Calvin: Arrested and Imprisoned Jerome Bolsec, Then Wanted Him “Rotting in a Ditch"?

Here's a tidbit from a blog entry entitled, John Calvin: Heresy Hunter with an Axe to Grind:

In addition to Servetus, Jerome Bolsec was arrested and imprisoned for challenging Calvin during a lecture, then banished from the city. Calvin wrote privately about the matter saying that he wished Bolsec were “rotting in a ditch.”

Documentation
The documentation provided is, "Quoted in History of the Christian Church Volume VIII. p. 137 See online here. " This link doesn't go to the exact spot where Schaff discusses this. Here is the discussion in Schaff. 

Historical Context Via Schaff
Schaff explains that Jerome Bolsec actually interrupted John de St. André who was speaking that day (hence, a public disturbance), and challenged this minister, not Calvin. According to Schaff,

On the 16th of October, 1551, Bolsec attended the religious conference, which was held every Friday at St. Peter's. John de St. André preached from John 8: 47 on predestination, and inferred from the text that those who are not of God, oppose him to the last, because God grants the grace of obedience only to the elect. Bolsec suddenly interrupted the speaker, and argued that men are not saved because they are elected, but that they are elected because they have faith. He denounced, as false and godless, the notion that God decides the fate of man before his birth, consigning some to sin and punishment, others to virtue and eternal happiness. He loaded the clergy with abuse, and warned the congregation not to be led astray.

Calvin was in attendance, though Schaff says he “entered the church unobserved.” Calvin waited until Bolsec was finished, then had an impromptu debate with Bolsec, and refuted him. Schaff does not say Calvin had Bolsec arrested, nor was Bolsec arrested for challenging Calvin. Other church leaders were in attendance (for instance, Schaff says William Farel was also present). Schaff says, “The lieutenant of police apprehended Bolsec for abusing the ministers and disturbing the public peace.”

Schaff says the ministers of Geneva "drew up seventeen articles against Bolsec." Yes, Bolsec was eventually banished, but only after a number of other churches were asked to weigh in on what should be done with Bolsec (and not all of those churches were favorable to Calvin). Because of the collected work of all these churches, the milder sentence of banishment was imposed.

Rotting in a Ditch?
I’m not sure where the exact form of "Calvin wrote privately about the matter saying that he wished Bolsec were 'rotting in a ditch'" comes from. It’s similar to this from Called to Communion:

In 1551, Bolsec, a physician and convert to Protestantism, entered Geneva and attended a lecture on theology. The topic was Calvin’s doctrine of predestination, the teaching that God predetermines the eternal fate of every soul. Bolsec, who believed firmly in “Scripture alone” and “faith alone,” did not like what he heard. He thought it made God into a tyrant. When he stood up to challenge Calvin’s views, he was arrested and imprisoned.

What makes Bolsec’s case interesting is that it quickly evolved into a referendum on Church authority and the interpretation of Scripture. Bolsec, just like most Evangelicals today, argued that he was a Christian, that he had the Holy Spirit and that, therefore, he had as much right as Calvin to interpret the Bible. He promised to recant if Calvin would only prove his doctrine from the Scriptures. But Calvin would have none of it. He ridiculed Bolsec as a trouble maker (Bolsec generated a fair amount of public sympathy), rejected his appeal to Scripture, and called on the council to be harsh. He wrote privately to a friend that he wished Bolsec were “rotting in a ditch.”2

2 Letter to Madame de Cany, 1552.

This Called to Communion snippet is fascinating. Notice how the author, David Anders, restates the facts to give off the appearance that Bolsec interrupted Calvin's lecture. It was also not simply "Calvin's view's," but rather, the view of  John de St. André (the person lecturing), and the collective ministers of Geneva. Anders also leaves out that the entire affair was presented to a number of churches to weigh in on. Anders also presents the straw-man argument that Protestants have no right to church authority or discipline without an infallible church.

Anders does though provide a reference, "Letter to Madame de Cany, 1552." This letter can be found here. Calvin writes,

Madame,—I am very sorry that the praiseworthy act which you did about half a year ago, has met with no better return. This is because no good and true servant of God found himself within reach of such help, as that received by as wicked and unhappy a creature as the world contains. Knowing partly the man he was, I could have wished that he were rotting in some ditch; and his arrival gave me as much pleasure as the piercing my heart with a poniard would have done. But never could I have deemed him to be such a monster of all impiety and contempt of God, as he has proved himself in this. And I assure you, Madame, that had he not so soon escaped, I should, by way of discharging my duty, have done my best to bring him to the stake. 

Note the actual English translation is,  “I could have wished that he were rotting in some ditch.”  Note also, Bolsec is not named in this private correspondence. Bonnet, the translator of this letter, says

Who is the personage to whom these words refer, stamped at once by the inflexible spirit of the time and the stern rigour of the Reformer? The historian can only offer conjectures: can it be Jerome Bolsec? But a regular sentence had banished him from Geneva, and Calvin himself does not appear to have called for a more severe judgment against this innovator whom resentment bad transformed into a vile pamphleteer. "That fellow, Jerome, is driven out into perpetual exile by a public sentence. Certain revilers have spread abroad the falsehood, that we earnestly desired a much severer punishment, and foolishly, it is believed."—(Calvin to Bullinger, in the month of January 1552.) In that age of inexorable severity against unsound doctrine, Servetus only appeared at Geneva to expire at the stake, and Gentili only escaped the scaffold for a time, by the voluntary retraction of his opinions. To name Gentili, Servetus, Bolsoc, is to recall the principal victims of Calvinistic intolerance in the sixteenth century, but not to solve the mystery which attaches to the personage designated in the letter of Calvin to Madame de Cany.

Bonnet says that “The historian can only offer conjecture” as to who is meant. Bonnet then goes on to say, "… can it be Jerome Bolsec? But a regular sentence had banished him from Geneva, and Calvin himself does not appear to have called for a more severe judgment against this innovator whom resentment had transformed into a vile pamphleteer.”

Conclusion
In this age of "fake news" is it any surprise that the internet is filled with fake history as well? A closer look at the facts show that Bolsec was not "arrested and imprisoned for challenging Calvin during a lecture." Yes, Bolsec was banished, but it was not simply at the whim of Calvin. Nor is it a certainty that Calvin "wished Bolsec were 'rotting in a ditch'.'"

It is shocking to our modern scruples that a person could be banished for a perceived heretical view. Calvin and Bolsec were part of a world in which this happened. There are still churches to today (though few probably few in number!) that practice a form of banishment: excommunication. While a person is not ostracized from an entire society, they could be ostracized from certain aspects of a spiritual community.

Yes, Calvin had an important influence in Geneva, yes he could be intolerant, yes, there were tragedies in Geneva that Calvin played a part in.  While Calvin had his faults, flaws, and sins, this closer look shows there are those who wish to vilify Calvin and make him the tyrant of Geneva. The question though is... why? Why is it so important to characterize Calvin as a blood-thirsty dictator?  That's a topic for a future blog entry!

Addendum
For further reading, see: Robert Godfrey, Calvin, Bolsec and the Reformation. Godfrey says:

Jerome Bolsec, who was a Carmelite monk and doctor of theology in Paris, was drawn to the Reformation and so forced to leave France. By early 1551 he had settled in the canton of Geneva working as a physician. From early on he became a critic of Calvin's doctrine of predestination in a variety of ways and settings.

And also:

The trial of Bolsec proceeded despite such advice, especially charging Bolsec with attacking the religious establishment of Geneva and bringing scurrilous charges against its doctrine. On December 23, 1551 he was banished permanently from Geneva. He eventually returned to the Roman Church and in 1577 wrote a vicious biography of Calvin which propagated many false stories about Calvin. Bolsec died in 1584.

Roots of the Reformation: a Response

Dr. Anders reviewed my recent blog entry, Called to Communion on the Roots of the Reformation. His response is found here. In return, I offer the following:


Dr. Anders,

I realize there are inherent difficulties with writing short blog posts on complicated subjects. You say that I misunderstood certain aspects of what you wrote (which indeed may be the case). Couldn't it be that perhaps you weren't clear enough to begin with? Or, to complicate matters, both could be true- there could be a lack of clarity on your part and a lack of understanding on my part. Regardless of which it is, I appreciate that you took the time to read what I put together. After going through your response, I have three points of concern.

First, based on the fact that you've written your entry for the CTC website I'm assuming that on a basic level, your entry on the Reformation was, in some sense, a defense for the Roman church. You end your entry by stating your gratitude for your "corrupt Church," and that you "would never think of leaving it because of corruption." That leads me to the conclusion that, in your opinion, whatever it was the Reformers did, their protest was not ultimately done in the best interest of the Roman Catholic Church, and that the Reformers are not be heralded today as those who fought for the true Spirit of the church universal. In your post you ask, "So why does this matter today?" What the Reformers did, according to you, appears to matter- and should be responded to by the defenders of Rome, in order to.... defend Rome, not to herald the Reformers as those who championed the Gospel and Scriptures against a corrupt institution.

I mention this basic point because as I worked through your entry, one question that concerned me was exactly what you thought of the Protestant Reformers. And here, my basic criticism (in response to your concerns that I didn't treat your thesis accurately) was that you provide very little to work with. I note the following:

So why does this matter today? It matters because we need to be alert to how we frame our discussions about the Church and how we respond to propaganda. The Reformation era was not the worst in Church history, but people at the time became convinced that it was. People with a personal or a political agenda exploited the popular mentality and disseminated propaganda that caused centuries of bloodshed and suffering.

And also:

Reflecting on this, it is good to know that the Church has always had corruption, has always fought corruption, and has never made “absence of corruption” a mark of the true Church. Jesus told us to expect corruption in the Church until the end of time. (Matthew 13:24-30) And every attempt to create a perfect Church in this life has always ended in disaster. The Donatists tried it in North Africa. The Puritans tried it in New England. We could list other examples, but the result is always hypocrisy or tyranny.

The first statement appears to characterize the Reformers as "people with a personal or a political agenda" who "exploited the popular mentality and disseminated propaganda that caused centuries of bloodshed." The second statement (which I noted in my blog entry) may infer you think the Reformers sought to create the perfect church, and that anyone who has this goal will achieve the results of "hypocrisy or tyranny" (as I noted originally, I was not sure you were making this point). This is all you left to be worked with. In your response you cite Farel and characterize him as using the language of inflammatory propaganda. You then go on to say that I was in error in my synopsis of who you thought the Reformers ultimately were ("I certainly did not say the Reformers were “simply disseminating propaganda.” They were propagandists, to be sure, but with real grievances that had been the subject of discussion among Catholics for decades if not centuries").

 I think this criticism is unfair based on what you originally wrote. The overall tenor of your post is that church corruption did not cause the Reformation. You say that explicitly. You clarify this with "The real cause of the Reformation was not Church corruption (moral, doctrinal, or otherwise) but how people felt about it. " Well, how the Reformers felt about it, according to what you've written, is that they responded "with a personal or a political agenda" and "exploited the popular mentality and disseminated propaganda that caused centuries of bloodshed." I stand by my original summary statement of your words and my use of the word "simply."

Second, you went on in your response to clarify that "The Reformers were clearly motivated by the perception of corruption" as opposed to my synopsis of your position that "Whatever their motivations were, the Reformers weren’t motivated to reform due to church corruption." Here may again be a lack of clarity in your original post. Your opening two paragraphs argue "corruption" proper was not the ultimate cause of the Reformation. In your second to last paragraph you state, "'Corruption,' as such, was not the cause of the Reformation." Even in your response, it isn't "corruption" proper that caused the Reformation, but the perception of the Reformers. I stand by my synopsis of your position, that ultimately, according to you, corruption was not the ultimate factor for the Reformers, but rather, the Reformers used corruption to advance a "personal or a political agenda" and "exploited the popular mentality and disseminated propaganda that caused centuries of bloodshed." So, again, according to you,whatever their motivations were, the Reformers weren’t ultimately looking to reform the church due to corruption. They used corruption as a means to an end, a different end (a personal or political agenda).

Third, in regard to my statement that puzzled you ("factual data")- this also ties in to your characterization of the Reformers as those "with a personal or a political agenda" who "exploited the popular mentality and disseminated propaganda that caused centuries of bloodshed." As I read through your entry, I observed that you compared the Reformers to others whom you appear to think actually worked toward responding to corruption without a personal or a political agenda and without exploiting the popular mentality and without disseminating propaganda causing centuries of bloodshed:

One man who gets a lot of the credit for this is Pope Gregory VII (1020-1085). In his day, the Church was absolutely rife with corruption and he wanted to do something about it. He fought hard to eliminate simony (buying Church offices) and clerical incontinence. He strove to free the Church from the control of secular rulers. But he did something very radical, too. He called on laypeople to oppose corrupt clergy, absolving them of their obligations to obey.

In the aftermath of Pope Gregory’s reform, we saw centuries of religious movements and lay reforms both inside and outside of the Church. The most famous examples are St. Francis and St. Dominic, who rose up in answer to the Church’s call for Reformation." " What all of this means is that the Church created the expectation that things should be better. Religious carried out centuries of catechesis and preaching. Books like The Imitation of Christ flooded the popular market once Guttenberg invented printing. The Church created such a demand for good religion that she couldn’t keep up with the demand.

Here I think your argument is not a factual argument per se, but rather an argument of the heart, or rather, you're starting with a basic unproven presupposition: certain people are real reformers of the church, certain people are not real reformers of the church. Who decides which are which? Well, if one is a defender of Rome, certain historical personages will be seen as reforming the church, others will not.

In conclusion, you mentioned to my friend Ken Temple that "the Protestant Reformation took the form of a Protest against doctrinal corruption in the Church." You also said that "whether or not that protest was justifiable" was not the point of your entry. I think it's very easy to read between the lines of what you've written to conclude the Reformation was not a justifiable protest with long lasting positive results. You then state:

The thesis of the article is that corruption alone, whether doctrinal, moral, institutional, or what-have-you, is not a sufficient explanation of the Reformation. But, rather, a change in religious mentality (along with other social, political, and technological developments) was required before claims of corruption could have the force necessary to move an entire culture the way they did.

This is an adequate thesis, as far it goes. But it appears to me your entry says a bit more. It particularly downplays the element of corruption within the Roman church and places a negative value on the  protest of the Reformers. If I had to summarize your entry in a few words, I'd say your entry was an apologetic effort to defend the Roman church against the Protestant Reformation.

Called to Communion on the Roots of the Reformation

Since October is Reformation month, one expects to find content from the defenders of Rome explaining why the Reformation was a tragedy or why it wasn't a movement actually reforming the true church. One particular blog entry was offered by Called to Communion on October 1 by David Anders- Roots of the Reformation: What it Means for Today. Dr. Anders says he's a former Calvinist and Protestant historian. The argument he ultimately puts forth appears to be as follows:


1. In all periods of history, the church has been plagued with corruption. Corruption was not the cause of the Reformation. 

2. The Roman church wants corruption responded to. The Roman Church is actually responsible for creating the expectation that corruption should be rooted out and the the church should be reformed.

3. Throughout her history, the Roman church worked towards responding to corruption, this before Luther and the Reformers.

4. The Protestant Reformers "stepped into a gap that would not have existed had the Catholic Church not been working for centuries to root out corruption and raise the level of lay spirituality."

5. Those involved in the Reformation had "a personal or a political agenda" and "exploited the popular mentality and disseminated propaganda that caused centuries of bloodshed and suffering." They were not responding to corruption.

6. One other possible argument Dr. Anders makes is that the Reformers sought to create a perfect church. Any such attempt though will result in "hypocrisy or tyranny." I say this is a possible argument because I was not entirely sure it was being inferred from his final paragraph.

Dr. Anders basic argument boils down to saying it was not corruption in the church that provoked the Reformation. The Reformers were not reformers but were simply disseminating propaganda against the true church. One of the roots of the Reformation therefore is the Roman church. The Roman church "created the expectation that things should be better," not Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, or Knox. Whatever their motivations were, the Reformers weren't motivated to reform due to church corruption.

Before responding to this argument, let me describe two of the good things about this blog entry. First, Dr. Anders blatantly admits that the defenders of Rome don't understand the cause of the Reformation:

If you ask most people why there was a Protestant Reformation they answer, “Because of corruption in the Church.” That’s the common view. They might blame the indulgence controversy or Papal involvement in politics. If they’re Protestants, they probably claim the Church was doctrinally corrupt. Even Catholics give this answer. (I know. I just polled a roomful of Catholics on the question.) For centuries, in fact, this was the standard line for Catholic historians: if only the Church had done a better job, there would have been no Protestant Reformation. There is one small problem with the corruption thesis, however. It’s just not true.

While the defenders of Rome claim doctrinal certainty and unity, when it comes to interpreting history, particularly the Reformation, that's a different story. I agree fundamentally with Dr. Anders that the defenders of Rome are by and large ignorant of the Reformation at best. I would go further and say at worst many rely on out-dated historical information and are often too stubborn to go beyond the likes of Grisar, Denifle, or O'Hare. Ironically, it was actually one of their own historians that helped popularize the corruption theory, Jospeh Lortz. Now, Dr. Anders is saying this notion that corruption was the root of the Reformation is "just not true," and as we'll see, in its place, he'd rather believe the view of someone who thought religion was fundamentally dangerous and to be avoided as an old way of thinking.

Second, another good point raised by Dr. Anders is that the Roman church has been plagued by corruption for the entirety of her existence: "...corruption in the Church didn’t make the 16th century any different from every other century." He says also, "...It is good to know that the Church has always had corruption, has always fought corruption, and has never made 'absence of corruption' a mark of the true Church. Jesus told us to expect corruption in the Church until the end of time. (Matthew 13:24-30)." This is a helpful point to use in demonstrating a typical double standard put forth by many of Rome's defenders. There are those that argue Luther regretted the Reformation because it made people worse. They typically argue the Reformation was a failure and was morally bankrupt. It didn't produce good fruit, nor were its results any better than those of the corrupt church Luther and the Reformers fought against. Luther knew this, and admitted it. He died despondent over the mess he created. Heretics never lead good lives, nor produce good fruit. Since Rome is the true church and the Reformation was a failure, we as separated brethren must reunite with her. Trent cleaned up the situation as well, so what are Protestants waiting for? It's only by being in the true church that someone can attain true holiness. Here Anders dissolves the idea for Roman Catholics that true religion will lead to spiritual success and religious tranquility. No: the enemy is always sowing weeds among the wheat. If Rome can claim that she exists as the true church of God despite failure and sin, Protestants can do likewise.

As to his argument: It isn't really an argument based on factual data. It's an argument based on a presupposition that only those approved by Rome (at some point) are the actual reformers of the church. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc. were "People with a personal or a political agenda exploited the popular mentality and disseminated propaganda that caused centuries of bloodshed and suffering." Only Rome can respond to the corruption of Rome. To respond in kind to this argument one need simply assert that those who attempt to promulgate Romanism and want to see the elimination of sola fide, sola gratia, or sola scriptura are disseminating anti-biblical propaganda against the true church. Further, during her history have not the forces of Rome been responsible for political agendas, propaganda, bloodshed and suffering? Certainly she has, so it's a double standard to claim the Reformation exhibited this devious behavior and is therefore not ordained by God, whereas the Roman church exhibits this behavior and is ordained by God, able to ferret out corruption.

Despite an official historical pronouncement from Rome on the cause of the Reformation, Anders asserts, "The real cause of the Reformation was not Church corruption (moral, doctrinal, or otherwise) but how people felt about it." This does not alleviate the fact that at the time of the Reformation there was rampant moral and doctrinal church corruption. Why is it not the case that God brought forth the Protestant Reformers to combat it? Why is what the Reformers did simply "a political agenda exploited the popular mentality and disseminated propaganda that caused centuries of bloodshed and suffering"? Dr. Anders doesn't say. Rather, he expands his position by saying:

There were many, many factors leading to the Reformation: economic and political changes, demography and societal attitudes, technology (printing), intellectual developments (scholasticism and the renaissance), religious sentiment, and the contributions of colorful personalities. It is impossible to point out one cause of the Reformation. These all came together at a critical moment in western history. “Corruption,” as such, was not the cause of the Reformation.

So, according to Dr. Anders there were large categories of economics, politics, demographics, social issues, technology, etc... one might as well just say all spheres of human existence were factors leading to the Reformation, with the exception of one: corruption in the Roman church. On what basis does one decide that virtually all spheres of human social existence were factors leading to the Reformation except one? One what basis does one decide that an ill-working institution that has her tentacles wrapped around every sphere of social existence wasn't a factor leading to the Reformation? The basis appears to be that put forth by a French secular historian:  

The Protestant Reformers merely stepped into a gap that would not have existed had the Catholic Church not been working for centuries to root out corruption and raise the level of lay spirituality. This is not simply my private theory. Lucien Febvre made the argument in 1929 in his famous essay, “Une question mal posée.” Today, this is the consensus view among historians. A good book on the subject is Steven Ozment’s, The Age of Reform: 1250-1550.

I happen to have Ozment's book, and he does in indeed discuss the theories of Lucien Febvre. Ozment states, "Lucien Febvre scoffed at the very notion that church abuses, regardless of their magnitude, could explain a religious revolution." He goes on to say, "The medieval church failed, he believed, precisely in those matters that touched the heart" (p. 211). Ozment himself though goes on to argue that to understand the Reformation, one should consider not only Febvre's conclusion, but to link that with the position argued by Roman Catholic historian Jospeh Lortz (corruption did ignite the Reformation). Ozment then goes on for multiple pages in describing the corruption present at the time. In another less-technical work, Ozment gives a basic overview of the different theories as to what caused the Reformation: Protestants, The Birth of a Revolution (New York: Doubleday, 1991). He documents six basic (and sometimes contradictory) theories as to the impetus of the Reformation. While Febvre's view is popular today, it is hardly the only player in the continuing debate as to the cause of the Reformation.

What was the cause of the Reformation? Certainly Dr. Anders is correct that there were "many, many factors."  Arguing though that every social aspect of human existence was a factor save the ill-working institution that was involved with virtually every social aspect of human existence appears to me to be nothing more than a scholarly parlor trick.


Addendum
One final set of criticisms of Dr. Anders article can be found in a comment below his entry on the Called to Communion website.  I have no idea who this person is. While I think he missed the fundamental argument being put forth by Dr. Anders, he did ask a good related question based on the idea that Rome is the historical vehicle to combat her own corruption:

David Anders, How should someone react to corruption in the Church? From reading other material on this website, it seems that when someone commits themselves to the Roman Catholic Church, they are subjecting their whole person to the Teaching Magesterium as their God-appointed Shepherds in the faith. So how can an individual even “know”, in any degree above the level of opinion, that corruption is actually taking place? Much less begin to know how to properly react to it.

Gentlemen such as Michael Liccione, Ray Stamper, and Bryan Cross, unless I have misunderstood them, have taught that when one comes into the Catholic Interpretive Paradigm (not to say every faithful Catholic does this, or must do this), they are giving an assent of faith that is supernatural in character, and then far exceeds the limits of human reason. Thus, “Whatever the Church says, Christ says” and “Whatever the Church does, Christ does”. Under this principle, one sees that Christ is working above and behind the whole ecclesial program. Any seceding or doubt that occurs in the heart is quickly repented of, because of the higher order of knowledge that is working behind the visible structure of the Catholic Church, and one must trust and commit themselves to this higher order. Therefore, how can one even know beyond his/her own opinion that there is corruption in the Church?

I think of a scene that is in the old movie Martin Luther (from the early 1900’s) where there is a local friend of Fr. Luther who is walking around drunk who is walking around with a paper with the official stamp of the Pope’s approval that one had been given a plenary indulgence. The drunk says “I payed good money for it”. I think of when some days I ago I was looking old photos and documents of my family’s history and I found an official authoritative document concerning how the faithful are to pray for a member of our family who had died. From what my family tells me, this individual lived and died outside of communion with the Catholic Church, and died in the middle of the day when he was fighting Chickens in Puerto Rico. Aside from our being able to know the depths of the human heart, one questions how the Church had the authority to simply write it off as if he was in purgatory, and that all should pray for his soul.

When these things occur, how does the faithful Catholic, holding to the Catholic Interpretive Paradigm (as above described), know when to identify something as “corruption” or whether he is in sin for even thinking that he had the right to have such a suspicion. And if it is the case that an individual must not identify anything as corruption, for in so doing one raises his himself up against the Church, then how does one “react” to what appears like “corruption” by anything other than submission and obedience?

Another example would be Exsurge Domine (1520), which is a famous bull promulgated by Pope Leo X against Dr. Martin Luther. This Bull comes from the Pope himself, he is acting as Pastor of all the faithful (“In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor”….and “We forbid each and everyone of the faithful”), invoking his Apostolic Authority (“Rise Peter, and fulfill this pastoral office divinely entrusted to you as mentioned above. In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor..”), to an issue related to faith and morals (“We can under no circumstances tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith…”) , in which the following is stated:

“….we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these errors… 33) That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit”

Dr. Luther is well-known to have decried the Church -approved practice of burning heretics at the stake. And here, it would appear very clearly, in an ex-Cathedra statement, the Church says that Dr. Luther’s position is “against the Holy Spirit”. The whole document is said to have been dealing with the faith and morals of the Church.

In Canon 3 of the 4th Lateran Council of 1215, we read:

“We excommunicate and anathemative every heresy that raises against the holy, orthodox, and Catholic faith which we have above explained, condemning all heretics under whatever names they may be known…Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the Faithful (faith/morals/church membership), so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church….If [a ruler] refuses to comply let the matter be made known to the supreme pontiff, they he may declare the ruler’s vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled by lay Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance, and preserve it in the purity of faith…>Catholics who have girded themselves with the cross for the extermination of the heretics, shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who go in defense of the Holy Land”.

Now, how would anyone who was Catholic at the time be able to respond to such an Ecumenical decree as corruption (for no doubt today Catholics believe this is corruptible) with anything but obedience and submission. I mean, he is told, for the sake of his soul, that is is bound to obey such decrees, and that if he does so, he does so to his eternal ruin.

Now, before we begin by distinguishing what is “infallible” and what is “not infallible”, I would like to keep this consonant with Dr. David Anders original post. Despite the fact that today some Catholics will argue that these teachings of the past are dead and buried in the ground of fallible teaching, it still does not answer how one was to react to these teachings, which, for the modern Roman Catholic is totally corruptible. To say that one would not be held accountable because the Church was speaking with her authority, and the laymen is bound to subject himself to the Church, is to put the eternal law of God under the living Voice of the Church, however shape or form that it comes. The authority of the Church did not come with any flexibility, and if you disobeyed the Church, you were to be considered, by all as well as yourself, not in communion with Christ.

So this all goes back to the question of how is one to react to corruption in the Church. For this does not bear upon just the window of history wherein the European Reformation took place, but also for today and forevermore. For just as the Church has revised things, calling one thing binding in one place and not binding in another, in the past, presumably, it can do so in the future. And for all we know, we are living in a time wherein there is teaching and practice, that will be later seen as unacceptable by the very same Church.

This is not to deny that one must be able to see the hand of God in history. The limits of our understanding in what God does is clearly testified by the Scriptures “My ways are above your ways, my thoughts are above your thoughts”. And we also know that Salvation and Redemptive history was not always “ideal” (Abraham’s fornication w/ Hagar, the sins of the 12 sons, Joseph’s betrayal into Egyptian slavery, etc,etc,etc), but that God is moving his plan through it anyhow.

But when there is an exercise of Ecclesiastical authority which binds the conscience, and the conditions and qualifications for such authority to be binding or not binding are different throughout the ages, how is one to really “react” properly when the Church acts in ways, that, in heinsight, we now know to be, in fact, false??

Leaving Your Church vs. Leaving Your Infallible Authorty

Whenever any “church” or “pastor” does not conform to what by one’s own judgment the Spirit is speaking in one’s own heart, through one’s own study of Scripture, one is both free and obligated to reject and disobey the “church” or “pastor.” (Otherwise one cuts off the very act of Luther by which Protestantism justifies its entire existence as separate from the Catholic Church.) So the teachings and decisions of the “church” and “pastor” are always subject to the individual’s internal judgment concerning what the Spirit is speaking in the Scriptures. For that reason, the individual’s interpretive authority *is* ultimate, because the “church” and “pastor” can never trump it, but it can at any time trump that of the “church” and “pastor.”

-snip-

Why did you choose to attend a Reformed church, rather than a Baptist church, a Methodist church, a Pentecostal church, a Church of Christ church, a Lutheran church, etc., etc., etc., …. etc.

So says CTC's Bryan Cross.

As finite human beings, we never escape interpreting anything, be it an infallible Bible or an infallible church.

1. Did Mr. Cross use his own internal judgement when he chose the Roman church?  If so, was this judgment "subject to the individual’s internal judgment concerning what the Spirit is speaking in the Scriptures"? That is, fundamentally, did Mr. Cross compare his reading of the Bible to what various churches believed, and then choose which church he wanted?

2. How is it that Mr.Cross isn't himself now a private interpreter of what Rome teaches? Why is he the correct interpreter of Rome, and someone like Gerry Matatics is not?

Sentiment as that put forth by Mr. Cross defines the context of the discussion. Don’t allow that. The discussion is not about joining this or that church. It’s about ultimate infallible authorities. Either Rome is the infallible authority or the Bible is the infallible authority. Whether or not one leaves this or that church isn’t the issue. I can certainly leave my infallible authority (the Bible) just as Mr. Cross could leave his infallible authority (the Roman church). Mr. Cross could use his private judgment and choose another infallible authority like the Mormon church. I could choose the Koran.

 I choose not to leave my infallible authority. Sure, I might leave my church and join another, but this is not done at the expense of leaving my infallible authority. Mr. Cross could likewise choose to leave his particular flavor of Romanism for another flavor (a group in communion with Rome). He could do this without leaving Romanism. He would be using his private judgment… which he’s never stopped using.

Sophistry and Confusion is Integral to Romanism

Here's the type of blog post that is a direct hit on the follies of the Romanist worldview: Sophistry and Confusion is Integral to Romanism, in response to Bryan Cross. I rarely find the Romanist presuppositional issues presented with the clarity this blog post does. While the entire post is worth digesting, here are a few choice excerpts:

"It’s interesting that when a Protestant points to God’s word you call it an appeal 'to his own own personal interpretation…' but when a Roman Catholic appeals to the pope and councils you don’t portray those appeals as reflecting mere opinion of the Roman Catholic, but rather you presuppose that what is inferred by the Roman Catholic is as equally true as the doctrinal pronouncement. In other words, nothing is lost in the translation for the Roman Catholic. And when it comes to the gospel, why there is perspicuity within Rome that cannot be found in Scripture is a curious thing, especially given that Rome was to have based her gospel upon Scripture."

-Snip-

"Roman Catholics such as Bryan find themselves on the horns of an epistemological dilemma and in turn fall into a form of skepticism. By placing a mediator between God and men they render God’s living word inoperable. If their authority is Rome, then Scripture is rendered useless because any interpretation of any passage of Scripture must await adjudication for one to know what Scripture is saying. Yet when a Roman Catholic reads Scripture they demonstrate that an infallible magisterium is unnecessary to know the truth. Roman Catholics live in a tension that they cannot reconcile."

The "Going to Mass" Apologetic

Here's a recent offering from CTC: Do You Wan to Go to Heaven? which addresses, "So do you mean to say that if I decide to skip Mass on Sunday, and then drop dead on Monday, I will go to Hell?" Which, after various considerations, is affirmed (but not given the typical loopholes and qualifications that many other Roman websites do). The article presents an apologetic against "once saved always saved" etc. and explains to ill-informed Protestants why going to mass is so serious for Roman Catholics that if missed, qualifies as a mortal sin: "When we 'skip Mass' we are deciding that we would rather be elsewhere than in the presence of God the Father, with the angels and saints, in that perfect act of worship which is the presentation of the sacrificial Lamb of God to the Father, in the unity of the Holy Spirit."

Compare this to: Just Why Are Only 20% of Catholics Attending Mass? Here, a priest explains why only a small percentage of Romanists actually go to mass (poor homilies, poor music, poor hospitality). "A Protestant once said: "If you Catholics really believed what the Church teaches about the Mass and the Most Holy Eucharist, your churches would be full and you would see Catholics crawling on their knees to attend Mass!"

Interesting... CTC is busy "calling" wayward Protestants to "communion".... seems to me 80% of their fellow brethren are, according to a Roman paradigm, in danger of hell. Most of us Protestants, according to a Roman paradigm, just don't know Rome is the true church. That is, many Protestants will at least make it to Purgatory due to our ignorance...

This seems to me to be a poor business move for CTC (their goal: "Our aim is to effect reconciliation and reunion between Catholics and Protestants, particularly those of the Reformed tradition").

Ah, look at the time... I don't want to be late for church.

Hey Reformers: Got Miracles? If Not, You Were Not Called By God

... So said Roman Catholic writer Francis de Sales (August 21, 1567 – December 28, 1622).

I  came across this de Sales argument while listening to a CTC podcast of, you guessed it, a conversion story. In this conversion story, a former Mid-America Reformed Seminary alumni recounted his journey across the Tiber. I happen to know a little bit about this seminary. I'm fairly sure this convert was provided with a good Reformed education, including solid material against Rome's claims. That's why I find it odd he was persuaded this particular argument from de Sales had merit.

During the interview both he and his wife mentioned de Sales book a number of times. This short mp3 clip highlights their basic point. The basic thrust of what they said was that de Sales asked who sent the Reformers?  Where did their authority come from? If God really raised up the Reformers, where are their miracles to prove they were sent from God? Here's what de Sales says:

First, I say then that no one should allege an extraordinary mission unless he prove it by miracles: for, I pray you, where should we be if this pretext of extraordinary mission was to be accepted without proof? Would it not be a cloak for all sorts of reveries? Arius, Marcion, Montanus, Messalius — could they not be received into this dignity of reformers, by swearing the same oath?

Never was any one extraordinarily sent unless he brought this letter of credit from the divine Majesty. Moses was sent immediately by God to govern the people of Israel. He wished to know his name who sent him; when he had learnt the admirable name of God, he asked for signs and patents of his commission: God so far found this request good that he gave him the grace of three sorts of prodigies and marvels, which were, so to speak, three attestations in three different languages, of the charge which he gave him, in order that any one who did not understand one might understand another. If then they allege extraordinary mission, let them show us some extraordinary works, otherwise we are not obliged to believe them. In truth Moses clearly shows the necessity of this proof for him who would speak extraordinarily: for having to beg from God the gift of eloquence, he only asks it after having the power of miracles; showing that it is more necessary to have authority to speak than to have readiness in speaking.

The mission of S. John Baptist, though it was not altogether extraordinary, — was it not authenticated by his conception, his nativity, and even by that miraculous life of his, to which our Lord gave such excellent testimony? But as to the Apostles, — who does not know the miracles they did and the great number of them? Their handkerchiefs, their shadow, served for the prompt healing of the sick and driving away of the devils: by the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were done amongst the people (Acts xix. V.); and that this was in confirmation of their preaching S. Mark declares quite explicitly in the last words of his Gospel, and S. Paul to the Hebrews (ii. 4). How then shall those who in our age would allege an extraordinary mission excuse and relieve themselves of this proof of their mission? What privilege have they greater than an Apostolic, a Mosaic? What shall I say more. If our sovereign Master, consubstantial with the Father, having a mission so authentic that it comprises the communication of the same essence, if he himself, I say, who is the living source of all Ecclesiastical mission, has not chosen to dispense himself from this proof of miracles, what reason is there that these new ministers should be believed on their mere word? Our Lord very often alleges his mission to give credit to his words: — As my Father hath sent me I also send you (John xx. 21); My doctrine is not mine, hut of him that sent me (ibid. vii. 1 6); You doth know me, and you know thence I am; and I am not come of myself (ibid. 28). But also, to give authority to his mission, he brings forward his miracles, and attests that if he had not done among the Jews works which no other man had done, they would not have sinned in not believing him. And elsewhere he says to them: Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? Otherwise believe for the works themselves (ibid. xiv. 11, 12). He then who would be so rash as to boast of extraordinary mission without immediately producing miracles, deserves to be taken for an impostor. Now it is a fact that neither the first nor the last ministers have worked a single miracle: therefore they have no extraordinary mission.

1. I'm a bit surprised this particular argument had so much weight for these recent Roman Catholic converts. Based on the criteria of miracle = "sent by God", there are a fair amount of Pentecostal folks that are more than willing to claim they have the credentials required. I would be curious as to why these recent converts didn't join up with the people in this video. But the choice of who can substantiate their message with an alleged miracle doesn't begin and end with Pentecostals because even non-Christian religions claim miracles, so these recent converts could've picked a non-Christian faith to join. The speculative response I can hear in reply is such are not either real miracles or are miracles worked by Satan. Well, how would someone, based on de Sales criteria, determine that? Well, I guess an official guide would need to determine which are are (or not) real and God-sent messages accompanied by miracles.   Guess who claims to be able to pick which miracles are real miracles? Why that would be the Roman Catholic Church.  Even if the Reformers had miracles to accompany their message, the Roman church would have to officially say such was the case. In other words, one has to assume the truth of Rome previous to evaluating any sort of "miracle" offered.

2. Here's an ironic point. Here is the Bull of Canonization of St. Francis de Sales (Rerum Omnium Perturbationem) Encyclical of Pope Pius XI, Promulgated on January 26, 1923. Guess who, according to the Roman Catholic Church, was sent by God? Why, it was none other than Francis de Sales:

The solemn commemoration last year of the third centenary of the canonization of five great saints--Ignatius Loyola, Francis Xavier, Philip Neri, Teresa of Jesus, and Isidore the Farmer-- helped greatly, Venerable Brothers, toward reawakening among the faithful a love for the Christian life. We are now happily called upon to celebrate the Third Centenary of the entrance into heaven of another great saint, one who was remarkable not only for the sublime holiness of life which he achieved but also for the wisdom with which he directed souls in the ways of sanctity. This saint was no less a person than Francis de Sales, Bishop of Geneva and Doctor of the Universal Church. Like those brilliant examples of Christian perfection and wisdom to whom We have just referred, he seemed to have been sent especially by God to contend against the heresies begotten by the Reformation. It is in these heresies that we discover the beginnings of that apostasy of mankind from the Church, the sad and disastrous effects of which are deplored, even to the present hour, by every fair mind. What is more, it appears that Francis de Sales was given to the Church by God for a very special mission.

Now if you're thinking what I'm thinking, you're wondering exactly what miracle accompanied de Sales to prove he was especially sent by God for his special mission.  Well, if you skim through the Bull of Canonization, you'll find all sorts of tidbits about his life and ministry, but nothing all that extraordinary like healing a leper or raising the dead. In other words, there weren't any extraordinary miracles that prove he was sent especially by God of a very special mission. He sort of did stuff like... the early Reformers (he wrote books, ministered, and talked to people, sometimes at great peril). The only thing that proves he was sent especially by God for a very special mission is... the Roman Catholic Church.

3. I certainly can appreciate that the above quoted excerpt from de Sales relied heavily on Scripture. Here's another writer speaking about miracles from the scripture based on an exposition of Matthew 7:22-23 (On that day many will say to Me, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and cast out demons in Your name, and do many mighty works in Your name?” And then will I declare to them, “I never knew you; depart from Me, you evildoers.”)

The chief interpretation here is that He is talking about false prophecies and miracles, as He speaks in Matthew 24:24: “False Christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.” In 2 Thessalonians 2:9, 10 St. Paul says that the Antichrist will come “with all sorts of pretended powers and signs and wonders and with all wicked deception for unrighteousness, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.” So it is certain that false signs will happen in Christendom and that the false Christians will look upon them as true and genuine signs. This has really been happening in the papacy, though in Turkey, too, there are many such priests and special saints. You can read about this in the books and legends, especially in what the monks have written. They are all crawling with miracles, though they were really nothing but lies and rascalities. How they have made fools of the people nowadays with all those pilgrimages to the Grym Valley, to the Oak, or to Trier! I myself have seen some monks who were abominable rascals and reckless men, but who expelled the devil and played with him as if he were a child.
Who could recount all the rascality and devilish sorcery they have been practicing under the holy name of Christ, Mary, the holy cross, or St. Cyprian? The monks have been practicing all this mightily, and the whole world has fallen for it, so that no one even dares to peep against it. No pope or bishop ever preached against it, but they all helped it along. If anyone opposed it, he was violently beaten down and crushed. A short time ago Bishop Ernest of Saxony tore down one of these devil’s chapels. But the evil outcome was that it made him ill, and he was only too happy to rebuild it. This sorcery has helped to introduce and confirm things like purgatory, Masses for the dead, the worship of all the saints, pilgrimages, monasteries, churches, and chapels. Many have even prophesied about the future, like Lichtenberg and others. All this has happened through the devil: to substantiate his abominations and his lies, to cast a spell over the people, and to hold them captive in error so that none of them could run away from him.
It is a minor matter for the devil to let himself be expelled even by an evil fellow, if he chooses, and yet to remain unexpelled. By this abominable deception he possesses and traps the people even more completely. Being a clever and experienced spirit, he can also guess at future events. Usually he makes fools of the people with his prophecies, by juggling them in such a way that they can be interpreted to mean various things; whichever way it comes out, he has hit it right. He used to do this long ago through his heathen priests. Then the people go crazy with excitement: “Surely God is dwelling here! You can see and touch the miracles and signs!” They cannot figure out that the devil is doing it to deceive and seduce the people. The fools do not remember that Christ clearly foretold all this and faithfully warned us against it, personally and through His apostles. But this had to be the outcome, and it serves us right for despising the Word of God and for not being concerned about losing Christ and accepting the signs of the devil. For the devil it was a lot of fun, by which he had the complete control over Christendom that he sought.
Once we have seen this and experienced all too often what great damage the devil has done through these lying spirits and false signs, it should bring us to our senses. We should not imitate our predecessors in neglecting Christ’s Word and letting it be spoken in vain, so that we do not end up the way they did. This sermon or prophecy was written as a warning. Unfortunately it comes too late for our predecessors, but early enough for us if we heed it. Then we will not let ourselves be diverted by their claims of the signs and wonders that Mary and other saints have done, nor by the skillful way they throw dust into our eyes to lead us away from the Word. Since we hear this warning that these false signs have to happen, we shall be smart enough not to believe in any mere sign.
When He discussed these miracles in Matthew 24, He warned them faithfully and seriously (Matt. 24:25): “Lo, I have told you beforehand”; as if He wanted to say: “Beware, and cling to My warning, for otherwise you will certainly be seduced. You have My Word, so that you know what the will of My Father is. Contrast these two. Here you have My teaching, which tells you how to live and act. There you see the signs that contradict this teaching.” He wants you to draw this conclusion: “Since I see such wonderful signs over there, while over here I have the teaching as well as the warning, I shall first examine the implication of the signs. I shall test them where they ought to be tested, as to whether they serve to strengthen my faith in the Word: that Christ died for me; that through Him I may obtain piety and salvation in the sight of God; and that I should carry out my station and pay faithful attention to it. I may discover the contrary, that by this they want to strengthen and confirm their own stuff and teach me to run to this or that saint who does so many signs and miracles every day, or to crawl into a hood because this is such a holy order. This would mean being led away from Christ, from my church, pulpit, Baptism, and the Sacrament, and from my station and the works demanded of me—all things with which I should remain. Therefore I refuse to listen or to know any of this though an angel were to come from heaven (Gal. 1:8) and raise the dead before my very eyes. Christ has taught and warned me: ‘Hold on to My Word, pulpit, and Sacrament. Where these are there you will find Me. Stay there, for you do not need to go running or looking any farther. I will never come any nearer to you than where My Gospel, Baptism, and ministry are; through them I come into your heart and talk to you.’ He also says: ‘Be a father or a mother, a prince or a subject, a master or a servant. Remain in your station, where you hear Me speak, where I Myself am present. You silly men, why go running to wood and stone, where no Word of God is preached? Why stare with your eyes wide open at the devil’s signs, as if Christ were somewhere where His Word is not?’ ”
You see, this is the way to beat back the papists, who come crowding around with their “customs, fathers, councils, and so many signs and miracles,” by which they try to substantiate their cause. Just to give them a short answer: “All right, let us contrast the two. Here I have Christ’s Word; of this I am certain, and it has been powerfully substantiated throughout the world. You are showing me, by contrast, your teaching and your signs, which point me to rosaries, pilgrimages, the worship of saints, Masses, monkery, and other special and self-chosen works. There is nothing here about Christ, or about faith, Baptism, and the Sacrament, or about obedience and the good works which Christ teaches me to practice within my station, in my relations with my neighbor. Instead, there is the exact opposite. Hence these cannot be genuine signs, but both the teaching and the signs are the devil’s deception.” This way we could easily recognize and judge all false signs and say: “Let the signs come and go, I do not care, even if you raised the dead before my very eyes. All of this can deceive me, but the Word of God does not deceive me.” The devil can make fools of people and cast a spell over them, so that he makes a man seem dead for a while and then brings him back to consciousness, as if he were raised from the dead. Or he can damage your eye or some other part of your body and then restore it to health, so that you imagine that it was done by a miracle. So God decrees that even genuine miracles happen as a punishment for those who do not pay attention to the truth, as St. Paul says (2 Thess. 2:9–12), and as a warning for the others. People are going to such extremes in their ingratitude and contempt for His Word that wrath is not a sufficient punishment. If the world stands much longer, this will happen to us, too, for sinning so gravely that it has to deteriorate into all sorts of errors and signs.
Because the world simply refuses to listen and wants to despise the Word, yearning for something different, He will send it enough to seduce it into the abyss of all error. This is what happened when nothing else was being preached and taught in all the churches, monasteries, and schools, and all the books were smeared up with these lying signs. The only reason for this was the fact that these signs had taken place—as though it had not been proclaimed often enough that this was going to happen and that the people would be seduced by it, so that even the elect would scarcely be rescued from the error (Matt. 24:24). It serves those people right for so wantonly letting themselves be seduced and refusing to heed this warning. He gave the Word on how people should believe and live, and in addition He confirmed it with plenty of signs. He intends this to be enough, to let it go at that, and to do nothing else. Yet they insist on setting up a different and new teaching and better stations, contrary to the Word of God and the genuine miracles.
Therefore Christ says now: “I will not heed them though they boast: ‘Lord, did we not do many mighty works in Your name?’ I will pronounce a sentence upon them which reads: ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you evildoers.’ ” “How so, dear Lord? After all, the signs and wonders are there, and no one can deny it!” He will say: “Yes, but why have you neglected My Word, which was confirmed by My miracles, setting up something else about which I know nothing, governing the world according to your own ideas, and following these? Since you have despised My Word and have not done My Father’s will, I refuse to know you or to have any grace for you.” They do not pay attention to this on earth nowadays, and they suppose that they will be right next to God. They will find out, and all too suddenly!
So the right interpretation of this text is that He is talking about the miracles which the false teachers perform to confirm their teaching. These He refuses to recognize, on the basis either of their signs or of their prophesying. In this connection, there is a more subtle argument—I do not know whether it belongs here—that God occasionally lets genuine signs take place through wicked people and that God is acting through them. So Caiaphas, the high priest, prophesied (John 11:50). And Balaam delivered a most beautiful sermon about Christ; Moses himself says that the Holy Spirit entered into him (Num. 24:2) and that he had to prophesy against his will, as Caiaphas did also. Nor can it be denied that as an apostle of Christ, Judas performed many signs, just as the other apostles and disciples did. What shall we say to this?
St. John himself gives the answer when he says about Caiaphas (John 11:51): “Being high priest that year, he prophesied.” It can happen that because such a person is in a public office or in the government, he prophesies or does miracles and accomplishes a great deal of good, bringing many people to God. Still he may not be a pious person himself but may be going to the devil. A preacher occupies a public station and is an official person; correctly considered, such a person performs the greatest works, signs, and wonders that take place on earth. Through his office, through the Word and the Sacrament that he administers to you, he brings you to faith, rescues you from the power of the devil and from eternal death, and leads you to eternal life in heaven. This far surpasses all outward signs and wonders. Nevertheless he himself may be an unbelieving and wicked man.
In this issue, therefore, you must always pay attention to the Word of God and guide yourself according to it, not according to the personality. You heard earlier about the signs that take place in order to substantiate something different from the Word of God; about these there is nothing in Scripture. But there are signs which apply to something that God has spoken and substantiated. So the prophecy of the high priest Caiaphas announced that with His death Christ would redeem the world. This was a genuine and precious prophecy, though his motive was venomous and wicked. Although the prophet Balaam was a villain, he prophesied truly as a prophet about the people of God and about Christ; God was speaking through him. Now, if a preacher correctly administers his office and performs signs by its power, he should be listened to. But if he would like to get off the track and go some different way, to establish something different and apart from his office, he would no longer be a genuine prophet but a false one. If the apostle Judas preached and did miracles—though he belonged to the devil, as Christ says (John 6:70)—he did so by the power of the apostolic office, to confirm Christ so that the people would believe in Him. On this basis you judge everyone who occupies an office in Christendom. Not all those who occupy an office and who preach are Christians, or pious people. God does not ask about that. The person may be anything he pleases; but the office is right and good nevertheless, since it does not belong to man but to God Himself. So Caiaphas prophesies, not as Caiaphas, a murderer and a scoundrel, but as a high priest. So the minister or preacher baptizes you and brings you to eternal life, not as Mr. John Pommer, but as a minister. God lets this happen in order to honor and establish the office. Since Judas is in the right public office, the one that Christ has ordained, it is the office that is being honored in him, not the person.
So it is in secular affairs, too, as Solomon says (Prov. 16:10): “Inspired decisions are on the lips of a king”; that is, everything that the government orders is right, and God confirms it. When it performs its office of judging criminals and punishing them, therefore, this is God’s judgment, which He speaks up in heaven and which He wants to be carried out—the same action that is forbidden otherwise, apart from the office. So Scripture makes everyone in the sacred office a prophet or a foreteller, though in his own person he may well be a villain or a tyrant. As Solomon says again (Prov. 8:15): “By Me kings reign”; that is: “Their law and judgment are My law and judgment, along with everything they do according to their office, if they rule properly.” Nevertheless the majority of them in the world are great villains underneath, who have no qualms about abusing the law and their own authority. But when they keep within the limits of their office and do what the law demands, this is all God’s business. Bringing this down to another level: It is as when a prince or a lord gives a command to a servant or sends out his representatives, you listen to them and honor them, though they may be rascals, not for their own sakes, but for the sake of their lord, whose office and command they bring along with them.
Now, since God does this in the secular sphere, He will lay even more emphasis upon it in the spiritual sphere, to make His office and ministry productive and powerful. As we have said, when a minister preaches or baptizes, this is nothing but a miracle, inasmuch as he lets the Gospel and Baptism remain valid regardless of whether he is pious or wicked. And if, as a non-Christian, he does not have the treasure himself, still the one who accepts the Word and believes receives the treasure. Now, if such signs and miracles take place through the office of the ministry, redeeming souls from sin, death, and the devil, how much more can tiny, outward miracles that do not help the soul take place in the physical sphere!
It is necessary here to distinguish between the two things, the office and the person. Because one man is pious and twenty are wicked, you must not reject the office on account of the person, as usually happens. You should investigate whether the tendency and purpose of the office and the miracle is to praise and confirm the doctrine of faith in Christ and whether they harmonize with what He has spoken, commanded, and instituted. If you see that this is so, then you may say: “This sermon is right, though the person may be a good-for-nothing. I will accept the sign, but I will ask no questions about the person.” If it is not so, then you must not accept it or believe it, regardless of how great the sign may be or how saintly and precious the person may be. There are also many bishops, preachers, and others in office who imagine that this entitles them to God’s special favor personally. As I have said above, this is a mistake. It will not help on the Last Day for them to boast and say: “Lord, we did many mighty works in Your name.” God did not give them the power to do this on account of their person but on account of their office; He did not do these things for their sakes personally but for the sake of validating their office.
This applies to people in public office, through whom signs and wonders take place. Some of them are pious and some wicked, but this neither detracts from the office nor adds to it. But what do you say about those who do miracles and foretell the future though they are not in office? In Luke 9:49, 50 we read about some who did miracles though they were not Christ’s disciples. The apostles informed Christ of this and said: “Master, we saw a man casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow You.” But He answered: “Do not forbid him; for he who is not against us is for us.” He was an individual person, whom Christ had not installed into the office, and yet He says that they should not forbid him, adding the reason (Mark 9:39): “No one who does a mighty work in My name will be able soon after to preach evil about Me.”
Answer: It is true, as I have said, that God does not let any signs take place through wicked men unless they are in public office, since God does not grant signs for the sake of their person but of their office. But where genuine signs take place through an individual person, such a person must certainly be pious, as are those who have a special revelation through dreams or visions. But such signs must be aimed at praising Christ and advancing the Gospel. So you have two kinds of signs that are good and legitimate: first, those that are performed by pious persons who are Christians; secondly, those that are performed by evil persons who occupy an office and teach correctly. We should always be guided by this certain standard, which should be applied to every kind of person, whether pious or impious, in office or out of office: Do the signs aim at praising Christ and advancing your faith? If you notice that they are directing you somewhere else, to pilgrimages or to prayers to saints or to the deliverance of souls from purgatory, in other words, to a dependence on your own works and the creation of a righteousness of your own, then you must say: “If you did every possible miracle for me, so that I could see it and touch it, I still would not believe you. For Christ has given me adequate warning about that.”
God Himself set up this rule through Moses (Deut. 13:1–3): “If a prophet arises among you, or a dreamer of dreams, and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder which he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, ‘Let us go after other gods,’ which you have not known, and ‘Let us serve them,’ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or to that dreamer of dreams.” He also indicated the final cause by which you can recognize them and proceed correctly: If they try to make you institute a different worship, that is, to forsake the single pure doctrine and to start something different alongside it, then you should not believe, though it were snowing miracles. He Himself interprets it further and says (Deut. 13:3): “For the Lord, your God, is testing you, to know whether you love the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul.” It is as if He wanted to say: “He wants to try you out, to see how firmly you hold to the teaching that has already been established and is in force.”
In other words, the rule is this: Regardless of their size and number, no wonders or signs are to be accepted contrary to established teaching. We have God’s commandment; He has commanded from heaven (Matt. 17:5): “Listen to Him, Christ is the only one to whom you should listen.” In addition we have this warning, that false prophets will come and do great signs, but that they are all on the wrong track, away from Christ and toward something different. The only preventive is to have a good grasp of the doctrine and to keep it before your eyes continually. You can evaluate everything on this basis: Is this what the Gospel and the Creed teaches, which you pray every day, saying: “I believe in Christ alone, who died for me,” or is it something different? We have had adequate warning, if anyone is willing to heed it. But it does not make much of an impression on the great masses any more than it did before. I am convinced that if someone were to arise here today and perform just one sign, whole crowds would fall for it. That is how the crazy mob behaves. If someone pulls out something new in front of them and makes them stare, they forsake everything, the Word and the doctrine, and go gaping after that. And you can shout yourself to death against it. So they used to let such coarse and obvious lies and brazen fraud make fools of them and lead them around by the nose, following any rascal who arose with a lie about a new relic, new pilgrimages, and the like. The source of this is the shameful curiosity and boredom of our flesh and blood, as well as the devil himself, so that signs and wonders, especially the false ones, always get more of a following than the genuine ones. No one sees or cares that Christ and His apostles and others did miracles. But so soon as someone expels a demon, that beats all. All right, anyone who refuses to take a warning and wants to be seduced, dare not blame us.
Luther, M. (1999, c1956). Vol. 21: Luther's works, vol. 21 : The Sermon on the Mount and the Magnificat (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald and H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (21:271-280). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House.

4. Oh by the way, for the convert that needs a miracle and looks for that sort of stuff: Here's Saint Luther's legacy of post-life miracles. See this article by Robert Scribner, Incombustible Luther: The Image of the Reformer in Early Modern Germany. Scribner documents the way that many turned Luther into a saint after his death. Stories circulated that paintings of Luther refused to burn (Luther's special saint miracle was his incombustibility. I'm more or less a functional cessationalist, so I tend to yawn at any alleged miracle.

Addendum
There certainly are more arguments against the "must have a miracle to prove you've been called by God" notion. The ones above were tapped out quickly. One thing though that I need to add, it certainly is true that miracles accompanied many of those in the Scripture that were given revelation from God.  I have in mind here the argumentation that Richard Gaffin uses in his book, Perspectives on Pentecost (which is probably one of the best books on the gifts and miracles). The miracles certainly proved the divine message of the Biblical authors. Keep in mind though, the Reformers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc.), were not receiving new revelation from God. They weren't adding books to the Bible. They were testifying to what was in the Bible. The bottom line is that de Sales argumentation assumes something the Reformers were not doing, and then says their work was not valid. This is a typical Roman Catholic type of argument that assumes their rules are the rules. 

CTC's "Essential Role" of the Roman Church

From Called to Communion:

"Part in parcel with Calvin’s view that the Holy Spirit testifies in our hearts to the veracity of the canon, Calvin rejects the essential role of the Church in identifying the canon."

The key word here (as I see it) is "essential role." I would posit for this CTC contributor, "essential role" means the Roman Church infallibly identifying the contents of the canon. If this is the meaning intended, it would follow that without this "essential role" (according to CTC), the canon would not be infallibly identified. If something must needs be the "essential role", then without it, Scripture may in fact be the very words of God, but they would lack any power or authority to actually benefit anyone until the Roman church plays her "essential role." Until the "essential role" is played, how would one know that the texts they were relying on really were God's Word?

Sure, I guess some people got it right previous to the "essential role" being played, but they did so in such a way that they really, according to the paradigm offered, had no absolute certainty that the words they considered to be to the authoritative words of God really were the authoritative words of God.

The CTC blogger then cites a section from Calvin:

"But a most pernicious error widely prevails that Scripture has only so much weight as is conceded to it by the consent of the church. . . . For they mock the Holy Spirit when they ask: Who can convince us that these writings came from God? . . . . Who can persuade us to receive one book in reverence but to exclude another, unless the church prescribe a sure rule for all these matters?"

As far as it goes, this CTC blogger has done nothing more then point out Calvin rejected the notion of the "essential role" Rome's apologists claim she has.  Curiously though, the CTC blogger goes on to state:

"As an initial matter, Calvin misstates the Catholic position by stating that, according to the Catholic Church, Scripture has its authoritative weight accorded to it by the Church. Rather, the Catholic position is that Scripture has divine authority because it is God-breathed, the Holy Spirit having inspired the texts’ authors. That is, Scripture has divine authority because of its divine author, not because of the role of God’s Church in producing it."

Has Calvin misstated the Roman position? The CTC blogger first states Calvin rejected the "essential role" of the Church in identifying the canon, he then cites Calvin saying "Who can persuade us to receive one book in reverence but to exclude another, unless the church prescribe a sure rule for all these matters" and then the CTC blogger concludes Calvin misstates the Roman position?

Without Rome playing her "essential role" whether these words or those words are "God-breathed" really is irrelevant. In the Roman paradigm, "divine authority" must be identified as such by the infallible Roman church before it's "authoritative weight" can be officially effective or meaningful for the church.

Perhaps Calvin was on to something when he said,

"Thus these sacrilegious men wishing to impose an unbridled tyranny under the cover of the church, do not care with what absurdities they ensnare themselves and others, provided they can force this one idea upon the simple-minded: that the church has authority in all things."

Addendum

Lest anyone think Calvin did not consider a "role" for the Church with the canon:

It is utterly vain, then, to pretend that the power of judging Scripture so lies with the church that its certainty depends upon churchly assent. Thus, while the church receives and gives its seal of approval to the Scriptures, it does not thereby render authentic what is otherwise doubtful or controversial. But because the church recognizes Scripture to be the truth of its own God, as a pious duty it unhesitatingly venerates Scripture. As to their question — How can we be assured that this has sprung from God unless we have recourse to the decree of the church? —it is as if someone asked: Whence will we learn to distinguish light from darkness, white from black, sweet from bitter? Indeed, Scripture exhibits fully as clear evidence of its own truth as white and black things do of their color, or sweet and bitter things do of their taste.

John Eck vs. Called to Communion

I saw this in  a recent Triablogue post.

The Called to Communion guys are fond of saying things like “remember one of the cardinal rules in ecumenical inquiry: Don’t get your Catholic theology from Protestant hearsay–and vice versa. Go to the source, if you want to learn the truth”. This is certainly wise advice, especially if one is tempted to listen to Roman Catholic hearsay about John Calvin from a Roman epologist like Tom Brown. Brown cites Calvin, of course, just to appear to be above board:


“But a most pernicious error widely prevails that Scripture has only so much weight as is conceded to it by the consent of the church. . . . For they mock the Holy Spirit when they ask: Who can convince us that these writings came from God? . . . . Who can persuade us to receive one book in reverence but to exclude another, unless the church prescribe a sure rule for all these matters?”20


The footnote (20) is to “John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, book I, ch. 7, sec. 1.” That’s fine as far as it goes. Then Brown says matter-of-factly, “As an initial matter, Calvin misstates the Catholic position by stating that, according to the Catholic Church, Scripture has its authoritative weight accorded to it by the Church. Rather, the Catholic position is that Scripture has divine authority because it is God-breathed, the Holy Spirit having inspired the texts’ authors. That is, Scripture has divine authority because of its divine author, not because of the role of God’s Church in producing it…”


But the Battles version of Institutes footnotes this statement, [among other references] to “John Eck, Enchiridion (1553), ch i., fo. 4a-6b”.


Now, it’s true that Eck was not an “official” source of Roman teaching at the time, but one might assume that, given his position as a papal emissary, he’d be a pretty good source. Someone might also suggest that Calvin has misrepresented what Eck was saying, but that’s not likely. First, Calvin was fairly scrupulous about getting his opponents arguments correct. And second, Battles himself translated the Eck document from which he cites.


I’m not going to spend the $35.00 at this point to see what Eck says. But I’d be willing to surmise that Battles wouldn’t have spent the time translating this work if there weren’t something in it that he wanted to show.

__________________________
Well, I spent the $35.00 to see what Eck says. In fact, at the time, I think I spent more than $35.00 to see what Eck says. I scanned the following text in quickly, so there may be some typos. This is from the translation of Eck by Battles, pages 11-17. One quick comment. It was not Calvin citing Eck in I, 7:1. Rather, it was a footnote Battles confirming Calvin's comment by citing Eck and others.

Enjoy.
 JS
_________________________

Objections of the Heretics.
1. The authority of Scripture is greater than that of the Church. For the Church ought to be ruled according to Scripture. For the Word of God yields to no one.

2. It is not lawful for either the Church or any man to go against Scripture.

3. One does not say that what the Pope with the Cardinals and the bishops determines has been determined by the Church, because the Church is the congregation of all believers and the connection in true faith by which the just man lives.

4. The Church of God is in the Spirit alone, because she is believed, and thus hidden.

5. Luther says that he is of the Church, and believes the  Church is with him, where he is preacher. So also Zwingli, Carlstadt, Pelican, Soblerus, Hubmaier Pacimontanus* etc.

Disposal of Objections.
1. Christ did not write any book, nor did He bid the disciples or apostles to write one, yet He gave many precepts concerning the Church; hence when about to send apostles out to plant the Church, He did not say, "Go write," but "Go into the whole world and preach the Gospel to every creature" [Mt. 24:14]. Therefore the law was written on tablets of stone, but the Gospel on hearts. "Since you are a letter of Christ, sent out by us, and written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not in tablets of stone, but in the physical tablets of the heart" [2 Cor 3:3]. Jeremiah agrees: "Behold, the day is coming, says the Lord, and I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel,and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant I made with your fathers, etc., but this will be one which I shall make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord; I shall give my law in their inward parts, and in their heart I shall write it, and I will be their God and they will be my people" [Jer 31:31-33]. Jerome: Why is it necessary to take into one's hands what the Church does not receive?

2. The Church is older than Scripture, for when the Apostles began to preach, there was no written Gospel, no letter of Paul, and yet there was the Church dedicated by Christ's blood. Thus the apostles without the Scripture of the New Testament chose Matthias [Acts 1:22ff], ordained seven deacons [Acts 6:3]; Peter caused Ananias and Sapphira to die [Acts 5:lff]. Even though the apostles were very diligent in sowing the Word of God, yet very few things are found written by them. It follows logically that they taught many more things than they wrote; the things taught have equal authority with the things written.

3. Scripture is not authentic without the Church's authority: for the canonical writers are members of the Church. Hence against a heretic wishing to contend against the Church's constitution and custom one objects with the very weapons whereby he wishes to contend against the Church. He is going to quote the canonical Scriptures of the four Gospels, and the Pauline Epistles. Let the objection immediately be raised against him: how does he know that these Scriptures are canonical except from the Church, for why does he believe the Gospel of Mark, who did not see Christ, to be canonical, and not the Gospel of Nicodemus, who saw and heard Christ, as John testifies [Jn 3:lff]? So why has the Gospel of Luke the disciple been received, and the Gospel of Bartholomew the apostle been rejected, unless we humbly confess the authority of the Church with the Blessed Augustine, something Luther sometimes taught, that the Church could judge concerning the Scriptures.

Therefore it thus is clear that the Church is older than Scripture, and Scripture would not be authentic without the Church's authority. Hence, Augustine, Against the Epistle Called Fundamental, 5.6 [PL 42.176]: "I would not have believed the Gospel unless the authority of the Church5had moved me to do so." More below on Scripture at Chapter 4.

i. Scripture teaches: "Remember to hallow the Sabbath day; six days shall you labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath day of the Lord your God," etc. Yet the Church has changed the Sabbath into Sunday on its own authority, on which you have no Scripture.

ii. Christ said to His disciples on the mountain: "I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it" [Matt 5:17]. And yet the Church of the apostles in council boldly made pronouncement on the cessation of legal matters.

iii. In the final chapter of Matthew, Christ said to the disciples: "Go therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" [Matt 28:19f]. Here Christ gave the form of baptizing ex plicitly in the name of the Trinity, and yet the primitive Church changed this form of baptizing to in the name of Christ Jesus." "Repent," says Peter, "and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ in forgiveness of your sins" [Acts 2:38].2 And in Acts 8 [:12] it is said that the Samaritans were baptized by Philip in the name of Jesus. And in Acts 19 [:5]: "When these things were heard they were baptized by Philip in the name of Jesus," that is, by Paul.

iv. Scripture is defined in the council: "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us" [Acts 15:281 etc., "that you should abstain from sacrifices offered to idols, and blood and things 4
strangled" [v. 29]. This matter, so clearly defined and expressed,the Church by her authority changed, because she uses both blood and strangled meat. Note the power of the Church over scripture .5 See below, Chapter 13, On Human Constitutions.

v. Now if you wish to live more according to the scriptures than according to the authority of the Church, now all the Jews coming to baptism would be held to the law of Moses, for thus they would find in the Scriptures that apostles and other converts have lived. James and the elders spoke to Paul returning from the Gentiles: "See, brother, how many there are among the Jews who have believed, and all are emulators of the law. Moreover, they have heard of you, that you teach all the Jews that are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, nor to walk according to their custom. What is it therefore? The multitude must needs come together, for they will hear that you have come. Do therefore this which we say to you. We have four men that have a vow on them; having taken them, purify yourself with them, and be at charge for them, that they may shave their heads, and all shall know that there is no truth in the things about which they had been informed concerning you, but you walk and yourself keep the law. Moreover, concerning those of the Gentiles who believed, we have written, adjudging that they should keep themselves from idols, from what is sacrificed, from blood and what is strangled, and from fornication" [Acts 21:20-25]. Here, Paul, with many thousands, kept at one behest of the law of St. James.

Would you, 0 Luther, converted from the Jews today, rather live according to those scriptures, or according to the authority of the Church?

We confess the Church to be the congregation of all the faithful who are of the body of Christ, and when primates and leaders of any province decide anything, the whole province is said to have decided it. Thus the prelates of the Church are called "the Church," because they represent her and their subjects. Otherwise the Church could never be gathered. "But if he does not hear you . . . tell the Church; but if he does not hear the Church, let him be to you as a Gentile and publican" [Matt 18:16f]. According to Luther's view, if anyone wanted to tell the Church, he would have to traverse the whole earth. Chrysostom [Hom. in Mt, 60.2: PG 58.586] explains: "It clearly refers to the prelates that is, presidents, because he will soon give the power of binding and loosing to the apostles as prelates." "If you perceived a case before you difficult and ambiguous to judge, between blood and blood, between cause and cause, between leper and non-leper, and you saw the judgment to be a matter of controversy within your gates: rise up and go up to the place which the Lord your God has chosen and come to the priests of the tribe of Levi, to the judge that shall be in those days, and inquire of him, who will judge the truth of the judgment for you, and you shall do what they say, who are in charge of the place the Lord has chosen, and they will teach you according to his law, and you will follow their decision, and turn aside neither to the right nor to the left. But he who in his pride refuses to obey the authority of the priest, who is at that time ministering to the Lord your God, that man will die by the decree of the judge, and you shall remove the evil from Israel, and all the people hearing it will fear, so that none shall henceforth be swollen with pride" [Dr 17:8-13]. See the power of the priest under the law. How much more power do you think the priest under the Gospel has, and ponder the penalty of the disobedient.

"And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension against them, the brethren decided that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to the apostles and presbyters in Jerusalem about this question" [Acts 15:2]. See how the Deuteronomy c. 17 passage was fulfilled. And what was the Church? Not the whole congregation, but they went up to the apostles and presbyters who represented the Church.

4. If the Church is hidden, how did Christ enjoin the telling it to the Church, and if he did not hear the Church, etc. But if it were hidden, what could be said to it, or how would it hear? Likewise the Church is the body of Christ, and the Christians are its members [Rom 12:5; 1 Cor 10:17; 12:12; Eph 1:23; 5:30; Col 1:24]. Let Luther say whether they were hidden and only mathematically the Church, when Paul said: "Now you are the body of Christ, and members each in his part" [1 Cor 12:27].

It is the way of heretics to have caverns and caves and lurking places: the Church puts the lamp upon a lampstand[Lk 8:16]. The Church is shown to you in councils, in the Apostolic See, in bishops and leaders of individual Churches. For if the Church were only mathematical, the brother of Paul (Timothy) would not have praise through all the. Churches [2 Cor 1:1]. David would not have said: "With you is my praise in the great church" [Ps 21:26], "and in the seat of the elders let them praise him" [Ps 106:32]. For this see Augustine on the First Epistle of John, the first tractate at the end.

5. What Luther says, all the heretics have said. Accordingly Augustine inveighs against the Donatists, who wanted to confine the universal Church to the cornerstone of a few heretics. See more in Johann Cochlaeus, On the Authority of the Church , and John Fisher. Among the older writers see Juan Torquemada,3who wrote extensively on behalf of the Church.