessity of immutability: — that the will cannot change itself, nor give itself another bent; but rather the more it is resisted, the more it is irritated to crave; as is manifest from its indignation. This would not be the case if it were free, or had a " Free-will." Ask experience, how hardened against all persuasion they are, whose inclinations are fixed upon any one thing. For if they yield at all they yield through force, or through something attended with greater advantage; they never yield willingly. And if their inclinations be not thus fixed, they let all things pass and go on just as they will.

But again, on the other hand, when God works in us, the will, being changed and sweetly breathed on by the Spirit of God, desires and acts, not from compulsion, but responsively, from pure willingness, inclination, and accord; so that it cannot be turned another way by any thing contrary, nor be compelled or overcome even by the gates of hell; but it still goes on to desire, crave after, and love that which is good; even as before, it desired, craved after, and loved that which was evil. This, again, experience proves. How invincible and unshaken are holy men, when, by violence and other oppressions, they are only compelled and irritated the more to crave after good! Even as fire, is rather fanned into flames than extinguished, by the wind. So that neither is there here any willingness, or " Free-will," to turn itself into another direction, or to desire any thing else, while the influence of the Spirit and grace of God remain in the man.

In a word, if we be under the god of this world, without the operation and Spirit of God, we are led captives by him at his will, as Paul saith. (2 Tim. ii. 26.) So that, we cannot will any thing but that which he wills. For he is that " strong man armed," who so keepeth his palace, that those whom he holds captive are kept in peace, that they might not cause any motion or feeling against him; otherwise, the kingdom of Satan, being divided against itself, could not stand; whereas, Christ affirms it does stand. And all this we do willingly and desiringly, according to the nature of will: for if it were forced, it would be no longer will. For compulsion is (so to speak) unwillingness. But if the " stronger than he "come and overcome him, and take us as His spoils, then, through the Spirit, we are His servants and captives (which is the royal liberty) that we may desire and do, willingly, what He wills.

Thus the human will is, as it were, a beast between the two. If God sit thereon, it wills and goes where God will: as the Psalm saith, " I am become as it were a beast before thee, and I am continually with thee." (Ps. lxxiii. 22-23.) If Satan sit thereon, it wills and goes as Satan will. Nor is it in the power of its own will to choose, to which rider it will run, nor which it will seek; but the riders themselves contend, which shall have and hold it.

Source: Bondage of the Will, pp. 72-74.

"Paul says, in II Timothy ii, " Instruct those that oppose the truth; peradventure God will give them repentance, that they acknowledge the truth, and return from the snares of the devil, by whom they are taken captive at his will." Where is the free will here when the captive is of the devil, not indeed unable to do anything, but able to do only what the devil wills? Is that freedom, to be captive at the devil's will, so that there is no help unless God grant repentance and improvement? So also says John viii, When the Jews said they were free, Christ said, " Verily I say unto you, all they who sin are servants or possessions of sin; if the son make you free, ye shall be free indeed." So St. Augustine changes the term " free will," in his work Against Julian, book ii, and calls it servum arbitrium, " a will in bondage."

Source: "An Argument in Defense of All the Articles of Dr. Martin Luther Wrongly Condemned in the Roman Bull," Works of Martin Luther, Vol. III, pp. 108. (Philadelphia 6 volume set)

"This is my absolute opinion: he that will maintain that man's free-will is able to do or work anything in spiritual cases be they never so small, denies Christ. This I have always maintained in my writings, especially in those against Erasmus, one of the learnedest men in the whole world, and thereby will I remain, for I know it to be the truth, though all the world should be against it; yea, the decree of Divine Majesty must stand fast against the gates of hell."

Source: Table-Talk, #CCLXII (Hazlitt edition).

"I wish that the word " free will " had never been invented. It is not in the Scriptures, and it were better to call it " self-will," which profiteth not. Or, if anyone wishes to retain it, he ought to apply it to the new-created man, so as to understand by it the man who is without sin. He is assuredly free, as was Adam in Paradise, and it is of him that the Scriptures speak when they touch upon our freedom ; but they who lie in sins are unfree and prisoners of the devil; yet because they can become free through grace, you can call them men of free will, just as you might call a man rich, although he is a beggar, because he can become rich. But it is neither right nor good thus to juggle with words in matters of such great seriousness."

Source: " An Argument in Defense of All the Articles of Dr. Martin Luther Wrongly Condemned in the Roman Bull," Works of Martin Luther, Vol. III, pp. 110 f.

"Dear Christians, one and all rejoice, With exultation springing, And with united heart and voice. And holy rapture singing, Proclaim the wonders God hath done, How his right arm the victory won; Right dearly it hath cost him. Fast bound in Satan's chains I lay, Death brooded darkly o'er me; Sin was my torment night and day, Therein my mother bore me, Deeper and deeper still I fell, Life was become a living hell, So firmly sin possessed me. My good works could avail me naught, For they with sin were stained; Free-will against God's judgment fought, And dead to good remained.Grief drove me to despair, and I Had nothing left me but to die, To hell I fast was sinking. God saw, in his eternal grace, My sorrow out of measure; He thought upon his tenderness — To save was his good pleasure. He turned to me a Father's heart — Not small the cost — to heal my smart. He gave his best and dearest. He spake to his beloved Son: 'Tis time to take compassion; Then go, bright jewel of my crown, And bring to man salvation; From sin and sorrow set him free, Slay bitter death for him, that he May live with thee forever."

Source: Luther's Hymns (Phildadelphia, 1917), p. 75.

As far as I can understand Luther and the Reformed Confessions, both seem to be saying the same thing about “Total Depravity.” I will not argue that Luther was a “Calvinist”. He was not, but both had the same concept of the bondage of the will.

Luther and Predestination: Probing the Secret Council of the Hidden God

I am Reformed- in the fullest sense: a 5-point Calvinist. Now I have to be careful when reading Martin Luther, because Luther was not a 5-point Calvinist. Luther does though say many things “harmonious” with those 5 points, but I would be doing him injustice if I declared that he was a 5-point Calvinist. Luther’s theology is not Reformed theology. I have to always remind myself of this. When I read his comments on the will, or predestination, I get a warm fuzzy feeling: “That’s what I believe!” Yet, there are some major differences in how Luther expresses himself on these issues.

If I don’t take into account Luther’s underlying presupposition of the hidden and revealed God, I will make some blatant errors against his theology. I could make all sorts of web pages proving Luther was a 5-point Calvinist. I could even find a lot of secondary sources to prove it. But, I would be doing injustice to Luther’s work. I would be manipulating his material to prove something that is untrue (Which reminds me, one of my favorite authors, RC Sproul has said a few times something like: “Luther spoke more about predestination and election than Calvin ever did...”- I find this statement to be in error, having read both Calvin and Luther extensively myself).

Reading Luther accurately requires reading Luther according to his own theological paradigms, particularly a basic understanding of his use of contrast and paradox. Luther repeatedly exhorts his readers not to probe into the secret council of the "hidden God. However, what are those things which should not be probed? Luther lets us know it’s the deep mysteries of providence, election and reprobation. On the other hand, to only look at Luther’s understanding of the "revealed God" does not give us an adequate picture of Luther’s paradox of the "hidden/revealed God." One does not understand Luther's paradox without probing both sides to see what he means.

My understanding is that Luther did indeed attribute double predestination to the "hidden God." To prove this, I'd like to quote a section from: Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966). I consider this book crucial to any study of Luther:

“For Luther the assertion that God is God implicitly includes the fact that God alone works all in all together with the accompanying foreknowledge…. This determines not only man's outward but also his inner fate, his relationship to God in faith or unfaith, in obedience or disobedience. Here too man is completely in God's hands. Luther finds the biblical basis for this particularly in I Corinthians 12:6, "God works all in all." Luther expands the sense of this passage far beyond Paul's meaning in its original setting. It appears very frequently in Luther's thought.

The Bible in addition bears witness, and experience confirms the fact, that men actually relate themselves differently to the word of God. Some are open to faith; others remain closed to it. Accordingly, the Bible expects human history to end in a twofold way. Not all will be blessed; and many will be lost. Luther can, in the context of his assertion that God works all in all, find the ultimate cause in God himself, in his intention, and in his working. This decision is not made by man's supposedly free will, but only by God's willing and working. He chooses some to be saved and he rejects the others without an apparent reason for either choice. He gives faith to one through the working of His Spirit; and he refuses to give faith to others so that they are bound in their unbelief. Salvation and destruction thus result from God's previous decision and his corresponding twofold activity. God's choice is not based on the individual's condition; it establishes this condition. This means an unconditional, eternal predestination both to salvation and to damnation.

Luther does not reach this conclusion on the basis of philosophical speculation about God, but finds it in the Scripture. He experienced it in God's relationship to him personally; and the God whom he thus personally experienced is the very same God who speaks and is proclaimed in the Scripture. Paul especially testified to Luther that God makes this twofold decision and that he hardens those who are lost: "God has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills" (Rom. 9:18). Paul illustrates this with the picture of the potter making vessels of honor as well as dishonor out of the same clay (Rom. 9: 20 ff.). In addition, Paul quotes Malachi, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" (Rom. 9:13). And Paul specifically refers to God's treatment of Pharaoh (Rom. 9:17)

The position Scripture thus presented to Luther was also the inescapable result of his understanding of God. He even cites man's innate rational concept of God as an additional proof. It seems blasphemous even to think that God does not work man's decision to believe or not to believe, as though God could be surprised by man's choice and men might be saved or lost without God knowing it. Whoever so thinks denies that God is God and makes fun of Him as though he were a ridiculous idol." Whoever speaks seriously of God must necessarily teach his foreknowledge and his unconditional determination of all things.

Luther thus finds a twofold will of God in the Scripture. Together with statements about God's all-inclusive grace are other statements which express another willing and working of God which stands with his willing and working of salvation. Together with grace stands wrath, a wrath which rejects and which is no longer a part of love; and this is found not only in the Old but also in the New Testament. Luther did not draw a two-sided picture of God from his own imagination, but he saw it already present in Scripture. The God of the Bible is not unequivocally the God of the gospel. The God of the Bible is not only the God of all grace but is also the God who, if he wills, hardens and rejects. This God even treats a man equivocally: he offers his grace in the word and yet refuses to give his Spirit to bring about his conversion. He can even harden a man—in all this Luther does not go in substance beyond the difficult passages of Scripture which describe God as hardening a man's heart.

Luther, however, summarized the substance of such scriptural statements in the sharpest possible expressions. In The Bondage of the Will he teaches that God has a double will, even a double reality. The God revealed and preached in the gospel must be distinguished from the hidden God who is not preached, the God who works all things. God's word is not the same as "God himself." God, through his word, approaches man with the mercy which (according to Ezekiel 33) does not seek the death of the sinner but that he turn and live. But the hidden will of God, the will we must fear, "determines for itself which and what sort of men it chooses to enable to participate in this mercy offered through the proclamation." God "does not will the death of the sinner, that is, according to his word; he does, however, will it according to his inscrutable will." God revealed in his word mourns the sinner's death and seeks to save him from it. "God hidden in his majesty, on the other hand, does not mourn the sinner's death, or abrogate it, but works life and death in everything in all. For God has not limited himself to his word but retains his freedom over everything. . . . God does many things that he does not show us through his word. He also wills many things his word does not show us."

Source: The Theology of Martin Luther 274-276

Baptism Debate, Long Island New York (Thursday, Oct. 19)

I plan on going to this upcoming debate on Thursday. The great thing about this debate is it is a debate between two Pastors devoted to Reformed theology. Thus, this is a debate between friends. I expect it to be an excellent evening of fellowship.

BAPTISM: For INFANTS or BELIEVERS ONLY?
(A Baptist vs. Presbyterian Debate)

For centuries, Baptists and Presbyterians have shared in common nearly identical core doctrines and practices, which both have faithfully drawn from the same well of Holy Scripture. Particularly foundational to both traditions are the glorious truths of Free and Sovereign Grace, which both groups have guarded tenaciously and preached passionately, even when it cost them their very lives. In recent history, Baptists and Presbyterians have enjoyed an increasingly richer and deeper level of friendship and fellowship with one another. Today, seeing Baptists and Evangelical Presbyterians exchanging pulpits, co-authoring books and cooperating in evangelistic and scholastic efforts with one another is, thankfully, commonplace. There are, however, a few teachings and practices that always have and continue to separate these two Christian groups to this day, whose members have long labored side-by-side in Christ's vineyard. Chief among these differences involves the biblical ordinance of BAPTISM.

We cordially invite you to witness two friends and brothers in Christ, one a Baptist and one a Presbyterian, engage in a fraternal and collegial debate over the question of who are the proper candidates for SCRIPTURAL BAPTISM.

THE BAPTIST: "Baptism is ONLY for those who have personally repented & believed in Christ."

JAMES WHITE is the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, a Christian apologetics organization based in Phoenix, Arizona, and is an elder of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. He is a professor, having taught Greek, Systematic Theology and various topics in the field of apologetics. He has authored more than twenty books, including The King James Only Controversy, The Roman Catholic Controversy, The Same Sex Controversy, The Forgotten Trinity, The Potter's Freedom, The God Who Justifies, Dangerous Airwaves: Harold Camping Refuted & Christ's Church Defended and the soon-to-be-published Pulpit Crimes: The Criminal Mishandling of God's Word. He is an accomplished debater, having engaged in more than fifty moderated, public debates with leading proponents of Roman Catholicism, Liberal Protestantism, Islam, Jehovah's Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostalism and Mormonism.

THE PRESBYTERIAN: "Baptism is NOT only for those who have personally repented & believed in Christ."

BILL SHISHKO has served as Pastor of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Franklin Square, NY, for over 25 years. During his time as pastor there the church has been blessed with significant numerical growth, and has overseen the formation of 2 mission churches (Mount Vernon & Bohemia, NY). He is also one of the instructors for the Ministerial Training Institute, OPC, and an Adjunct Faculty member of Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Taylors, SC, where he teaches in the dept. of Applied Theology. He has written numerous articles for the OPC publications NEW HORIZONS and ORDAINED SERVANT, as well as magazines such as The Banner of Truth. His public ministries have taken him to such foreign mission fields as Suriname, Cyprus, Egypt, Uganda, China, Eritrea, and Wales, and his conference ministries have been carried out in a number of states in our own nation.

DATE & TIME: Thursday, Oct. 19, 7:30pm

PLACE: Full Gospel Christian Center
415 Old Town Road, Port Jefferson Station, Long Island, NY
(For DIRECTIONS ONLY call 631-928-6100)

ADMISSION: FREE!!!
For more details call
1-866-DEBATE-1

(Dr. James White is also scheduled to preach Wed., Oct.18, 7:30pm on "ISLAM" at the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Corner of Franklin & Sobo Avenues, Franklin Square, NY. Call 516-437-3210 for directions)

Prayer, Predestination, and Evil, the Basics.

Question:
“Ok, I really don't want to start a debate or anything, just an answer and I'll return to my supposedly “evil” catholic ways. If everything is completely predestined then after one is "saved" what is the purpose of asking God for something in prayer? If everything is predestined should God not already know our need and whims? Another question...why the creation of evil, or the need for a final battle?”

Now I love questions like these, whether they come via cyberspace, from a coworker, or a relative. These are opportunities not only to answer with kindness, but also to point to answers found in the Bible rather than in the teaching magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church. With Roman Catholics, the emphasis in the discussion should gravitate on the ultimate authority of Scripture. A Roman Catholic believes that God has spoken in the Bible, so the answers should provoke them to read the Bible.

Church history is replete with debate over predestination and God's sovereignty. Think of it this way: great struggles with particular aspects of the Christian faith are well worth the effort. Sometimes we need to wrestle with God.

You ask, “If everything is completely predestined then after one is "saved" what is the purpose of asking God for something in prayer?” The first and foremost reason a Christian must pray is the Bible commands us to do so. 1 Thessalonians 5:17 tells Christians to pray continually. Ephesians 6:18 states, "And pray in the Spirit on all occasions". There is deep mystery in prayer- how could there not be? The finite human is speaking to the infinite God of the universe. Whether or not we can understand the relationship between how our prayers and an infinite God who knows everything “works” does not alleviate a Christian from the Biblical exhortation to pray.

You ask, “If everything is predestined should God not already know our need and whims?” Indeed, God does know everything; even Roman Catholic theology admits this. God, because He is omniscient, must know everything. If He didn't, He wouldn't be God. Remember what the Lord Jesus said in Matthew 6:8: "Your Father knows what you need before you ask him." Here we come face to face with a deep mystery of God. The Bible tells us That God knows our needs beforehand. This is a great comfort to a Christian. The God of the Bible is not caught off-guard by anything that occurs in this world.

You ask, “why the creation of evil, or the need for a final battle?” Again, there is deep mystery in the existence of evil. There is no totally satisfactory answer this side of heaven that explains completely how a sovereign all-good God and evil both exist. But we do have some knowledge revealed to us from the pages of the Bible that explain the existence of evil. We know, that ultimately all of reality and the universe culminate in God's glory as Revelation 22 describes. Romans 8:28 states "We know that in all things God works for the good..." in describing the life of a Christian. After going through a myriad of "evil" circumstances Joseph declares to his brothers in Genesis 50, "You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives." So, in all circumstances, the evil that occurs happens for a reason: God uses it for a good purpose. Even the worst event in all human history was predetermined by God: Christ was handed over to wicked men by God's set purpose (Acts 2:23). What was the most evil act committed in human history is used by God for the most glorious act in human history: the redemption of the world.

Well, how did this Catholic respond? She stated, “Thank you for the responses, they cleared some things up, I am very surprised at the kindness, I am very curious about Calvinism but I usually am met with anger and rudeness, this was a nice change.”

It is possible to tell people the truth in love. My prayer for this woman is that the answers provoke her to search the pages of Scripture rather than the official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. These answers only scratch the surface, highlighting my own “wrestling” with the Bible. I am Calvinist because of the Biblical text: It says what it says. I may not understand all of the Biblical mysteries totally, but to be obedient to God I believe what is revealed. I respect anyone who grapples with these types of questions. I have had many friends who have hated the type of answers I gave, only to hear them tell me years later that what they once hated became the sweetest of all comfort.