Luther on the Six Days of Creation and the Church Fathers

"But this also has a bearing on our firmly holding the conviction that there were really six days on which the Lord created everything, in contrast to the opinion of Augustine and Hilary, who believed that everything was created in a single moment. They, therefore, abandon the historical account, pursuing allegories and fabricating I don’t know what speculations. However, I am not saying this to vilify the holy fathers, whose works should be held in high regard, but to establish the truth and to comfort us. They were great men, but nevertheless they were human beings who erred and who were subject to error. So we do not exalt them as do the monks, who worship all their opinions as if they were infallible. To me the great comfort seems to lie rather in this, that they are found to have erred and occasionally to have sinned. For this is my thought: If God forgave them their errors and sins, why should I despair of His pardon? The opposite brings on despair—if you should believe that they did not have the same shortcomings that you have. Moreover, it is certain that between the call of the apostles and that of the fathers there is a great difference. Why, then, should we regard the writings of the fathers as equal to those of the apostles?" [Luther, M. (1999, c1958). Vol. 1: Luther's works, vol. 1 : Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 1-5 (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald and H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (1:121). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House].

"Hilary and Augustine, almost the two greatest lights of the church, hold that the world was created instantaneously and all at the same time, not successively in the course of six days [Hilary, On the Trinity, XII, ch. 40, Patrologia, Series Latina, X, 458, 459; Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram libri XII, IV, ch. 33; Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, XXVIII, Sec. III, Part I, p. 133].  Moreover, Augustine resorts to extraordinary trifling in his treatment of the six days, which he makes out to be mystical days of knowledge among the angels, not natural ones. Hence debates are customary in schools and churches concerning evening and morning knowledge, subjects brought up by Augustine and scrupulously propounded by Lyra. Whoever wants to gain a knowledge of them, let him get it from Lyra" [Luther, M. (1999, c1958). Vol. 1: Luther's works, vol. 1 : Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 1-5 (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald and H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (1:4). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House].

Addendum: Catholic Answers
"The writings of the Fathers, who were much closer than we are in time and culture to the original audience of Genesis, show that this was not the case [a consensus on literal days of creation]. There was wide variation of opinion on how long creation took. Some said only a few days; others argued for a much longer, indefinite period...Catholics are at liberty to believe that creation took a few days or a much longer period, according to how they see the evidence, and subject to any future judgment of the Church (Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical Humani Generis 36–37). They need not be hostile to modern cosmology." [source]

Recent Discussions

This past week I've gotten caught up in a few Internet discussions, which usually means I'm not using my time as wisely as I possibly could.

The first is the typical "Roman Catholic hates Luther, cites Grisar and Denifle" but when scrutinized, has no idea what they're talking about. This was a Carm discussion (you may have to register to see it) which began here. I jumped in here. The discussion picks up again here, and my response is here, here and here. This last page is primarily our discussion. This is the usual tedium.

The second actually occurred on a blog I don't usually visit called, "Steadfast Lutherans." There was a recent post entitled, Sanctification: By Grace Alone. In the comment section, a man named Lloyd Cadle began almost immediately leaving pro-Roman Catholic comments, all the while not affirming his church affiliation. Mr. Cadle appeared to have an agenda that anyone reading the early church documents would become Roman Catholic or Orthodox. That is, the ECF's by an overwhelming consensus taught the same things Roman and Orthodox churches believe today. I challenged Mr, Cadle to apply his same standard to the modern Roman church. He appeared to be a zealous recent convert, because he avoided this question as much as possible, nor did he appear to have come across Newman's development hypothesis. There were two pages of comments (page 1) (page 2), until Lloyd last night said he had enough.

"I Called in at the Steve Gregg Radio Show..."

Update: I received an "infraction" from a Catholic Answers moderator:

"After reviewing your post, and your explaination for it, I have reached the conclusion that, although this post does not reach the level of contempt for Catholicism, it does show a general disrespect. Your explaination does not appear to be in accord with what you posted. This is also illustrated in your screen shots of the deleted posts on your blog. I would highly suggest you change your tone to be in accordance with CAF rules in the future."

*************************

...Well no, I didn't call the Steve Gregg Show, but a Catholic Answers participant did. Based on the discussion that ensued, I thought this call to Mr. Gregg would be interesting to hear, so I tracked it down, and posted it for the Catholic Answers folks. Here's the clip. After posting it, I took part in a brief discussion, only to have my posts deleted (along with the link to the mp3 clip). Here's what went down:

Yesterday, 6:31 pm

TertiumQuid  Regular Member Join Date: May 19, 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 710 Religion: Reformed

Re: I called in at the Steve Gregg radio show Quote: Originally Posted by Adamski  It was a day or 2 before I pistes on catholic answers Ok: Here's an mp3 clip of your call. Click to listen, or right-click to save. If this was your call, it seemed to me that Gregg was fair with you, despite cutting you off from time to time. In fact, you leave his broadcast on quite cordial terms. JS

Today, 1:27 am

Adamski  Junior Member Join Date: September 10, 2011 Location: Seattle Posts: 360 Religion: Catholic (revert)

Re: I called in at the Steve Gregg radio show Quote: Originally Posted by TertiumQuid  Ok: Here's an mp3 clip of your call. Click to listen, or right-click to save. If this was your call, it seemed to me that Gregg was fair with you, despite cutting you off from time to time. In fact, you leave his broadcast on quite cordial terms. JS Yes I think he was fair with me. I just think its silly to say his version of Christianity is right because he can interpate the bible better. That's rediculous Luther and Calvin both great Protestant scholars claimed they where both right because the could interpate the bible better and they argued who is right. I used to go to bible study fellowship when I was a Protestant and all they did was argue

TertiumQuid  Regular Member Join Date: May 19, 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 710 Religion: Reformed

Re: I called in at the Steve Gregg radio show Quote: Originally Posted by Adamski  Yes I think he was fair with me. I just think its silly to say his version of Christianity is right because he can interpate the bible better. That's rediculous Luther and Calvin both great Protestant scholars claimed they where both right because the could interpate the bible better and they argued who is right. I used to go to bible study fellowship when I was a Protestant and all they did was argue I don't recall Calvin and Luther ever arguing about anything with each other. Keep in mind, during the 16th century, everyone argued with everyone, including those attached to the Roman church. One need only search out the squabbles between the different orders of monks. Edited to add: Steve Gregg makes some good points to you, while other points were not so good. For instance, the claim that Tim Staples did not "know" his Bible previous to becoming Roman Catholic is simply untrue. As much as I may disagree with Mr. Staples, it certainly is the case he has quite a lot of Scripture memorized, and had this before joining Rome. JS

Today, 10:55 am

JustaServant  Regular Member Join Date: April 27, 2007 Location: West Virginia Posts: 5,906 Religion: Catholic (revert)

Re: I called in at the Steve Gregg radio show Quote: Originally Posted by TertiumQuid  I don't recall Calvin and Luther ever arguing about anything with each other. Keep in mind, during the 16th century, everyone argued with everyone, including those attached to the Roman church. One need only search out the squabbles between the different orders of monks. Edited to add: Steve Gregg makes some good points to you, while other points were not so good. For instance, the claim that Tim Staples did not "know" his Bible previous to becoming Roman Catholic is simply untrue. As much as I may disagree with Mr. Staples, it certainly is the case he has quite a lot of Scripture memorized, and had this before joining Rome. JS The terms "Roman church" and "joining Rome" are highly offensive. What Staples joined was the Catholic Church.

Today, 11:07 am

TertiumQuid  Regular Member Join Date: May 19, 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 710 Religion: Reformed

Re: I called in at the Steve Gregg radio show Quote: Originally Posted by JustaServant  The terms "Roman church" and "joining Rome" are highly offensive. What Staples joined was the Catholic Church. "Within the Catholic Church there are a number of individual churches, sometimes called rites. One of these is the Roman rite or Roman church. It includes most of the Catholics in the Western world. A Roman Catholic is a Catholic who is a member of the Roman rite." http://www.catholic.com/quickquestio...holic-religion

Today, 11:11 am

JustaServant  Regular Member Join Date: April 27, 2007 Location: West Virginia Posts: 5,906 Religion: Catholic (revert)

Re: I called in at the Steve Gregg radio show Quote: Originally Posted by TertiumQuid  "Within the Catholic Church there are a number of individual churches, sometimes called rites. One of these is the Roman rite or Roman church. It includes most of the Catholics in the Western world. A Roman Catholic is a Catholic who is a member of the Roman rite." http://www.catholic.com/quickquestio...holic-religion Nice dodge.  You didn't say "Roman Rite". You said "Roman church" and "joining Rome". You're not talking to a cradle Catholic whose never darkened the door of a Protestant church. I am very much aware of the code words you use and why you use them

Today, 11:12 am

TertiumQuid  Regular Member Join Date: May 19, 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 710 Religion: Reformed

Re: I called in at the Steve Gregg radio show By the way, you're welcome, since no one said thanks to me for taking the time to search for the show, find the section in which the call took place, edit the clip out, post it on my server, and then make a downloadable link for all of you to have. Then you're welcome for me defending Mr. Staples against Steve Gregg assertion. But of course, the comment I got was how I made a "highly offensive" comment. Go figure. JS Edited to add: "Within the Catholic Church there are a number of individual churches, sometimes called rites. One of these is the Roman rite or Roman church. It includes most of the Catholics in the Western world. A Roman Catholic is a Catholic who is a member of the Roman rite."

Today, 11:15 am

JustaServant  Regular Member Join Date: April 27, 2007 Location: West Virginia Posts: 5,906 Religion: Catholic (revert)

Re: I called in at the Steve Gregg radio show Quote: Originally Posted by TertiumQuid  By the way, you're welcome, since no one said thanks to me for taking the time to search for the show, find the section in which the call took place, edit the clip out, post it on my server, and then make a downloadable link for all of you to have. Then you're welcome for me defending Mr. Staples against Steve Gregg assertion. But of course, the comment I got was how I made a "highly offensive" comment. Go figure. JS The matryr routine doesn't go very far with me dude.  Maybe that's the result of having eastern European relatives. All one has to do is read your blog to see your true feelings and motivations for coming here. You're not fooling anyone

Today, 11:17 am

TertiumQuid  Regular Member Join Date: May 19, 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 710 Religion: Reformed

Re: I called in at the Steve Gregg radio show Quote: Originally Posted by JustaServant  The matryr routine doesn't go very far with me dude.  Maybe that's the result of having eastern European relatives. All one has to do is read your blog to see your true feelings and motivations for coming here. You're not fooling anyone. You are now ignore. So post whatever you want "dude", I'm going to ignore you.

Luther's Statement Concerning Roman Catholic Authorities "Why do we not rather assault them with arms and wash our hands in their blood?" (Part Four)

Those of you stopping by here regularly realize I enjoy trying to document obscure Luther quotes as I come across them. The ones I come across are typically being used for polemical purposes. I do this first as an interest and hobby. It certainly is fascinating to see the history around a particular quote. Second, its an historical apologetic endeavor. If I can point people to a context, they can read it for themselves and make up their own minds as to what any particular quote means in the scheme of church history.

Even I have to search my blog for particular quotes. Recently I came across a Luther quote that sounded familiar, but yet did not sound familiar. I searched my own blog and discovered I did three specific entries on one particular quote back in 2008 very similar to what I was looking for:

Luther's Statement Concerning Roman Catholic Authorities  "Why do we not rather assault them with arms and wash our hands in their blood?" (Part One)

Luther's Statement Concerning Roman Catholic Authorities  "Why do we not rather assault them with arms and wash our hands in their blood?" (Part Two)

Luther's Statement Concerning Roman Catholic Authorities  "Why do we not rather assault them with arms and wash our hands in their blood?" (Part Three)

I came across another version of this quote being used on the CARM boards which was very similar:

After Hieronymus Emser advised Luther to be judicious in his challenge to the Church, that is not to go at it too strong. The advise evoked a strange and vicious response from Luther, “The devil take it! The affair was not begun on God’s account; neither shall it end on God’s account!” (Robert Herndon Fife, The Revolt of Martin Luther (1957), pp. 350-351, c. 403) Then we can just read his intent and mutinous frame of mind one of his flyers, "on the Papacy at Rome, June 25, 1520: 

"Now farewell, you unhappy, lost, and blasphemous Rome; the wrath of God has come upon you at last, as you have merited, for in spite of all prayer that have been said for you , you have become worse each day. We would have healed Babylon, but she is not healed. . .If we punish thieves with the gallows, robbers with the sword, and heretics with fire, why should we not all the more assail with arms these master of perdition, these cardinals, these Popes, the whole dregs of the Roman Sodom. . ." 

What do we make of this, are the princes of peace are to be put to the attacked, put to the sword, and burned at the stake? As I said before, Christ freely spilt his own blood for His Church; Luther spilt the blood of Europe to ransack Christ's Church.

Documentation
The quote is said to be from a "flyer" of Luther's entitled "On the Papacy at Rome, June 25, 1520." I've already documented this is a bogus reference. "On the Papacy at Rome" is probably a reference to the title of a book by the Dominican Sylvester Prierias in which Luther responded to. Unfortunately, Roman Catholic apologetics has been so sloppy with this quote, they often mis-document it. The exact title from which the quote comes from is Epitoma Responsionis ad Marinum Lutherum, and is found in WA, vol. 6, beginning on page 325 and ending on page 348. Luther's Works state:

Luther wrote these words in 1520 in the margin of a work written against him by Sylvester Prierias (ca. 1456–1523), a Dominican monk and official theological adviser to Pope Leo X. Luther did not formally reply to Prierias, but only reprinted the treatise, adding his own comments in the margin. Luther’s version was entitled Responsio ad Martinum Luther (per Fratrem Silvestrum de Prierto). Cf. WA 6, 329.[Luther, M. (1999, c1966). Vol. 41: Luther's works, vol. 41 : Church and Ministry III (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (41). Philadelphia: Fortress Press].

The first part of the quote is found on page 329 near the beginning of the treatise. The second part of the quote appears on page 347 as part of Luther's postscript (Ad Lectorem). The writing is scheduled to be translated for a forthcoming edition of Luther's Works [Early Works 1509-ca. 1521 (2 volumes)].

It's hard to determine who stuck these two quotes together, as both have been floating around the Internet separately. Sometimes the quotes are documented as -"Martin Luther, 'On the Papacy at Rome' June 25, 1520 and 'To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation.'" This leads me to believe someone compiled the quote from Warren H. Carroll's The Cleaving of Christendom, a History of Christendom Vol. 4, page 1, where Carroll cites both quotes.

Context
I refer anyone interested in the second half of the quote to one of my earlier entries. In regard to the first half, a source hostile to Luther provided an interesting overview of the context, Herbert Rix, Martin Luther: The Man and the Image, beginning on page 84, and citing both quotes.It should be obvious that Luther presented a highly polemical and rhetorical treatise. Rix mentions that Luther was predicting "he will go into schism if his conditions are not met and- by anticipation- bids farewell in a grand rhetorical flourish laced with scriptural illusions" (p.86), and then Rix cites the first quote.

Luther's Works likewise cites the first quote and states,

More and more he was convinced that the papacy could not be regarded as a neutral institution, but that it was Antichrist, a demonic institution striking at the Godgiven ordinances of the spiritual and temporal power. Nonetheless, Luther admitted that there had been true Christians in the Roman church in every generation: if the pope would and could go back to being the bishop of the church in Rome, he might still have his place within the Christian church. [Luther, M. (1999, c1966). Vol. 41: Luther's works, vol. 41 : Church and Ministry III (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald and H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (41). Philadelphia: Fortress Press].

Luther: "If any Council should decree or permit both species, we would by no means acquiesce; but, in spite of the Council and its statute, we would use one form, or neither, and never both"

Recently, the following Luther quote appeared on the CARM boards:

Originally Posted by pvb: "You know at one time Catholics were only allowed the bread. Wine represents the blood poured out by Jesus just as blood was sprinkled for atonement on the Mercy Seat during Old Testament times."

Originally Posted by Garnet: "Same with the first Protestants...the Lutherans. Here is Dr. Luther... "If any Council should decree or permit both species, we would by no means acquiesce; but, in spite of the Council and its statute, we would use one form, or neither, and never both." - Dr. Martin Luther, from 1523's De formula Missae."

Documentation
The quote is documented as "Dr. Martin Luther, from 1523's De formula Missae." It appears that the quote was taken from James Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers: Being a Plain Exposition and Vindication of the Church Founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ (New York: P.J. Kenedy and Sons, 1917),p. 246. There Gibbons states,

St. Paul, writing to the Corinthians, says: "Whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord." The Apostle here plainly declares that, by an unworthy participation in the Lord's Supper, under the form of either bread or wine, we profane both the body and the blood of Christ. How could this be so, unless Christ is entirely contained under each species? So forcibly, indeed, did the Apostle assert the Catholic doctrine that the Protestant translators have perverted the text by rendering it: "Whosoever shall eat this bread and drink the chalice," substituting and for or, in contradiction to the Greek original, of which the Catholic version is an exact translation. It is also the received doctrine of the Fathers that the Eucharist is contained in all its integrity either in the consecrated bread or in the chalice. St. Augustine, who may be taken as a sample of the rest, says that "each one receives Christ the Lord entire under each particle."Luther himself, even after his revolt, was so clearly convinced of this truth that he was an uncompromising advocate of communion under one kind. "If any Council," he says, "should decree or permit both species, we would by no means acquiesce; but, in spite of the Council and its statute, we would use one form, or neither, and never both."5
5 de Formula Missae

"de Formula Missae" refers to Formula Missae et Communionis pro Ecclesia Vuittembergensi (1523). It has been translated into English as  An Order of Mass and Communion for the Church at Wittenberg, found in LW 53 (15-40) and also PE 6 (83-101).

Context
"Now concerning private confession before communion, I still think as I have held heretofore, namely, that it neither is necessary nor should be demanded. Nevertheless, it is useful and should not be despised; for the Lord did not even require the Supper itself as necessary or establish it by law, but left it free to everyone when he said, “As often as you do this,” etc. [I Cor. 11:25–26]. So concerning the preparation for the Supper, we think that preparing oneself by fasting and prayer is a matter of liberty. Certainly one ought to come sober and with a serious and attentive mind, even though one might not fast at all and pray ever so little. But the sobriety I speak of is not that superstitious practice of the papists. I demand it lest people should come belching their drink and bloated with overeating. For the best preparation is—as I have said—a soul troubled by sins, death, and temptation and hungering and thirsting for healing and strength. Teaching these matters to the people is up to the bishop.

It remains to be considered whether both forms, as they call them, should be administered to the people. Here I say this: Now that the gospel has been instilled among us these two whole years, we have humored the weak in faith long enough. Hereafter we shall act according to the words of St. Paul, “If any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant” [I Cor. 14:38]. For if after all this time they have not understood the gospel, it matters little whether they receive either form. If we continue to make allowance for their weakness, we only run the risk of confirming their obstinacy and of making rules contrary to the gospel. Wherefore, both forms may be requested and shall be offered in simple compliance with the institution of Christ. Those who refuse them will be left alone and receive nothing. For we are devising this order of the mass for those to whom the gospel has been proclaimed and by whom it has been at least partly understood. Those who have not yet heard or understood it are also not ready to receive advice concerning this matter [of liturgical forms].

Nor is it necessary to wait for a council—as they prate—in order to have this practice sanctioned. We have the law of Christ on our side and are not minded to be delayed by or to listen to a council in matters which manifestly are part of the gospel. Nay, we say more: If by chance a council should establish and permit this practice, then we would be the last to partake of both forms. Nay, in contempt both of the council and of its statute, we should then wish to partake either of one or of neither, but never of both; and we would hold those to be wholly anathema who on the authority of such a council and statute would partake of both.

You wonder why and ask for a reason? Listen! If you know that the bread and wine were instituted by Christ and that both are to be received by all—as the Gospels and Paul testify so clearly that even our adversaries themselves are forced to admit it—and if you still dare not believe and trust in Him enough to receive both forms, but dare to do so after men decide this in a council, are you not preferring men to Christ? Do you not extol sinful men over Him who is named God and worshiped as such [II Thess. 2:3–4]? Do you not trust in the words of men more than in the words of God? Nay rather, do you not utterly distrust the words of God and believe only the words of men? And how great a rejection and denial of God the most high is that? What idolatry can be compared to the superstitious regard in which you hold the council of men? Should you not rather die a thousand deaths? Should you not rather receive one or no form at all, than [both] in the name of an obedience which is a sacrilege and of a faith that amounts to apostasy?

Therefore, let them stop prating of their councils. First, let them do this: Let them restore to God the glory which they have denied him. Let them confess that with Satan their master they have held back one form, that they have lifted themselves up above God, that they have condemned his word, and have led to perdition so many people for so long a time. And let them repent of this unspeakably cruel and godless tyranny. Then, let them solemnly declare that we have done right when on our part and even against their dogma we have taught and received both forms and have not waited for their council. And let them give thanks, because we have refused to follow their perditious abomination. When they have done this, we shall gladly and willingly honor and obey their council and [its] statute. In the meantime, while they fail to do so and instead continue to demand that we should await their authorization, we shall listen to nothing. Rather, we shall continue to teach and act against them, particularly where we know it displeases them most. For what do they require with their diabolical demand except that we should exalt them above God and their words above his, and that we should receive the phantoms of their fancy as idols in the place of God? It is our concern, however, that the whole world be completely subjected and obedient to God."

Luther, M. (1999, c1965). Vol. 53: Luther's works, vol. 53 : Liturgy and Hymns (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald and H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (53:34-35). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Conclusion
Contrary to Gibbons,The context explains the remark, and shows Luther's sarcasm against "councils" in regard to this issue. Gibbons clearly botched the context. Gibbons was exposed for this remark by Rev. Edward J. Stearns, Faith of our Forefathers, An Examination of Archbishop Gibbon's "Faith of our Fathers, pp. 301-302:

As our Lord said to the eleven (or to the twelve, if Judas was present), "Drink ye all of this," and St. Mark records that " they all drank of it;" and as the Archbishop's objection that this was said " not to the people at large, but only to the Apostles," (p. 301,) is answered, as he very well knows, by his admission (p. 298) that " even the clergy of every rank, including the Pope, receive only of the consecrated bread, unless when they celebrate Mass;" and as Cardinal Bona admits that "always, everywhere, from the very first foundation of the Church to the 12th century, the faithful communicated under the species both of bread and wine;" and as the Archbishop himself confesses (p. 304) that the withholding of the cup was first enacted into a law by the Council of Constance in 1414; and as the alleged exceptional instances, of communion in one kind in the early history of the Church, and the alleged sufficiency of such communion, even with Augustine and Leibnitz to back it (if they do back it), amount to nothing in the face of the plain command of our Saviour, "Drink ye all of it; and as I have already (p. 79) refuted the Archbishop's calumnious accusation (p. 300) against " the Protestant translators" of 1 Cor. 11 : 27, I shall confine myself to the extraordinary paragraph about Luther, and to the last three paragraphs of the chapter, in which the Archbishop apologizes for not obeying the command of Christ by alleging certain difficulties in the way of obedience to it! The paragraph respecting Luther is as follows: "Luther himself, even after his revolt, was so clearly convinced of this truth, that he was an uncompromising advocate of communion under one kind. 'If any Council,' he says, 'should decree or permit both species, we would by no means acquiesce; but in spite of the Council and its statute, we would use one form, or neither, and never both.'—De formula Missce."

Of course, any one familiar with the works of Luther, knows that in the part I have italicized above, there is no truth. It is the old Jesuit trick of taking what the logicians call dictum secundum quid for simpliciter dictum; that is to say, in quoting what is said relatively, to leave out that relatively to which it is said, and quote it as said absolutely. To illustrate: On page 241, above, I said: "I scorn to be ' tolerated' in the enjoyment of that which is my birthright. Like him whose blood flows in my veins, the first Governor Dudley of Massachusetts, but for a very different reason, I cry out, from the bottom of my soul, and with all the strength that is in me, against this un-American, un-nineteenthcentury, ' intolerable toleration.' "—Suppose the Archbishop, or some of his understrappers, were to quote me thus: "Like him whose blood flows in my veins, the first Governor Dudley of Massachusetts, I cry out, from the bottom of my soul, and with all the strength that is in me, against this 'intolerable toleration;'" leaving out the qualifying words, without giving any indication that anything was left out; and, commenting upon it, represent me as "an uncompromising advocate" of intolerance, and add, that, by my own confession, it was born and bred in me! He would be serving me exactly as he has served Luther. But as he is in the habit of serving the Bible and the Fathers so, as I have already shown (p. 113) and have yet to show, (p. 337) it is not strange that he should serve a heretic the same scurvy sauce. Here is what Luther says, the part which I have italicized being that, in the first paragraph, which the Archbishop has left out. It will be seen that what Luther is denouncing is, not communion in both kinds, as the Archbishop represents, but, putting the Councils of men above the Word of God:

"If by any chance a Council by its own authority should decree or permit it, in that contingency by no means would we use both species; rather, then first, in spite as well of the Council as of its statute, would we use one or other of the two only, or neither, and by no means both, and would plainly anathematize those, whosoever they might be who, on the authority of such Council or statute, should use both.

"Do you wonder, and ask why? Listen; If you know the bread and the wine to have been instituted by Christ, both, namely, to be taken by all, as the Gospels and Paul most clearly testify, so that even our adversaries are compelled to confess it, and yet dare not believe and trust Him, so as to take it on His authority, {literally, to take it so), but are bold to take it, if men in their Council decree it, are you not in that case preferring men to Christ? Are you not exalting Men of sin above all that is called God, or that is worshipped? Are you not relying upon the words of men, rather than upon the words of God? Nay, you altogether distrust the words of God, and believe only the words of men. But how great is that abomination and denial of the Most High God? What idolatry then can equal your so scrupulous obedience to a Council of men? Ought you not rather a thousand times to die? Ought you not rather to receive one species or none, than, in such obedience so sacrilegious and apostasy of faith, to receive both?"

Just like Mary and Joseph!

Christian couple maintains abstinence through first two years of marriage

Man, I really admire those people. What discipline it must require!

What Every Christian Needs to Know About the Qur'an, by James R. White

Just got this book yesterday; have not read it word for word yet, but I am jumping around to get the overall feel and then I will be reading it slowly.  It is excellent, from what I can tell.  I pray that God will use this for His glory to equip many Christians to "be prepared to give an answer for the hope that is within them"; remembering also to first, "sanctify Christ as Lord in their hearts" (1 Peter 3:15)

I also hope many Muslims will be open to reading this book, and give it a fair and respectful reading.  I wish this book was around back in 1983 when I first started reaching out to Muslims by playing soccer (the true football) with them, visiting them in their homes, having them in our home, playing chess and backgammon, drinking hot tea, Arabic and Turkish coffee, eating shish kebabs, cucumber salads, hummus and pita bread, and roasted pumpkins seeds, Iranian Ghormeh Sabzi قرمه سبزی (stew made with five green vegetables, beef, kidney beans, onions, and the famous dried lemon from Oman), over hours of discussion about God, heaven and hell, judgment day, Jesus, the atonement of Christ, salvation, faith, sin, original sin, politics, history, the Bible and the Qur'an, and many other topics.

Most Muslims are fun people to reach out to!  Christians need to crucify their fears. (Galatians 2:20; Luke 9:23; Galatians 6:14)  They are very hospitable and most Muslims are not afraid to talk about spiritual things.  O Fellow believers in Christ! - combine your study and growth in apologetics, theology, Bible and church history and historical theology knowledge with bold outreach of actually getting to know Muslims and spending time with them and listening to them.  Witness, preach the gospel, and provide the context of "eating with sinners and tax-collectors", as Jesus did.  (Luke 5:29-32; Mark 2:14-17; Luke 15:1-32)


Order from Alpha and Omega Ministries.  

Viral Popery and Scott Hahn

This is going around, typically in this exact form that I found on Scott Hahn's Facebook page:

Scott Hahn

Monday

At a stadium celebration of the Feast of Divine Mercy in the Philippines (Sunday, Apr 7), many witnessed a very special grace, confirming the message of St Faustina: "Jesus, I trust in You"

I Googled the caption and came up with a number of hits. I've also found a few other self-proclaimed defenders of Rome posting this picture and text. Now, to Dr. Hahn and any other of Rome's defenders helping this go viral, why are you posting this picture without any relevant documentation? Why are you sure this is a God ordained miracle? Aren't such purported miracles supposed to be given a divine pedigree by your infallible magisterium first?

What I find interesting, is that the text posted by Dr. Hahn suggests this just happened a few days ago (April 7), however, this video clip certainly was posted a few months earlier:




So, is this the same event as that posted by Scott Hahn? Anyone um, check to see what the weather was like the day this video was posted?

Nah, probably not.

Luther and the Spawn of Satan: Changelings and Infanticide

The following comes from someone who appears to be a Mormon:

The founder of the Reformation believed that [Satan had offspring], so maybe you shouldn't be attacking him so much:

"How often have not the demons called `Nix,' drawn women and girls into the water, and there had commerce with them, With fearful consequences."

"I myself saw and touched at Dessay, a child...which had no human parents, but had proceeded from the Devil. He was twelve years old, and, in outward form, exactly resembled ordinary children."

...some of Father* Luther's beliefs were bizarre.

...he was also a true believer in changelings. Luther was very much a product of his own times with respect to superstitious beliefs and practices. He sincerely believed that Satan was responsible for the malformed children known as changelings, and that such satanic child exchanges occurred frequently. {footnote 9} In Luther's theological view, a changeling was a child of the devil without a human soul, "only a piece of flesh." This view made it easy to justify almost any abuse of an unfortunate child thought to be a changeling, including the ultimate mistreatment: infanticide. Luther himself had no reservations about putting such children to death. {footnote 10}

9. Martin Luther, Werke, kritische Gesamtausgabe: Tischreden (Weimar: Böhlau, 1912-1921), v. 4, pp. 357-358. Martin Luther, 10. Werke, kritische Gesamtausgabe: Tischreden (Weimar: Böhlau, 1912-1921), v. 5, p. 9.

*(Father of the Reformation, that is. Plus, he was a Catholic priest)

Documentation
The quotes from Luther are not documented. Both are Table Talk statements. The primary source for the first quote can be found here or here. The primary source for the second quote can be found here. The extended paragraph of commentary appears to be from the Internet article, Changelings An Essay by D. L. Ashliman, 1997 (From a brief look at his bio, he does not appear to be a Mormon).

Context
The first Table Talk quote had been translated a number of times into English in the 19th Century. For instance, in this from 1827: Table Talk: Or, Selections from the Ana. Containing Extracts from the Different Collections of Ana, French, English, Italian, and German. With Bibliographical Notices.  The statement can be found here, and is as follows:

A Gentleman had a fair young wife which died, and was also buried. Not long after, the Gentleman and his servant lying together in one chamber, his dead wife in the night time approached into the chamber, and leaned herself upon the Gentleman's bed, like as if she had been desirous to speak with him. The servant (seeing the same two or three nights one after another) asked his master, whether he knew, that every night a woman, in white apparel, came unto his bed? The Gentleman said. No: I sleep soundly (said he) and see nothing. When night approached, the Gentleman, considering the same, lay waking in bed. Then the woman appeared unto him, and came hard to his bed-side. The Gentleman demanded who she was? She answered, I am your wife. He said. My wife is dead and buried. She said. True: by reason of your swearing and sins I died; but if you would take me again, and would also abstain from swearing one particular oath, which commonly you use, then would I be your wife again. He said, I am content to perform what you desire. Whereupon his dead wife remained with him, ruled his house, lay with him, ate and drank with him, and had children together. Now it fell out, that on a time the Gentleman had guests, and his wife after supper was to fetch out of his chest some banqueting stuff: she staying somewhat long, her husband (forgetting himself) was moved thereby to swear his accustomed oath; whereupon the woman vanished that instant. Now seeing she returned not again, they went up into the chamber to see what was become of her. There they found the gown which she wore, half lying within the chest, and half without; but she was never seen afterwards. This did the Devil, (said Luther) he can transform himself into the shape of a man or woman.

The Prince Elector of Saxony (John Frederick,) having received advertisement of this strange accident, sent thereupon presently unto me (said Luther,) to have my opinion what I held of that woman, and of the children which were begotten of these two persons? Whereupon I wrote to his Highness, that in my opinion, neither that woman, nor those children, were right human creatures, but devils; for the devil casteth before the eyes a blaze, or a mist, and so deceiveth the people; insomuch that one thinketh he lieth by a right woman, and yet is no such matter; for, as St Paul saith, the devil is strong by the children of unbelief. But inasmuch as children, or devils, are conceived in such sort, the same are very horrible and fearful examples, in that Satan can plague and so torment people, as to beget children. Like unto this is it also with that which they call the Nix, in the water, who draweth people unto him, as maids and virgins, of whom he begetteth (devils) children. The devil can also steal children away, (as sometimes children within the space of six weeks after their birth are lost,) and other children, called Supposititii, or Changelings, laid in their places. Of the Saxons they are called Killcrops.

The second quote also appears in many 19th Century texts.

"Eight years since," said Luther, " at Dessaw, I did see and touch such a changed child, which was twelve years of age, he had his eyes and all members like another child. He did nothing but feed, and would eat as much as two clowns or threshers were able to eat. When one touched it, then it cried out; when any evil happened in the house then it laughed and was joyful; but when all went well, then it cried and was very sad. I told the Prince of Anhalt, if I were Prince of that country, so would I venture homicidium thereon, and would throw it into the river Moldaw. I admonished the people dwelling in that place devoutly to pray to God to take away the devil; the same was done accordingly, and the second year after the changeling died."

A version of the second quote has been included in LW 54:396-397

No. 5207: Disposition of a Boy Possessed by the Devil Between September 2 and 17, 1540

In Dessau there was a twelve-year-old boy like this: he devoured as much as four farmers did, and he did nothing else than eat and excrete. Luther suggested that he be suffocated. Somebody asked, “For what reason?” He [Luther] replied, “Because I think he’s simply a mass of flesh without a soul. Couldn’t the devil have done this, inasmuch as he gives such shape to the body and mind even of those who have reason that in their obsession they hear, see, and feel nothing? The devil is himself their soul. The power of the devil is great when in this way he holds the minds of all men captive, but he doesn’t dare give full vent to the power on account of the angels.” Then somebody said, “Perhaps Origen did not rightly understand the malice of the devil because he thought that devils would be liberated after the day of judgment.” “Ah,” said the doctor, “the sin of the devil is great because he knowingly opposes God, the Creator of all things.” Luther, M. (1999, c1967). Vol. 54: Luther's works, vol. 54 : Table Talk (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald and H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (54:396). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Conclusion
The last paragraph of commentary comes from the Internet article, Changelings An Essay by D. L. Ashliman, 1997. The paragraph is more or less accurate when it states,  "Luther was very much a product of his own times with respect to superstitious beliefs and practices." This should come as no surprise. For instance, a "Nix" appears to be a type of water-demon, something a German boy would learn about as a child.

The unfortunate aspect of Ashliman's brief comment is that he used the Table Talk rather than an actual writing of Luther's (Luther makes passing comments to changelings in LW 47:254, 260, and LW 24:92-93). The Table Talk is not something Luther wrote, it's statements Luther is purported to have said. Often, the contexts do not say enough to establish Luther's dogmatic lifelong opinion on a particular subject. Note for instance Ashliman's comment, "In Luther's theological view, a changeling was a child of the devil without a human soul, 'only a piece of flesh.' This view made it easy to justify almost any abuse of an unfortunate child thought to be a changeling, including the ultimate mistreatment: infanticide. Luther himself had no reservations about putting such children to death." Of this comment, the editors of LW 54 point out about this entry:

In this account Luther is reported to have suggested to friends at his table that a boy whose condition was such that he lived like a vegetable should be done away with. John Aurifaber’s later version (WA, TR 5, No. 9) elaborated on the original by stating that Luther had himself seen and touched the boy and that he advised the prince of Anhalt to have the boy drowned. What had at first been the private expression of an opinion here became a formal recommendation to a ruler. It was in this later version that Luther was cited as an advocate of euthanasia in connection with a court case in Germany in 1964. See Erwin Mühlhaupt, “ ‘Spiegel,’ ‘Stern’ und Luther,” Luther: Zeitschrift der Luther-Cesellschaft, XXXV (1964), 81–88. Luther, M. (1999, c1967). Vol. 54: Luther's works, vol. 54 : Table Talk (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald and H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (54). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Certainly Luther's medieval  view is unfortunate, but given the time period in which he lived, not hard to believe that Luther held such a view. A fascinating article on Luther and Childhood Disability can be found here. The author includes a helpful overview of the understanding of demonism during this period in history.  The author also  gives a detailed look at the Table Talk quote in question. He states, "Citing at third or fourth hand a single case where Luther is alleged to have suggested killing a supposed changeling, many more authors slip quietly into the plural, e.g. 'If these children lived, Luther recommended killing them'." The author goes on to give an interesting overview including Luther's view on baptizing changelings.

Luther and the Spawn of Satan: Mormon Argumentation

Recently I came across an argument on a Mormon-related discussion board. It went something like this:

1. Mormons: God has offspring
2. Counter-argument: if Mormons believe God has offspring, they should consistently hold also that Satan procreates and has spirit-children.

Now the nature of this argument doesn't appear to have anything remotely related to Luther and the Reformation. Note though the following arguments from what appears to be by someone who is pro-LDS:

The founder of the Reformation believed that [Satan had offspring], so maybe you shouldn't be attacking him so much:

"How often have not the demons called `Nix,' drawn women and girls into the water, and there had commerce with them, With fearful consequences."

"I myself saw and touched at Dessay, a child...which had no human parents, but had proceeded from the Devil. He was twelve years old, and, in outward form, exactly resembled ordinary children."

...some of Father* Luther's beliefs were bizarre.

...he was also a true believer in changelings. Luther was very much a product of his own times with respect to superstitious beliefs and practices. He sincerely believed that Satan was responsible for the malformed children known as changelings, and that such satanic child exchanges occurred frequently. {footnote 9} In Luther's theological view, a changeling was a child of the devil without a human soul, "only a piece of flesh." This view made it easy to justify almost any abuse of an unfortunate child thought to be a changeling, including the ultimate mistreatment: infanticide. Luther himself had no reservations about putting such children to death. {footnote 10}

Martin Luther, Werke, kritische Gesamtausgabe: Tischreden (Weimar: Böhlau, 1912-1921), v. 4, pp. 357-358. Martin Luther, Werke, kritische Gesamtausgabe: Tischreden (Weimar: Böhlau, 1912-1921), v. 5, p. 9.

*(Father of the Reformation, that is. Plus, he was a Catholic priest)

The response to this was basically,"Luther never considered himself a Prophet or Apostle." To which was replied:

The LDS are among the most aware of that. But the issue isn't what Luther considered himself to be. The issue is what YOU REFORMATIONISTS think of Luther. He's the father and founder of your Reformation--a Reformation that you think was essential to the survival of Christianity. A Reformation that you think had God's stamp of approval.

When members of your cult go wild with claims that only a brainwashed idiot would believe that satan could have literal offspring (and try to make it look like maybe the LDS believe such a thing when they don't)--and then it's shown that your founder did actually believe such a thing--I guess the only response you have been conditioned to give is the old "But Luther never claimed to be a prophet" fallacy.

What makes that response a fallacy is the fact that it's irrelevant, like a red herring is. The issue is why you'd call your own founder a brainwashed idiot.

There's a lot to deal with here. The most important aspect of the argument is the conclusion about "Father Luther." This was the main argument all along, an equivocation between Luther and Joseph Smith.  It's being argued that Luther and subsequent Protestantism can be accurately paralleled by Joseph  Smith and the Later Day Saints.  In other words, one can't consistently criticize the Mormons as a Protestant.  As we'll, see, this is not an accurate parallel.

Certainly Luther was a key figure during the 16th Century Reformation. As to "father and founder" of the Reformation, it wasn't as if the church was meandering along nicely, and then Luther and the Reformation fell out of the sky. No, the issues that sparked the controversy between Luther and the Roman church were already an area of controversy with many voices preceding his, which is why there's a category of "pre-Reformers." In other words, it's debatable that Luther was "the father and founder of your Reformation." Certainly Luther was an integral part of the Reformation, but if what is meant by "father and founder" is that Luther began a Reformation movement that did not exist before, this is historically inaccurate. Now apply this to Joseph Smith. It's generally conceded that the Mormon church does not have theological predecessors previous to Mr. Smith. That is, the material presented in the Book of Mormon did in essence, fall out of the sky. Previous to Smith, the record of Mormon and Moroni wasn't part of church tradition. It had to be supernaturally revealed to Mr. Smith. The Reformation was not supernaturally revealed to Luther.

The second aspect of the concluding remarks is the presuppositional argument in regard to who owns the word "cult." The Later Day Saints certainly deviate from orthodox Christian beliefs, particularly in regard to the nature of God, Jesus Christ, salvation, and a host of other doctrinal issues. If one defines "cult" as a significant deviation from orthodoxy, then certainly the LDS qualifies as a cult. On the other hand, are those within the Protestant tradition also in a cult? First, let's pretend the original Reformers were a splinter group from the Roman church.  I've never come across a Romanist arguing that the Reformers were cult leaders. They were originally heretics according to Rome, now, centuries later, Protestants are "separated brethren." Joseph Smith was told by divine revelation, "that none of the churches on the earth had the fullness of truth." Luther, on the other hand, wasn't told this by divine revelation, nor did he seek to start a new church because, he like Smith thought "So great were the confusion and strife among the different denominations, that it was impossible for a person young as I was [ … ] to come to any certain conclusion who was right and who was wrong." The Reform movement took place within an existing structure, Luther being one voice among many others at the time involved in the same struggle. Smith appears on the scene claiming to be a modern-day prophet not attempting to reform an existing church structure, but rather to build something quite new and novel.

The third aspect of the concluding argument was subsequent Protestants not respecting Luther because they don't follow every single thing he held. This is perhaps the easiest part of the response, because subsequent Protestants don't generally consider Luther to be an infallible prophet that delivered new revelation. Luther himself admitted his shortcomings and failures, and even pointed out that some of his writings had errors. To follow Luther then, would be to consider his writings in the way he wanted them to: "I would have been quite content to see my books, one and all, remain in obscurity and go by the board." Did Joseph Smith think the same about his writings or prophetical messages?

The fourth aspect of this argument is that which originally interested me: that only "a brainwashed idiot" would believe that Satan has offspring, when in fact, Luther believed it. This topic and the Luther quotes being used will be addressed in another blog entry.

Sola Windsora

Hi Scott,

I've done a quick skim through your comments here. It's obvious that you consider the Scriptures an infallible authority, and you also believe that the Roman Church (or however you want to put it) is an infallible authority.

My question to you is probably too simple compared to all the other interactions you're having at Green Baggins. I'd like to know, other than using the Bible, how do you establish that this other authority is also infallible? Or is it simply the case that you believe the Scriptures, correctly interpreted, establish the other authority?  Above you appealed to Matthew 16 and 18 ("..in relatively few circumstances, perpetual infallibility. This comes from Jesus Christ as recorded in Scripture in Matthew 16 and 18"). In other words, when all is said done, is your primary way of establishing this other authority simply an appeal to Scripture alone?

But if this is the case, it appears to me to get a bit circular. The testimony of the Scriptures proves the infallible authority of the Roman church, but then the Roman church says the authority of the Scriptures is proved by the Church (Recall the favorite of all Roman arguments about determining the canon).

Of course you could say infallible sacred tradition establishes the other authority, but well, that's a bit like appealing to Bigfoot, as it can't really be pointed to ostensively. It's this murky thing, that depending on which Roman Catholic one talks to, means different things. Then the question becomes similarly, how do you prove infallible sacred tradition without appealing to the Bible? It goes in the same circular way: sacred tradition proves the infallibility of the church, but the church determines what is sacred tradition.

On the other hand, if you just want to say you begin with a basic presupposition (a faith claim) that both the Bible and the Roman Magisterium (and Sacred Tradition as well I guess) are infallible (like, sort of a VanTillian approach), well, there's really no point for anyone to dialog with you. You say it's multiple infallible authorities, we say it's one. All the interactions at Green Baggins become really... a waste of time.

I assume that perhaps there's maybe an answer you may have that I haven't quickly considered. I've always kind of thought that people who abandon sola scriptura ultimately simply just decide to to take on another infallible authority, sort of like how someone converting to the LDS  gets a burning in the bosom.

When all is said a done, any appeals you make to Scripture to establish your other infallible authorities requires a lot to be read in to those verses (as proved above by Tfan). You can continually say that the Biblical evidence provided to you do not establish sola scriptura, but using Scripture in response to say it somehow clearly establishes other infallible rules of faith doesn't fly.

Regards, JS

PS:

By the way Scott, thank you so much for defending some of the Reformers:

“…no one may knowingly reject any defined Catholic dogma, period. If I were unaware of the fact that the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary were infallibly defined in 1950, and denied it – my denial would be rejected. If then I was made aware of the definition and continued to reject it, then I would be excommunicated.”

This certainly covers Luther’s understanding of justification and the canon.