An ancient voice for the day #12

Chrysostom (349-407):

"In the case of the soul, on the other hand, none of these things is necessary, unless, just as you daily spend money to give nourishment to the body, you are likewise determined not to neglect the soul and let it die of hunger but to provide it with proper nourishment from the reading of Scripture and the support of spiritual advice: “Not on bread alone does man live,” Scripture says, remember, 'but on every word coming from the mouth of God.' "

Source: FC, Vol. 82, Homilies on Genesis 18-45, Homily 21.22 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1990), p. 66.


For an excellent compilation of quotes of the Church fathers teaching on the primacy, sufficiency and ultimate authority of Scripture, get a copy of Holy Scripture:The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol III- The Writings of the Church Fathers Affirming the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura.

Postcards From Mordor

I always try to keep up with my few fans - those that drop me little helpful reviews of something I've written. Here are some recent goodies:

Some posts over on the Catholic Answers boards are wonderfully expressive, found here, and here. These are fairly entertaining; particularly since the person making the comments goes by the cyber-name “Wisdom”.

Roman Catholic cyber-peace-warrior has presented more of his kind comments and thankfulness for my writing found here. Also, the comments section continues along the same friendly, heartwarming path toward ecumenical unity. The kindness expressed by those with the full truth always makes me see how having an infallible church really can change a heart.

Finally, Jonathan Prejean has presented this enlightening entry. Thank you Jonathan for your philosophical musings and careful analysis.

The Foggy Facts

“James is up to his old tricks again: I am an idiot, an incompetent stooge, whereas he is a sublime model of lay apologetics and does only work of the highest sublime levels of scholarship.” – A Catholic Apologist

No, I've simply been asking questions this Roman Catholic apologist doesn't want to answer. If I were to go to print making historical claims, I would make sure that I actually did read and understand the material I presented. This guy was busy in the blog-back comments of another post, and would not answer a most simple question, if he had (or had not) actually read the context of some words from Bullinger he cited in one of his books.

It’s one thing to put up a web page of information one has not read, it’s quite another to have books published and expect the general public to consider one an authority on the Reformers. I’m hopeful that the Bullinger citation was a simple oversight on this guy's part. I’m hopeful he is not going to print with this same type of research presented in his web pages, obfuscating any who desire to check his facts. More importantly, if he wants to be considered a reliable author, he needs to invest the time in doing ad fontes research.

The following is a snippet from my response to this Catholic apologist on Luther’s view of Mary, and demonstrates some of the reasons discussions with him can be difficult when one takes the time to work through the material he presents.

He was dismayed that I did not provide a specific utterance number from Luther’s Table Talk. Apparently, he is unaware that multiple versions of the Table Talk exist (for instance, a popular on-line version is different in content to the version contained in Luther’s Works). Hence, one can see why a uniform approach to quoting Luther is the most pragmatic approach. Luther’s Works English Edition proves to be the most cogent approach. One can conclude after perusing his many comments on Luther from his web site, that he is serious about studying Luther. My citing of volume and page in Luther’s works was intended to make the job of checking references easier. Secondary sources quoting Luther were a last resort, as were any references to the Weimar edition. I also attempted to use other easily available primary references: popular collections of sermons, and the helpful compilation, What Luther says.

He takes a different approach in his Luther research. In version #3 of his response he references the German Weimar edition 33 times (he cites the English Luther’s Works only 4 times). In order to help out any who cannot read German, he lets the reader know that they can get a “cross-referencing of Luther's German works and English translations,…Heinrich J. Vogel, Cross Reference and Index to the Contents of Luther's Works.” Unfortunately, this book is out of print and is not normally available in college libraries. Used copies are not cheap either. One wonders why he would have a copy of Vogel’s reference, and yet not provide the cross- references for the following citations he provided:

WA 9, 74; WA 10; 46, 136; WA, 10, III, 268; WA 10/3:269.12-13; WA 17, II, 287-289; WA, 17-II, 288; WA 17,409; WA 17/2:288.17-34; WA, 30, II, 351; WA 36,143; WA 37,231; WA 39, II, 107; WA 39/2,.92-121; WA 39/2:107.8-13; WA 40/3:680.31-32;WA 52, 39; WA 52:681.27-31;WA 52, 681; WA 53:640.18-22;WA 4, 693; 10 (3), 331; 46, 136; 47, 860; WA 54,207.

In fairness to him, he did provide 4 cross references to the English edition in his response. Perhaps he did not have the time to provide the others. Interestingly, some of his WA quotes did not make sense. Some references seemed to note which edition of WA (for instance, “2”), while others did not. Are we to assume the earlier edition of WA is meant? There was a lack of uniformity also: sometimes he used Roman numerals, others times he did not. At one point he offered, “WA 4, 693; 10 (3), 331; 46, 136; 47, 860.” These seem more like bingo numbers than references. I still don’t know what “10 (3)” refers to. It would be helpful to at least pick one way of citing WA and sticking with it. Perhaps I might not be able to check WA, but maybe another interested reader will.

I ask any to compare my footnotes with any of this guy's Luther pages. As an example, please see his footnotes for his on-line Paper “Martin Luther: Beyond Historical Myth to Fact.” Primary references to Luther are mostly to Luther’s Works in German. Similarly, A large amount of his Luther references are given merely as titles of a particular treatise, with the readers’ job being the arduous task of tracking down a volume that contains said treatise. Many treatises are still not available in English (Like the frequently quoted sermon he utilizes, “On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527), and many have variations in the specific names of his treatises, making them even harder to track down.

He also employs a high volume of Luther citations from secondary sources. That’s fine, but many of the books he cited are no longer in print. Thus, the readers’ task of checking his citations is not an easy road. This leads to only two conclusions: Either he is fluent in German or he does not have the most basic tool for Luther studies: the English edition of Luther’s Works, so he relies on secondary sources or web sites that have posted samplings of Luther’s treatises. He thus complicates the task of any who would check his references or contexts.

His response provided many references that are virtually impossible to track down. One wonders why these sources were offered. Not only are they in different languages, the majority are long out of print:

“Was Luther a Devotee of Mary?" Marian Studies, 21, 1970; Marian Studies 18 (1967);"Die Gottesmutter im Glauben und Beten der Jahrhunderte," Hochkirche 13 [1931], Uber die Selige Jungfrau, May 18, 1558;De origine erroris, 16, written in 1568; (Acts of the Council in March 1526 and March 1530; Die Bekenntnisschriften der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche, Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1952; "Weimarer Ausgabe / 1883 ff. Weimar edition of Luther's works; Maria bei Luther (Gutersloh: Bertelsmann Verlag, 1954); K. Algermissen, "Mariologie und Marienverehrung der Reformatoren," Theologie und Glaube, XLIX (1959); Le Drame de Martin Luther," Decouverte se l'oecumenisme (Paris: Desclee de Brouwer, 1961);Am tage der Empfengknus Marie der mutter Gottes. Luk. 11; from Martini Lutheri Postillae. In die Conceptionis Mariae Matris Dei, . Argentorati: apud Georgium Ulricum Adlanum, anno xxx); "On the Schem Hamphoras and the Genealogy of Christ (Vom Schem Hamphoras und vom Geschlecht Christi), 1543; Walter Tappolet and Albert Ebneter (eds.), Das Marienlob der Reformatoren (Tubingen: Katzmann, 1962), . Hans Dufel, Luthers Stellung zur Marienverehrung ( . . . 1968) Festpostille -- two 1527 editions; Sermon at the First Vespers of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary; House Sermon for Christmas (1533) ; Vom Schem Hamporas und vom Geschlecht Christi [On the Schem Hamphoras and the Genealogy of Christ] (1543) -- WA 53,640; Wider das Papstum zu Rom (1545); WA 54,207”

In contrast, I have made the readers’ task of locating a context for Luther’s words quite easy; all you need is access to Luther’s Works, which are available in many college libraries, and some public libraries. Used volumes can still be purchased, even singularly (individual volumes can be as cheap as $15-25). Therefore, I see no reason to redo all the footnotes.

He got himself into a somewhat precarious situation on the CARM bulletin boards in November 2002 with his methods of quoting Luther. He posted this quote:

“Inasmuch as I know for certain that I am right, I will be judge above you and above all the angels, as St. Paul says, that whoever does not accept my doctrine cannot be saved. For it is the doctrine of God, and not my doctrine; therefore my judgment also is God's and not mine . . . It would be better that all bishops were murdered, and all abbeys and cloisters razed to the ground, than that one soul should perish . . . If they will not listen to God's Word . . . what can more justly befall them than a violent upheaval which shall root them out of the earth? And we would smile did it happen. All who contribute body, goods . . that the rule of the bishops may be destroyed are God's dear children and true Christians."

He gave the reference as simply “Martin Luther, Against the Falsely So-Called Spiritual Estate of the Pope and Bishops, July 1522.” After searching the entire treatise, I could not find this quote. A Lutheran friend joined the discussion and was able to ascertain that the reason I could not locate the quote was because it was extracted in bits from different spots spanning 31 pages. He responded that he had gotten the quotes from secondary sources (Durant and Janssen), and that he trusted their scholarship. This is not the place to quibble over whatever point he was trying to make. I offer this example merely to show that this Catholic apologist complicates the task of any who checks his Luther references.

Seeing the Truth on the Catholic Answers Forums on Cardinal Ximenes

Source for this picture: Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin’s blog

I stopped by the Catholic Answers boards to present the facts about Cardinal Ximenes and the Preface to the Polyglott Biblia complutensis. A few weeks back, one of the Catholic Answers folks said:

“I hate to admit this but I think Webster’s assertions are wrong. I found a book about Cardinal Ximenes, Pope Leo X and the Complutensian Polygot. It was on Questia com. From what I read there is no preface condemning the Apocrypha books. What Pope Leo does condemn are pseudo-Apocrypha books. But who really knows... perhaps the Vatican isn't telling the truth (maybe they fudged the real documents). After all the Vatican has all of these secret documents (I tried to check some of them out on the Vatican web-site) that the average person isn't permitted to read.”

I posted the following response from William Webster’s recent article:

The second issue I want to address is the charge that I am misrepresenting the facts regarding the Preface to the Polyglott Biblia complutensis. If you recall this was the Bible that was published by Cardinal Ximenes in Spain in the early 16th century. It was published in 1520 with the sanction of pope Leo X. I had stated that the Preface of that work included comments that excluded the apocrypha from the canon. Apparently, some have made comments in a public forum suggesting that I am wrong about the Preface. But such accusations are completely without merit as anyone who might take the time to investigate the contents of the work in question would quickly discover. The Biblia complutensis is a 6-volume work and the following is its bibliographical information: Biblia complutensis (Rome: Gregorian University Polyglott Press, 1983-1984), Edition Facsimileed.

There is a Preface to this work titled "Prologus ad lectorem", or, "Preface to the reader". In Preface 3b it states:

Atvero libri extra canonem quos Ecclesia potius ad aedificationem populi quam ad autoritatem ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandam recipit, Graecam tamen habent scripturam, sed cum duplici latina interpretatione, altera beati Hieronymi, altera interlineari de verbo ad verbum, eo modo quo in caeteris.

English translation:

As for the books outside the Canon, which the Church admits/receives more for the edification of the people than for the purpose of confirming the doctrines of the Church, they are in Greek, but with two Latin translations, one by blessed Jerome, the other and interlinear word for word, as elsewhere.

The books referred to that were listed as outside the canon were the books of the apocrypha. The Preface gives a widely used quote from the Middle Ages which is derived from Jerome that the apocryphal books, while not included in the canon, were sanctioned to be read in the Churches for the purposes of edification. The Catholic Encyclopedia confirms this:

"In his famous 'Prologus Galeatus', or Preface to his translation of Samuel and Kings, he (Jerome) declares that everything not Hebrew should be classed with the apocrypha, and explicitly says that Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobias,and Judith are not in the Canon. These books, he adds, are read in the churches for the edification of the people, and not for the confirmation of revealed doctrine" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon of the Old Testament)."

I posted the information about Cardinal Ximenes and the Preface to the Polyglott Biblia complutensis because of the claims made that Webster was wrong, as well as these other comments found here, and here. Then, someone else said,"We have raised this issue a few times on this thread that Webster sometimes does not use primary source material and many times resorts to personal opinion rather than exact quotes from primary sources."

Now, don’t expect the Catholic Answers crowd to be apologizing any time soon. Here’s what came back:

“You know its almost hilarious how much time we spend responding the magisterium of WIlliam Webster around here.”

“Webster is not a primary source people he is a hack apologist who had some controversial interpretations and findings in the past.”

This is a good lesson for the Catholic Answers crowd to learn before they accuse people of not telling the truth, or being a "hack apologist". The clarified information has been presented. Which of them will step forward and apologize?

An ancient voice for the day #11

Chrysostom (349-407):

"This is what a lot of people are inclined to say when we exhort them to take pains over a virtuous life or show enthusiasm for the reading of Scripture. This is not for me, the person says: I haven’t left the world, have I? I haven’t become a monk, have I? What are you saying, human being that you are? Are you leaving it to them alone to find satisfaction before God? He wants everyone to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, and he wishes no one to neglect virtue. Listen, after all, to what he has to say by means of the inspired author: “I desire not the sinner’s death as much as his conversion and life.” No hindrance came to the good man, did it, from intercourse with his wife or family cares?

(20) Accordingly, I beseech you, let us not deceive ourselves, but the more we are embroiled in these cares, so much the more should we take the remedies available in the reading of the Holy Scriptures. . . . Hence, I beseech you, let us not approach the contents of Sacred Scripture idly, but read them with attention so as to gain benefit from them and at least at this late hour be in a position to follow the way of virtue as God would have us do."

Source: FC, Vol. 82, Homilies on Genesis 18-45, Homily 21.19-20 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1990), pp. 64-65.


For an excellent compilation of quotes of the Church fathers teaching on the primacy, sufficiency and ultimate authority of Scripture, get a copy of Holy Scripture:The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol III- The Writings of the Church Fathers Affirming the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura.

For those of you interested in Catholic/Protestant dialog, check out this blogback discussion from my post An ancient voice for the day #9 .

Kim Riddlebarger Remembers Meredith Kline

Kim Riddlebarger wrote an entry on Meredith Kline. Well worth reading.

Church Fathers That Denied The Apocrypha Did Not Deny The Apocrypha

Why a picture of the barren landscape of Mars? Look close and you’ll see little arrows pointing to a rock. This is the famous skull face on Mars, which is really.... only a rock. This picture accurately sums up a link I was sent to an article on the church fathers and the apocrypha by a zealous defender of Rome, a person called “Matt1618”:

Did Some Church Fathers Reject the Deuterocanonicals as Scripture?

There’s nothing of substance in this link. It’s just like that skull face on Mars. One can write countless pages speculating about the skull face, but it really is an exercise in futility. It's a rock. That’s just like the link.

It’s a tough read, but the basic thrust of the argument is the early church fathers that spoke against the canonicity of the apocrypha did not in fact deny these books were canonical scripture. What they really meant was the apocrypha should not be used in the liturgy of a particular church. The writer of this link claims this argument is the work of Mark Bonocore (now with Catholic Legate). He quotes an e-mail he received from Mark back in 2001. I took about a half hour to search around to see if Mr. Bonocore wrote about this. I couldn’t find anything other than the link above, and also a few links from the same website quoting the same e-mail.

I don’t recall hearing this argument before. Bonocore is quoted as saying,

“…When some fathers speak of a particular book as "non-canonical," they do not necessarily mean that it is not inspired or authoritative. Rather, in many cases, they merely mean that it is not used in the Liturgy of their particular city-church ...thus it is a "hidden book" ("apocrypha"), which could be read privately for edification but not in the Liturgy itself (the public worship of the Church --"Lex orendi, lex credendi").”

If you read through the link, you will note that Mark’s letter appears to be edited. Now, this isn’t necessarily unscrupulous, but I find it interesting that no early church fathers are mentioned in Mark’s letter, but the author of this link goes on to apply Mark’s historical interpretive principle to 10 early church fathers. He seeks to prove,

“Even if one does not accept this theory, one will see that the Fathers unanimously treated these books in practice as Scripture. That is what I will show in this study. Whether one accepts the theory that the Fathers are inconsistent in practice and theory, or one says that because one says a book is not 'canonical' does not deny its inspiration, and it is still Scripture, the fact is that the Fathers, even those who allegedly 'reject' these books, unanimously refer to these books as Scripture.”

Now, this is all a bit confusing. First, the assertion by Bonocore is made about the apocryphal books actually being canonical but not to be used in the liturgy, then the argument shifts to proving that the early church fathers were perhaps inconsistent in theory, but quoted from them, thus treating them as scripture.

Well, big deal. This principle of quoting from an apocryphal book does not mean that a particular church father necessarily thought a book was canonical. Talk about wasting one’s time writing to prove nothing, which is what “Matt1618” does. The ironic part of the argument is I could produce a number of quotes from Luther positively quoting from the apocrypha (he even preached from apocryphal passages occasionally), yet, I know of no one who would claim Luther treated the apocrypha as canonical scripture.

Time allowing, I’d like to examine some of the points made in Matt1618’s link.

A Roman Catholic Question For Calvinists

Here's a question from the blog Sancta Mater Ecclesia worth pondering:

If faith is a gift from God, then how can the Protestant Christian's belief in the Scriptures be a fallible one?

The Calvinist paradigm holds faith is a gift from God. God opens the heart of the dead sinner, making him spiritually alive. He becomes enabled to savingly trust the words of God as reliable and certain.

This is one of the best epistomological questions i've heard in a long time. You are invited to weigh in.

Leaving a Comment on this Blog: Helpful Hints

Thanks for stopping by Beggars All: Reformation and Apologetics. If something written has inspired or provoked you, the comment section is usually open. Many posts from long ago are open for response.

Will My Comment Be Edited or Deleted?I rarely edit comments. You have to say something very foul or insulting in order to have your comment deleted. I don’t mind rhetoric or polemic, within reason.

Addendum 10/17/14

My apologies to those of you kind enough to leave comments. At times the comments may not appear immediately on the blog. I have trouble with trolls and stalkers from time to time, so comment moderation is now turned on.

There are only a few people who are permanently banned from commenting here. It takes a long time to reach the line that says, "Cross this and you'll be on permanent ignore."

Team Apologian

Here are my last few entries for Team Apologian:

Silence and the Problem of Catholic Canon Certainty- A look at the implications of Catholic apologist Gary Michuta's view that the debated book of Esdras was passed over in silence by the Council of Trent. (4/9/07)

Gary Michuta Says: Read My Book- Catholic Apologist Gary Michuta joins the Envoy bunker and posts a response to William Webster on Esdras. (4/4/07)

Is William Webster Telling The Truth?- A look at the charge William Webster was lying about the edition of the Bible called the Biblia Complutensia which contains a statement from Ximenes, Archbishop of Toledo, against the canonicity of the apocrypha. (4/3/07)

Six Points On Luther's "Epistle of Straw"- Almost five hundred years after the fact, Roman Catholics still scrutinize Martin Luther. One the most popular quotations from Luther is the infamous "epistle of straw" remark, directed at the canonicity of the book of James. It really is amazing how frequently this citation appears. It is usually brought forth as proof one must believe an infallible church authored an infallible list of infallible books. Without this, one subjectively decides which books are canonical, like Martin Luther supposedly did in the sixteenth century.If you find yourself in dialog facing this quote, there are a few facts and arguments you should know. (4/3/07)

Go Ahead, Speak Your Mind on Envoy, Just Don't Link to aomin.org - I got booted off the Envoy boards for posting a link to aomin.org. (3/28/07)

And They All Lived Happily Ever After? - Robert Sungenis and the Catholic apologetic bond of unity. (3/26/07)


Also noteworthy:

Jeff Downs:
Augustine, Schaeffer, Van Til (4/7/07)
Revelation and Reason (3/30/07)
Counterfeit Christianity: The Basics (3/26/07)

An ancient voice for the day #10

Chrysostom (349-407):

"Besides, even if any should be so poor, it is in their power, by means of the continual reading of the holy Scriptures which takes place here, to be ignorant of nothing contained in them."

Source: . NPNF1: Vol. XIV, Homilies on the Gospel according to St. John, Homily 11.1.


For an excellent compilation of quotes of the Church fathers teaching on the primacy, sufficiency and ultimate authority of Scripture, get a copy of Holy Scripture:The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol III- The Writings of the Church Fathers Affirming the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura.

An ancient voice for the day #9

Chrysostom (349-407):

"Tarry not, I entreat, for another to teach thee; thou hast the oracles of God. No man teacheth thee as they; for he indeed oft grudgeth much for vainglory’s sake and envy. Hearken, I entreat you, all ye that are careful for this life, and procure books that will be medicines for the soul. If ye will not any other, yet get you at least the New Testament, the Apostolic Epistles, the Acts, the Gospels, for your constant teachers. If grief befall thee, dive into them as into a chest of medicines; take thence comfort of thy trouble, be it loss, or death, or bereavement of relations; or rather dive not into them merely, but take them wholly to thee; keep them in thy mind.
This is the cause of all evils, the not knowing the Scriptures. We go into battle without arms, and how ought we to come off safe? Well contented should we be if we can be safe with them, let alone without them."

Source: NPNF1: Vol. XIII, Homilies on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Colossians, Homily 9.


For an excellent compilation of quotes of the Church fathers teaching on the primacy, sufficiency and ultimate authority of Scripture, get a copy of Holy Scripture:The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol III- The Writings of the Church Fathers Affirming the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura.

Luther’s Preface To Parts of Esther, 1534

In making a point about the freedom of the will, Erasmus chose to quote from the apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus. He takes the time to explain why this book should be considered as authoritative:

“I do not think anyone will object against the authority of this work that it was not, as Jerome points out, regarded as canonical by the Hebrews, since the Church of Christ has received it by common consent into its canon; nor do I see any reason why the Hebrews felt they must exclude the book from theirs, seeing they accepted the Proverbs of Solomon and the Love Song. As to the fact that they did not receive into their canon the last two books of Esdras, the story in Daniel about Susanna and Bel the dragon, Judith, Esther, and several others, but reckoned them among the hagiographa, anyone who reads those books carefully can easily see what their reasons were. But in this work there is nothing of that kind to disturb the reader.”

Luther responded:

“The first is that from Ecclesiasticus 15[:14–17]: “God made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his own counsel. He added his commandments and precepts. If thou wilt observe the commandments and keep acceptable fidelity forever, they shall preserve thee. He hath set water and fire before thee; stretch forth thine hand for which thou wilt. Before man is life and death, good and evil; that which he shall choose shall be given him.”  Although I could rightly reject this book, for the time being I accept it so as not to waste time by getting involved in a dispute about the books received in the Hebrew canon. For you poke more than a little sarcastic fun at this when you compare Proverbs and The Song of Solomon (which with a sneering innuendo you call the “Love Song”) with the two books of Esdras, Judith, the story of Susanna and the Dragon, and Esther (which despite their inclusion of it in the canon deserves more than all the rest in my judgment to be regarded as noncanonical) [LW 33:110].

It is an interesting fact though that Luther translated and placed the book of Esther with the canonical books of the Old Testament. The editors of Luther’s Works state,

“Luther’s ordering of the apocryphal books is his own. It does not follow the sequence in which they appeared either in the Vulgate or in the Septuagint where they were interspersed among the canonical books in positions which varied with the different manuscripts. In the older German Bibles, Judith had followed Tobit and preceded Esther; Wisdom had followed Song of Solomon and preceded Ecclesiasticus.”

Yet, Luther abandoned the ordering of the Vulgate, the Septuagint, and the older German Bibles. He placed the apocryphal books at the end of his Old Testament translation, clearly separating them from those Old Testament books he considered canonical. Esther was included with the canonical books.

To make the situation even more interesting, he took the additions to Esther, which had originally been pointed out by Jerome, and placed them with the apocryphal books. The editors of Luther’s Works say, “Six additions to the book of Esther, comprising 107 verses not in the Hebrew text, were inserted into the text in the Greek Version, added on at the end in the Vulgate.” Through the centuries, Jerome’s clear delineation between the canonical and non-canonical parts of Esther was often ignored or left out in subsequent copies of the Vulgate, treating the book in its longer form as entirely canonical.

Even as early as 1521, Luther at times makes a distinction between the parts of Esther: “Queen Esther wore a precious crown upon her head, yet she said it seemed but a filthy rag in her eyes, Esther 14:16 (Apocryphal)” [LW 21:316]. Yet elsewhere from the same time period, Luther quotes from both sections of Esther and makes no such distinction (See LW 30:89, a writing from 1522).

Luther did not write a preface for the canonical Esther. In 1534 though, Luther did write a preface for the non-canonical part:

Preface to Parts of Esther and Daniel 1534

Here follow several pieces which we did not wish to translate [and include] in the prophet Daniel and in the book of Esther. We have uprooted such cornflowers (because they do not appear in the Hebrew versions of Daniel and Esther).  And yet, to keep them from perishing, we have put them here in a kind of special little spice garden or flower bed since much that is good, especially the hymn of praise, Benedicite,  is to be found in them. But the texts of Susanna, and of Bel, Habakkuk,  and the Dragon, seem like beautiful religious fictions, such as Judith and Tobit,  for their names indicate as much. For example, Susanna means a rose,  that is, a nice pious land and folk, or a group of poor people among the thorns; Daniel means a judge,  and so on. Be the story as it may, it can all be easily interpreted in terms of the state, the home, or the devout company of the faithful. [LW 35:353]

The Michuta Canon Dilemma

If you’ve been following the aomin blog, you already know Catholic apologist Gary Michuta has a new book coming out this month: Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger. There has been some interaction between Michuta, James White, and William Webster over the canon declaration of Hippo, Carthage, and Trent. Did the early councils of Hippo and Carthage deem a book canonical that Trent later rejected as canonical? It’s a little tricky to work through. I posted on this some months ago. Recently, William Webster posted on it as well:

Bill Webster Responds to Gary Michuta Part I

Bill Webster Responds to Gary Michuta, Part II

Bill Webster Responds to Gary Michuta, Part III

Without restating all the argumentation, Michuta argues Trent decided to “pass over in silence” on the question of the particular book of Esdras under dispute. Michuta says:

“Both White and Webster take the position that the absence of a book called Esdras in the Council of Trent’s definition of the canon constitutes, not mere silence on the issue, but a clear and explicit rejection of the book “without the slightest ambiguity.” This is a big deal for them because, if it is true, then a case could be made that Trent contradicted the Councils of Carthage and Hippo which they understand to have explicitly included Esdras (no doubt without the slightest possible ambiguity there either). My position is that, whatever we want to make of the status of Esdras, the question of a contradiction between Trent and Carthage cannot arise because the bishops at Trent explicitly avoided answering the question. White and Webster seem to be under the impression that this idea is my own "novel" interpretation of the decree of the Fourth Session. It is nothing of the kind.”

And also:

“Let me be perfectly clear. My assertion that the Council of Trent passed over the question of the canonicity of Esdras in silence is not a matter of my own or anyone else’s interpretation of the decree. It is a historical fact.”

I think Gary Michuta may have cornered himself by his own argumentation. While he solved one problem, he created another.

Let’s grant Michuta’s assertion that Trent “passed over in silence” on the book of Esdras in question. This means in the Roman system, as interpreted by Michuta, the possibility exists that the book in question is canonical, but not in the canon. Therefore, it is possible that the Bible is missing a book, in which case, Roman Catholics cannot be certain they have an infallible list of all the infallible books. In which case, their arguments stating they have canon certainty crumbles. It would also mean, the canon is still open. Michuta notes that 42 people at Trent voted to pass over the book in silence. If Michuta is correct on his interpretation of Trent, these 42 people solved the problem of the contradiction between Hippo, Carthage, and Trent, but created the problem of an unclosed canon, and thrust Catholics into uncertainty.

Michuta notes 3 people at Trent voted to reject the book of Esdras in question. These three people uphold Catholic argumentation on Canon certainty: yes, the book of Esdras in question is not canonical. The canon is closed. Catholics have a complete infallible list of infallible books. In this answer, the earlier councils of Hippo and Carthage deemed Esdras canonical, but these three men at Trent say it’s not. In other words, if these men were followed, it would prove councils are not infallible. The councils contradicted themselves.

Go ahead, argue Trent “passed over in silence”. It proves once and for all Catholic arguments for canon certainty are empty. The argument shows clearly that sophistry is at work. The argument is like trying to scotch tape together a structure that needs to be demolished. The epistemological foundation of Roman Catholicism is top heavy from its weak foundation, one that is built on sand.

Checking The Facts

I’ve been a consistent voice of complaining against The Facts About Luther by Father Patrick O’Hare. In some instances, those who I encounter quoting this book will listen to reason and cease quoting this book. Others will drop the conversation and move on. Recently, I received an e-mail which said in part:

To James Swan:
I'm a devout, Orthodox Catholic heavily into apologetics. I had read
O'Hare's "The Facts About Luther" and was determined to let Protestants know the truth about their great "hero". But I couldn't just recite incriminating quotes from a book by a Catholic; I wanted to take Luther's words from his very own writings, so I began checking O'Hare's sources. I was very disappointed to find that he DOES take words out of context, shuffles them around a bit or changes them outright all for the purpose of making Luther say something he never said, or mean something he never meant.

Indeed! I wanted to mention a thread just started at Catholic Answers about Luther. O'Hare's Facts About Luther hasn't been mentioned yet, but give this thread a little more time, and it probably will.

In regard to fairness, Note these words from Father O’Hare:

“Catholics naturally feel indignant at the vilification, abuse and misrepresentation to which their ancient and worldwide religion is constantly subjected, but they are charitable and lenient in their judgment towards all who wage war against them. They are considerate with their opponents and persecutors because they realize that these are victims of a long-standing and inherited prejudice, intensified by a lack of knowledge of what the Catholic Church really upholds and teaches. Even as the Church's Founder prayed the Heavenly Father to forgive those who nailed Him to the Cross because they knew not what they did, so do His followers, with malice to none but with charity to all, pray for those who oppose the spread of the Kingdom of God on earth because they do not realize to the full that, in despising the Church, they despise Him who founded her to be the light of the world. Most of the Church's enemies are to be greatly pitied, for they have never been taught the significant lesson that the man-made system of religion they hold or adhere to is false, an offense and an apostasy in the eyes of God, who despises heresy and who warned His followers to be on guard against every teacher not commissioned by Him to announce divine truth. Of all this they are unaware. They know nothing of the Church they malign, abuse and vilify. They are ignorant of her history, of her organization, of her constitution, of her teaching, of her mission and her place in the world. They know her not, and many of them, otherwise honest but nurtured in opposition, are led to hate what with divine light they would come to admire, love and embrace." [Source: Facts About Luther, 11-12]

What an irony! The Facts About Luther is actually a complete vilification. One is left amazed at the earlier claims of fairness and truth the book makes when contrasted with O’Hare’s actual tone and obvious strong hostility that proceeds and develops quickly. One reads page after page of a man controlled by Satan destroying all that he touches:

Luther is:

The “pretended Reformer,” with “depraved manners and utterances,” “perversity of principle coupled with falsity of teaching…” (p. 310)

“That he was a deformer and not a reformer is the honest verdict of all who are not blind partisans and who know the man at close vision for what he was and for what he stood to sponsor.” (p. 310)

Luther reasons “out of the depths of his depraved mind…” (p. 311)

“Why, then call Luther a reformer- one who would not in our times be regarded fit to be entrusted with police duty in the worst slums of our cities, much less to be made the presiding officer of a vice purity committee?” (p. 312)

“The serpent’s rattle made itself distinctly heard in his unholy utterances…” (p. 312)

“As a matter of fact, he was openly blamed for his well-known and imprudent intimacy with Katherine Von Bora before his marriage…”(p. 313)

[Directed at Luther]:“Out upon your morality and religion; out upon your obstinacy and blindness! How have you sunk from the pinnacle of perfection and true wisdom to the depths of depravity and abominable error, dragging down countless numbers with you!” (p. 313)

“That he was consumed by the fires of fleshly lust he admits himself.” (p. 314)

“Did the corruption of his mind, as is plainly evidenced in his speech, induce to laxity of behavior and lead him to exemplify his teachings in grave moral delinquencies? Corrupt teaching begets corrupt action, and hence it is difficult to believe that anyone holding such principles and ‘consumed by the fires of his unbridled flesh’ could wholly escape in his own case the exemplification of his unhallowed pronouncements.” (p. 316)

[O’Hare insinuates that Luther suffered from syphilis and suggests]: “On this delicate matter anyone may, if further information be desired, read Grisar, Vol. II pp. 162-164, where all the details of the question are carefully and learnedly discussed.” (p. 317)

“…[T]o deify indecency, decry celibacy and virginity and dishonor the married state, was Luther’s satanic desire and diabolical purpose.” (p. 318)

“The way in which this ‘glorious evangelist’ explains his beastly theories in his course Latin and in his still coarser German is such that it cannot be given here, ‘so full is it,’ …’not only of indelicacy but of gross filthiness.’” (p. 319)

“The thoughts that filled his depraved mind and reflected on the greater part of mankind led him on, after his excommunication, to strive with diabolical energy to eradicate from the people’s hearts the love for and belief in the possibility of chastity outside of wedlock.” (p. 322)

“The evidences of his depravity are so overwhelming and convincing that they are forced to the conclusion that this shameless advocate of brazen prostitution could not be and was not a ‘messenger of the all Holy God.’” (p. 327)

“If a Catholic, especially a Jesuit, had ever played fast and loose with the truth as Luther did, what an outcry, and justly so, would be raised!” (p. 334)

“Katherine Von Bora was only his companion in sin, and the children brought into the world through the unholy alliance were illegitimate children.” (p. 340)

“His wild pronouncements wrecked Germany, wrecked her intellectually, morally, and politically. The havoc wrought directly or indirectly by him is almost without example in history.” p. (7)

“…[I]t behooves every serious man to know this charlatan for what he was and to learn that he has absolutely no claim to any consideration as a heaven-commissioned agent, as even an ordinary ‘reformer’ or ‘spiritual leader,’ or as in any respect a man above and ahead of the frailties of his age.” (p. 18)

After putting forth the myth that Luther’s father was a murderer, O’Hare insinuates [through a quotation] that “Martin was a veritable chip of the hard old block.” (p. 27)