Luther: All things whatever arise from, and depend on, the divine appointment; whereby it was foreordained who should receive the word of life, and who should disbelieve it; who should be delivered from their sins, and who should be hardened in them; and who should be justified and who should be condemned

I was asked about this Martin Luther quote:

All things whatever arise from, and depend on, the divine appointment; whereby it was foreordained who should receive the word of life, and who should disbelieve it; who should be delivered from their sins, and who should be hardened in them; and who should be justified and who should be condemned.

A quick search shows how popular this quote is. This is another instance in which you will not come across a lot of "Lutheran" web sites using this quote. It appears to be most popular with those involved in the debate over predestination. We'll see this isn't exactly what Luther said. Rather, his words have been augmented and placed in the context of  Calvinism.

Documentation
As far as I can tell, the popular source for this quote is Lorraine Boettner's book, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. Boettner states,

That Luther was as zealous for absolute predestination as was Calvin is shown in his commentary on Romans, where he wrote: "All things whatever arise from, and depend on, the divine appointment; whereby it was foreordained who should receive the word of life, and who should disbelieve it; who should be delivered from their sins, and who should be hardened in them; and who should be justified and who should be condemned." And Melanchthon, his close friend and fellow-laborer, says: "All things turn out according to divine predestination; not only the works we do outwardly, but even the thoughts we think inwardly"; and again, "There is no such thing as chance, or fortune; nor is there a readier way to gain the fear of God, and to put our whole trust in Him, than to be thoroughly versed in the doctrine of Predestination."

While Boettner's book does a fair job outlining the Reformed doctrine of predestination, his method of citing secondary sources is often less than adequate. For this quote, I suspect Boettner didn't actually utilize Luther's "commentary on Romans, " but rather took the quote from another secondary English source: Absolute Predestination by Jerome Zanchius (Girolamo Zanchi). Zanchius was a contemporary of Luther's (1516-1590).  This writer  is claimed to have stated,

Luther* observes that in Rom. ix., x. and xi. the apostle particularly insists on the doctrine of predestination, "Because," says he, "all things whatever arise from and depend upon the Divine appointment, whereby it was preordained who should receive the word of life and who should disbelieve it, who should be delivered from their sins and who should be hardened in them, who should be justified and who condemned."

*In Praefat, ad Epist. ad Rom.

This English rendering is exact to Boettner's, making it highly likely this was the  source Boettner used (this version certainly predates Boettner as this English text from 1769 demonstrates!).  The original text of Zanchi's was not written in English, but rather, written in Latin. Here's where it gets very complicated. There's debate as to which Latin source was utilized for the English rendering. The English translation was the work of Augustus Toplady. Toplady stated he did not exactly follow Zanchi word for word:

Excellent as Zanchy's original piece is, I yet have occasionally ventured both to retrench and to enlarge it, in the translations. to this liberty I was induced, by a desire of rendering it as complete a treatise on the subject as the allotted compass would allow. I have endeavoured rather to enter into the spirit of the admirable author; than with a scrupulous exactness to retail his very words. By which means the performance will prove, I humbly trust, the more satisfactory to the English reader ; and, for the learned one, he can at any time, if he pleases, by comparing the following version with the original Latin, both perceive wherein I have presumed to vary from it; and judge for himself whether my omissions, variations, and enlargements, are useful and just (link, p. 26-27).

This link outlines the severe problems with Toplady's translation, noting particularly,

The "Problem" with Absolute Predestination is that while it is by far Zanchi's most well known work, it was not technically written by him. It is, in fact, a translation and revised abridgment of a section of Zanchi's corpus completed by Augustus Toplady in the eighteenth century, which spawned a heated epistolary controversy with John Wesley.

I went through a number of Latin sources of Zanchi's writings, and could find no exact matching text to that Toplady attributes to him. The closest I found was this text:

While this snippet has some similarities to the purported English text produced by Toplady, it does not sit in the same context as the English. Note that Zanchi  refers to Luther's comments on Romans 9, 10, and 11, while Toplady has Zanchi referring to "In Praefat, ad Epist. ad Rom." Putting both of these together, it appears Luther's Preface to Romans is being cited. I'm not sure which version Zanchi utilized.

The German text is found in WA DB 7:23.  The English text used below is found in   LW 35:377. 

Context

In chapters 9, 10, and 11 [of Romans Paul] teaches of God’s eternal predestination—out of which originally proceeds who shall believe or not, who can or cannot get rid of sin—in order that our salvation may be taken entirely out of our hands and put in the hand of God alone. And this too is utterly necessary. For we are so weak and uncertain that if it depended on us, not even a single person would be saved; the devil would surely overpower us all. But since God is dependable—his predestination cannot fail, and no one can withstand him—we still have hope in the face of sin.

Conclusion
Zanchi's Latin text follows the gist of Luther's comments, that in Romans 9-11 salvation is dependent on God's predestination, who will believe or not, who will be freed from sin, etc.  When Luther's words are compared to Toplady's rendering, notice Luther has a bit more Calvinistic "umph"; "All things whatever arise from, and depend on, the divine appointment," "who should receive the word of life," "who should be hardened in them," "who should be justified and who should be condemned."

It appears to me Toplady was translating Zanchi with Calvinistic zeal, thus rendering Luther's comments more "Reformed" than Lutheran. True, Luther believed in predestination, and there's really nothing in Toplady's rendering that would contradict Luther's overall theology. But, as I've studied Luther, predestination and election were expressed in a different way than those with a Reformed worldview. In his Preface to Romans, consider what Luther then goes to immediately say:

Here, now, for once we must put a stop to those wicked and high flying spirits who first apply their own reason to this matter. They begin at the top to search the abyss of divine predestination, and worry in vain about whether they are predestinated. They are bound to plunge to their own destruction, either through despair, or through throwing caution to the winds.

But you had better follow the order of this epistle. Worry first about Christ and the gospel, that you may recognize your sin and his grace. Then fight your sin, as the first eight chapters here have taught. Then, when you have reached the eighth chapter, and are under the cross and suffering, this will teach you correctly of predestination in chapters 9; 10, and 11, and how comforting it is. For in the absence of suffering and the cross and the perils of death, one cannot deal with predestination without harm and without secret anger against God. The old Adam must first die before he can tolerate this thing and drink the strong wine. Therefore beware that you do not drink wine while you are still a suckling. There is a limit, a time, and an age for every doctrine (LW 35:378).

For Luther it is the hidden God who predestines, but this God is not to be sought after or scrutinized. He is to be avoided. As a pastor, Luther was concerned about those who would be entangled by scrupulous introspection, something that plagued him. Therefore, discussions about predestination were best avoided. The emphasis was placed on the positive proclamations of the Gospel. He would advise his hearers to cling to the positive voice of Christ’s gospel. For Luther, discussions of predestination provide little comfort to the Christ’s sheep.

Calvin on the Death of Non-Elect Infants and the Age of Accountability

I recently came across the following citation in Lorraine Boettner's The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination:

It is sometimes charged that Calvin taught the actual damnation of some of those who die in infancy. A careful examination of his writings, however, does not bear out that charge. He explicitly taught that some of the elect die in infancy and that they are saved as infants. He also taught that there were reprobate infants; for he held that reprobation as well as election was eternal, and that the non-elect come into this life reprobate. But nowhere did he teach that the reprobate die and are lost as infants. He of course rejected the Pelagian view which denied original sin and grounded the salvation of those who die in infancy on their supposed innocence and sinlessness. Calvin's views in this respect have been quite thoroughly investigated by Dr. R. A. Webb and his findings are summarized in the following paragraph: "Calvin teaches that all the reprobate 'procure' — (that is his own word) — 'procure' their own destruction; and they procure their destruction by their own personal and conscious acts of 'impiety,' 'wickedness,' and 'rebellion.' Now reprobate infants, though guilty of original sin and under condemnation, cannot, while they are infants, thus 'procure' their own destruction by their personal acts of impiety, wickedness, and rebellion. They must, therefore, live to the years of moral responsibility in order to perpetrate the acts of impiety, wickedness and rebellion, which Calvin defines as the mode through which they procure their destruction. While, therefore, Calvin teaches that there are reprobate infants, and that these will be finally lost, he nowhere teaches that they will be lost as infants, and while they are infants; but, on the contrary, he declares that all the reprobate 'procure' their own destruction by personal acts of impiety, wickedness and rebellion. Consequently, his own reasoning compels him to hold (to be consistent with himself), that no reprobate child can die in infancy; but all such must live to the age of moral accountability, and translate original sin into actual sin." 37
37. Calvin Memorial Addresses, p. 112.

As typical of a book from Boettner, the reference is vague. In this instance though, through the help of Google, "Calvin Memorial Address" by Dr. R.A. Webb is available: Calvin's doctrine of Infant Salvation. Dr. Webb points out that the information on Calvin's view is controversial, in that various extracts from his writings are marshaled together to indict him of teaching certain infants dying in infancy are damned. He goes through a number of these quotes. Webb argues as Boettner summarized above. Webb's form of argument appears to me to be similar to those who argue Calvin held to a limited atonement. That is, without direct and lengthy statements from Calvin on a particular issue, his position is arrived at by evaluating controversial or vague quotes, and then plugging them into his system.  

 What interested me about Webb is that if he's correct, Calvin in essence taught a form of the age of accountability. While I can think of a few specific Reformed theologians that held (or hold) a type of "age of accountability," I'm not familiar with any major Reformed confession teaching it. The popular notion of an "age of accountability" is more of an Arminian concept- that children reach a particular age in which they are culpable for their sins. That is, if they haven't accepted Jesus Christ (or even heard of him) before this particular age, and if they die before that particular age, they go to heaven. I've often wondered why Arminian parents would ever want to take the chance of allowing their child to reach the age of accountability and risk having that child potentially lost for eternity.

Karl Keating on Canon Certainty From Local Church Councils

This is a blog post I did last year on aomin.org.

Here's an interesting tidbit from Karl Keating's book Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Fransisco: Ignatius Press, 1988). Chapter two is dedicated to exposing the errors of Lorraine Boettner's book on Roman Catholicism.

Keating documents Boettner's error of attributing the forbidding of the Bible to laymen by the Council of Valencia in 1229. Keating points out this is historically inaccurate. It would be impossible for a council to have occurred at this location at this period in history. Keating does though go the extra mile: he suggests a council which may actually be the source for Boettner's claim.

Keating notes a council was held in Toulouse France in 1229. Keating specifically notes it was not an ecumenical council (p.45). He then goes on to describe the situation which prompted this council to restrict the use of the Bible. He notes, "Their action was a local one" and it "is hardly the across-the-board prohibition of the Bible" Boettner mentioned (pp. 45-46). Problem solved: Boettner confused a local decree with an ecumenical decree binding on the church for all ages. Case closed.

But not so fast- If one skips a bit further down page 46, one finds Mr. Keating correcting Boettner's position that the Roman church added the apocrypha to the Bible in 1546. Keating states,

The fact is that the Council of Trent did not add to the Bible what Protestants call the apocryphal books. Instead, the Reformers dropped from the Bible books that had been in common use for centuries. The Council of Trent convened to reaffirm Catholic doctrines and to revitalize the Church, proclaimed that these books always had belonged to the Bible and had to remain in it. After all, it was the Catholic Church, in the fourth century, that officially decided which books composed the canon of the Bible and which did not. The Council of Trent came on the scene about twelve centuries later and merely restated the ancient position (pp. 46-47).

Keating states "it was the Catholic Church, in the fourth century, that officially decided which books composed the canon of the Bible and which did not." Now if Keating is referring to the councils of Hippo and Carthage, they were provincial councils which did not have ecumenical authority. There's also the Esdras problem. Hippo and Carthage include a book as canonical that Trent later passed over in silence. So, if Keating has these councils in mind, why is it these local councils were binding on decreeing the canon, while just a few paragraphs earlier, Keating explains local councils aren't binding on the church for all time?

I'll go the extra mile for Keating like he did for Boettner. Maybe Keating has the Council of Rome with Pope Damasus in mind. A few years back I read the following from a Roman Catholic blogger:

"It was at the Council of Rome in 382 that St. Pope Damasus decreed the final canon of Scripture. Often, it is said that the Council of Trent codified the canon of Scripture after the reformation, but the evidence points to this early council as the when the canon was finalized. The Council of Trent reiterated the canon in a response to the reformer's revision of the historic canon" [source].

The canon as allegedly defined by Damasus includes the apocryphal books, so it's important for Roman Catholics that the statement from this early Pope be used as historical proof for the Bible they claim their church has infallibly defined. Upon closer scrutiny, the distinct position held by the Roman Catholic writer above on the canon is not consistent, nor does the historical record provide any certainty for the beliefs espoused above. The historical record is important in Roman Catholicism, because the claim made by the current batch of Roman Catholic apologists is that Rome provides certainty.

Roman Catholics are supposed to believe conciliar statements which bind all Christians are those put forth by ecumenical councils. The Catholic Encyclopedia points out: "Ecumenical councils are those to which the bishops, and others entitled to vote, are convoked from the whole world under the presidency of the pope or his legates, and the decrees of which, having received papal confirmation, bind all Christians." Was the Council of Rome an ecumenical council? No it was not. It was a local council. Were the decrees issues by this council then infallible binding pronouncements for the universal church? No. The Catholic Encyclopedia states also, "only the decisions of ecumenical councils and the ex cathedra teaching of the pope have been treated as strictly definitive in the canonical sense, and the function of the magisterium ordinarium has been concerned with the effective promulgation and maintenance of what has been formally defined by the magisterium solemne or may be legitimately deduced from its definitions." So, in terms of the Council of Rome being a binding council for all, it was not. Here we find that whatever was said at the Council of Rome cannot bind all Christians. Whatever was said at the Council of Rome can provide no certainty for a Roman Catholic. Hence, it cannot be true, in a consistent Roman Catholic paradigm, that the Council of Rome infallibly decreed the final Canon.

But the Pope was at the Council of Rome, was he not? Doesn't this mean what he said at this local council binds the universal church? In the decree on the Canon, Damasus is reported as saying:

"The holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Here we can infer that the statement on the canon issued by Damasus is infallible because the Roman Church and Pope speak infallibly. But here is a rarely cited fact by the defenders of Rome. The statement above, and indeed, the entire statement from Damasus listing the canonical books, probably didn't come from Damasus. F.F. Bruce notes,

"What is commonly called the Gelasian decree on books which are to be received and not received takes its name from Pope Gelasius (492-496). It gives a list of biblical books as they appeared in the Vulgate, with the Apocrypha interspersed among the others. In some manuscripts, indeed, it is attributed to Pope Damasus, as though it had been promulgated by him at the Council of Rome in 382. But actually it appears to have been a private compilation drawn up somewhere in Italy in the early sixth century" [F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1988), p. 97).

So this statement from Damasus didn't actually come from Damasus. In fact, as far as I know, there isn't a written formal record of the proceedings at the Council of Rome to have certainty exactly what was said or decreed. Much historical speculation then surrounds the decree of the canon by Damasus. The bottom line though, is that Roman Catholics cannot have any certainty on the accuracy of this statement. Of course, they are free to believe it, but they do so on faith, not on historical verification. Thus to be deep in history, is not to be certain that the Roman Catholic Church infallibly defined the Canon in 382.

To make it even a bit more complicated, Tim Staples (who works for Karl Keating as a staff apologist for Catholic Answers) says the canon was dogmatically closed in 1442. Here's a quick mp3 clip from Dr. White on the Bible Answer Man show with Catholic apologist Tim Staples:

Tim Staples Dogmatically Closes the Canon

Staples dogmatically closes the canon in 1442, while Dr. White says Rome closed it in 1546. Anyone interested in this entire discussion can purchase the mp3 here for a few bucks.

Ah, what a tangled web they weave.

Update on the New York Catechism as Cited by Boettner

A few months back I posted a blog entry on Lorraine Boettner's use of the New York Catechism in his book on Roman Catholicism. This book came under scrutiny in an entire section of Karl Keating's book Catholicism and Fundamentalism. On page 127 of Roman Catholicism Boettner states,

The New York Catechism says:
"The Pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth.... By divine right, the Pope has supreme and full power in faith and morals over each and every pastor and his flock. He is the true Vicar of Christ, the Head of the entire Church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils, the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one, God Himself on earth."

This quote has been scrutinized, and some have even wondered if Boettner made it up. A Catholic Answers participant though claims to have the New York Catechism:

I didn't realize people were looking for this. I have it. It's called "Catholic Catechism" published in New York by Pietro Cardinal Gasparri. There is a good deal of liberty taken in the so-called quotations, but it is a compilation of statements and phrases scattered from pages 97 onward, including the footnotes.

Several statements come from page 98:

"head of the church"
"Christ on earth"
"power by divine right"
"full power in faith and morals"
"over each and every pastor in his flock" etc...etc...

I'll type some of this out for all of you:

Page 98
(129) Why is the Roman Pontiff called the visible head of the Church and the Vicar of Christ on earth?
The Roman Pontiff is called the visible head of the Church and the Vicar of Christ on earth because, since a visible society needs a visible head, Jesus Christ made Peter, and each successor of his, to the end of the world, the visible head and the vicegerent of His own power.

(130) What power, then, has the Roman Pontiff over the Church?
By divine right the Roman Pontiff has over the Church a primacy not only of honour but of jurisdiction, and this both in things concerning faith and morals and in discipline and government.

(131) What kind of power has the Roman Pontiff?
The Roman Pontiff has supreme, full, ordinary, and immediate power both over each and every Church, and over each and every Pastor and his flock.

(132) Who are the lawful successors of the Apostles?
The lawful successors of the Apostles are, by divine institution, the Bishops; they are set over particular churches by the Roman Pontiff, and govern them by their own proper power under his authority.

(133) What, then, is the Church founded by Jesus Christ?
The Church founded by Jesus Christ is the visible society of people who are baptized, and who joined together by professing the same faith and by a mutual fellowship strive to attain the same spiritual end under the guiding authority of the Roman Pontiff and of the Bishops in communion with him.

The phrase "Teacher of all Christians", as well as the essence of "infallible ruler", "author and judge of councils" is on page 103. The "founder of dogma" comes from page 107.

Page 102
(145) Whose peculiar function is it to pronounce a solemn judgment of this kind?
To pronounce a solemn judgment of this kind is the peculiar function of the Roman Pontiff, and of the Bishops together with the Roman Pontiff, especially when assembled in an OEcumenical Council.

Page 103
(146) What is an OEcumenical Council?
An OEcumenical or General Council is an assembly of the Bishops of the entire Catholic Church called together by the Roman Pontiff; over such an assembly he himself presides either personally or by his legates, and it belongs to him authoritatively to confirm the Deacons of such a Council

(147) When does the Roman Pontiff exercise his prerogative of personal infallibility?
The Roman Pontiff exercises his prerogative of personal infallibility when he speaks ex cathedra -- that is, when, in the exercise of his office as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.

Page 105
(154) What does the power of jurisdiction in the Church mean?
The power of jurisdiction in the church means that the Roman Pontiff in respect of the whole Church, and the Bishops in respect of their dioceses, have the power of governing -- that is, they have legislative, judicial, administrative and punitive power, whereby to secure the Church's attainment of the objects for which she was founded.

etc...etc...

Boettner doesn't get everything wrong in his book, but he presents enough problems that I would not recommend it. In this case, if this is the source, it appears he put forth a quote compiled from numerous pages. While the sentiment of the quote compiled by Boettner isn't wrong (that is, according to Romanism), he makes checking his sources troublesome.

Did Eusebius Say Peter was Bishop of Rome for 25 Years?

This is a follow up from my previous entry in which I noted Lorraine Boettner states the first (almost) helpful reference to Peter's twenty-five year episcopate as Bishop of Rome was found in Eusebius. Quoting William Cave, Boettner states:

"It cannot be denied that in St. Jerome's translation [of Eusebius] it is expressly said that he (Peter) continued twenty-five years as bishop in that city: but then it is as evident that this was his own addition, who probably set things down as the report went in his time, no such thing being found in the Greek copy of Eusebius." [Boettner, Roman Catholicism, p. 118]

One assumes the work being referred to is The Church History of Eusebius. In fact, Roman Catholic apologist Karl Keating in chastising Lorraine Boettner made this very error on page 30 of Catholicism and Fundamentalism. Rather, what is being referred to is The Chronicle. Jerome also translated The Chronicle of Eusebius in which it says, "Peter the Apostle founded the Church at Antioch, and there securing his (episcopal) throne, he sat (reigning as bishop) for 25 years." What Jerome translated was the Chronological Tables, a section of The Chronicle, but often the two names are used inter-changeably.

There are two ancient translations of The Chronicle: Jerome's Latin translation of The Chronicle and an Armenian translation of The Chronicle. This pro-Roman Catholic text admits it is indeed true that the earliest Greek manuscript of The Chronicle do not include the text that Peter was Bishop of Rome for twenty-five years. The text though points out that the early Armenian version (Fifth Century) of Eusebius states, "The Apostle Peter, having first founded the Church at Antioch, goes to the city of the Romans, and there preaches the Gospel, and remains Bishop of the Church there twenty years."

The obvious difference is this Armenian version says it was only twenty years, not twenty-five. This link (and this link) show the differences between Jerome and the Armenian text (the Armenian differences are noted in green). It's not just the twenty years sentence, there are a variety of differences in almost every sentence. I'm not certain this Armenian text is really from a Fifth Century manuscript (based on information from this link).

Some scholars think the "twenty years" is a copyist error. Some maintain Jerome didn't doctor his translation or insert anything. Others are more skeptical, noting there are a variety of time periods in which Peter is purported to have stayed in Rome. the early church fathers are far from unanimous on Peter's twenty-five year stay in Rome:

We read in the Chronicle of Eusebius, at the year 43, that Peter, after founding the Church of Antioch, was sent to Rome, where he preached the Gospel for twenty-five years, and was Bishop of that city. But this part of the Chronicle does not exist in the Greek, nor in the Armenian, and it is supposed to have been one of the additions made by Jerome. Eusebius does not say the same in any other part of his writings, though he mentions St. Peter's going to Rome in the reign of Claudius: but Jerome tells us that he came in the second year of this emperor, and held the See twenty-five years. On the other hand, Origen, who is quoted by Eusebius himself, says that Peter went to Rome towards the end of his life: and Lactantius places it in the reign of Nero, and adds that he suffered martyrdom not long after. Thus the testimony of the Fathers is at least divided, if it does not expressly disprove his long residence in Rome. Eusebius, indeed, says in his history, as observed already, that Peter went to Rome in the reign of Claudius: but this very passage, if read with attention, seems to imply that he did not stay there long. The Acts of the Apostles also make it impossible that he should have resided there during the eighteen first years after the Resurrection, whereas the second year of Claudius (which is the time mentioned by Jerome for his going to Rome)ffalls in with the ninth year after the Resurrection, or A. D. 42. The history contained in the Acts may perhaps allow him to have gone to Rome some time in the reign of Claudius, but his visit must have been a short one: if we follow Eusebius, it must have been before the events recorded in the 18th chapter of the Acts [source].

The Biblical evidence doesn't help prove Peter's twenty-five years in Rome either.

As far as Lorraine Boettner is concerned, it's possible he and Cave were right that the "twenty-five years" comment wasn't in the original Greek, as various current editions place the sentence in a footnote. It's also possible the Armenian version proves something like it may have been part of the original. If Boettner is guilty of anything on this point, it's not mentioning the argumentation surrounding the comparison of the Armenian version to the extant Greek evidence. One thing he's not guilty of though is pointing out that the earliest reference found in Eusebius about Peter's twenty-five years in Rome isn't a solid historical fact.

Keating vs. Boettner #1

I'm not the biggest fan of Lorraine Boettner's book Roman Catholicism, but I'm even less of a fan of Karl Keating's Catholicism and Fundamentalism. Here's a look at one of the first major errors from Boettner's book that Keating reviews:

Karl Keating
There is no indication that [Boettner] has made use of any hardheaded apologetic works by Catholics or that he has tested his arguments against a knowledgeable opponent before reducing them to print. His major sources are people who do not just disagree with Catholicism but who openly oppose it, often for what the reader suspects to be base motives. Boettner accepts at face value any claim made by an enemy of the Church. Even when verification of a charge is easy, he does not bother to check up. If he finds something unflattering, he prints it.

Take as an example his reliance on William Cave, chaplain to King Charles II, who wrote in The Lives of the Apostles that in the Greek original of Eusebius Pamphilius' Ecclesiastical History, completed about 325, there is no reference to Peter being Bishop of Rome. Boettner accepts this as sufficient proof that the apostle was never in the capital of the Empire, a fact he wishes to use in debunking the papacy. He could have checked Cave's assertion easily. Had he looked at the two-volume edition of the Ecclesiastical History in the Loeb Classical Library, he would have found on pages 144 and 190 of volume one and page 48 of volume two just what Cave said was not there. [Keating, Catholcism and Fundamentalism, p. 30]

For Keating, Boettner is wrong when he claims Peter was never Bishop of Rome. Keating says Boettner arrived at his faulty conclusion because he relied on William Cave's The Lives of the Apostles. Cave is supposed to have stated that in Eusebius there is no mention of Peter being Bishop of Rome. Keating then proves Eusebius does indeed say Peter was Bishop of Rome. Therefore, the source Boettner used was accepted at face value. Conclusion: Boettner didn't check his facts. Boettner relied on William Cave when he actually should have read Eusebius.

William Cave
Let's take a look at what William Cave said, the source which Keating says Boettner used to arrive at his conclusion Peter was not the Bishop of Rome:

VI. That which caused Baronius to split upon so many rocks, was not so much want of seeing them, which a man of his parts and industry could not but in a great measure see, as the unhappy necessity of defending those unsound principles which he had undertaken to maintain. For being to make good Peter's five and twenty years presidency over the church of Rome, he was forced to confound times, and dislocate stories, that he might bring all his ends together. What foundation this story of Peter's being five and twenty years bishop of Rome has in antiquity, I find not, unless it sprang from hence, that Eusebius places Peter's coming to Rome in the second year of Claudius, and his martyrdom in the fourteenth of Nero, between which there is the just space of five and twenty years. Whence those that came after concluded, that he sat bishop there all that time. It cannot be denied, but that in St. Jerome's translation it is expressly said, that he continued five and twenty years bishop of that city; but then it is as evident, that this was his own addition, who probably set things down as the report went in his time, no such thing being to be found in the Greek copy of Eusebius." Nor, indeed, does he ever there or elsewhere positively affirm St. Peter to have been bishop of Rome, but only that he preached the gospel there; and expressly affirms," that he and St. Paul being dead, Linus was the first bishop of Rome. To which I may add, that when the ancients speak of the bishops of Rome, and the first originals of that church, they equally attribute the founding and the episcopacy and government of it to Peter and Paul, making the one as much concerned in it as the other.

Keating is correct that William Cave denies Eusebius refers to Peter to be the Bishop of Rome.

Cave notes that Peter's twenty-five year episcopate as bishop of Rome was not original to Eusebius, and he then goes on to state that within Eusebius there is no positive evidence Peter was Bishop of Rome, and that actually, Linus was the first Bishop of Rome.

This is disputable, because in V.28.3 speaks of Victor being "the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter." V.6.1 notes "the blessed apostles having founded and established the church entrusted the office of the episcopate to Linus." III.2. says "After the martyrdom of Paul and Peter, Linus was the first to obtain the episcopate of the church of Rome."

Lorraine Boettner
Now, compare this to what Boettner actually stated. Boettner notes on page 117 that there isn't any New Testament evidence that Peter was the bishop of Rome. He then says on page 118:

We know nothing at all about the origins of Christianity in Rome. This is acknowledged even by some Roman Catholic historians. It was already a flourishing church when Paul wrote his letter to the Romans in 58 A. D. Quite possibly it had been founded by some of those who were present in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost and heard Peter's great sermon when some 3000 were converted, for Luke says that in that audience were "sojourners from Rome, both Jews and proselytes" (Acts 2:10). In any event there is nothing but unfounded tradition to support the claim that Peter founded the church in Rome and that he was its bishop for 25 years. The fact is that the apostles did not settle in one place as did the diocesan bishops of much later date, so that it is quite incorrect to speak of Rome as the "See of Peter," or to speak of the popes occupying "the chair" of St. Peter.

Legend was early busy with the life of Peter. The one which tells of his twenty-five years' episcopate in Rome has its roots in the apocryphal stories originating with a heretical group, the Ebionites, who rejected much of the supernatural content of the New Testament, and the account is discredited both by its origin and by its internal inconsistencies. The first reference that might be given any credence at all is found in the writings of Eusebius, and that reference is doubted even by some Roman Catholic writers. Eusebius wrote in Greek about the year 310, and his work was translated by Jerome. A seventeenth century historian, William Cave (1637-1713), chaplain to King Charles II, of England, in his most important work, The Lives of the Apostles, says:

"It cannot be denied that in St. Jerome's translation it is expressly said that he (Peter) continued twenty-five years as bishop in that city: but then it is as evident that this was his own addition, who probably set things down as the report went in his time, no such thing being found in the Greek copy of Eusebius." [Boettner, Roman Catholicism, p. 118]

Conclusion
Boettner's point is that the earliest reference to Peter's twenty-five year episcopate is probably spurious, and that's the information he took from William Cave. Keating though says Boettner used the work of Cave to arrive at the conclusion that Peter was never Bishop of Rome. Keating is correct that William Cave held that in Eusebius there is no reference to Peter being Bishop of Rome. Keating is wrong though that Boettner arrived at this conclusion from reading Cave. It may in fact be true, but Boettner doesn't say he relied on Cave. The only fact Boettner took from Cave is the alleged spurious nature of Jerome's translation of Eusebius and Peter's twenty-five year episcopate.

Keating also refers to the "Greek original of Eusebius Pamphilius' Ecclesiastical History" as that text which concerns Boettner and Cave. Rather, the text in question is The Chronicle of Eusebius. Keating's exhortation therefore to "look at the two-volume edition of the Ecclesiastical History in the Loeb Classical Library" is incorrect.

Conclusion: Keating misrepresented Boettner on page 30 of Catholicism and Fundamentalism. Although I don't make use of Boettner, nonetheless Keating has misrepresented Boetner on this point. Even when verification of a charge is easy, he does not bother to check up. If he finds something unflattering, he prints it.

A Lorraine Boettner Mystery: The New York Catechism

Reformed theologian Lorraine Boettner wrote a number of books throughout his life. I have a few of them (I've found some of his work helpful). Anyone though who tries to dig a little deeper into his books though usually ends up on quite a journey. I recall trying to track down some of his Luther citations in The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. What I thought would take five minutes ended up taking a few hours.

Every so often someone will ask me what I think about Boettner's work, Roman Catholicism. Boettner doesn't get everything wrong in his book, but he presents enough problems that I would not recommend it. His book came under scrutiny in an entire section of Karl Keating's book Catholicism and fundamentalism. Boettner's method of citation can be troubling. Recently someone asked about a quote from page 127 of Roman Catholicism:

The New York Catechism says:
"The Pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth.... By divine right, the Pope has supreme and full power in faith and morals over each and every pastor and his flock. He is the true Vicar of Christ, the Head of the entire Church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils, the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one, God Himself on earth."

The mystery of this quote isn't the quote itself. As radical as the content of the quote may seem, I've seen various things written by Roman Catholics expressing this type of sentiment. Take for instance this quote from Prierias. The mystery is rather the New York Catechism. This website claims this source to be its "most wanted book."

The Catholic Answers participants likewise joined the hunt for this source a few years back. They produced a few clues, including: Gasparri, Peter Cardinal, The Catholic Catechism. Part Three (New York, New York P. J. Kenedy & Sons) 1932. They've also noted this source describing a "New York Catechism"- but it appears to be an Episcopal document.

This link lists a number of early catechisms. A few of the Catholic Answers folks think Boettner simply made up the quote and source. I don't think he was that unscrupulous- particularly when you scroll through this link and note the amount of possibilities it could be. Google books produced a few hits including this one: The Small New York Catechism, as well as this one.

Keating on Canon Certainty From Local Church Councils

Here's an interesting tidbit from Karl Keating's book Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Fransisco: Ignatius Press, 1988). Chapter two is dedicated to exposing the errors of Lorraine Boettner's book on Roman Catholicism.

Keating documents Boettner's error of attributing the forbidding of the Bible to laymen by the Council of Valencia in 1229. Keating points out this is historically inaccurate. It would be impossible for a council to have occurred at this location at this period in history. Keating does though go the extra mile: he suggests a council which may actually be the source for Boettner's claim.

Keating notes a council was held in Toulouse France in 1229. Keating specifically notes it was not an ecumenical council (p.45). He then goes on to describe the situation which prompted this council to restrict the use of the Bible. He notes, "Their action was a local one" and it "is hardly the across-the-board prohibition of the Bible" Boettner mentioned (pp. 45-46). Problem solved: Boettner confused a local decree with an ecumenical decree binding on the church for all ages. Case closed.

But not so fast... If one skips a bit further down page 46, one finds Mr. Keating correcting Boettner's position that the Roman church added the apocrypha to the Bible in 1546. Keating states,

The fact is that the Council of Trent did not add to the Bible what Protestants call the apocryphal books. Instead, the Reformers dropped from the Bible books that had been in common use for centuries. The Council of Trent convened to reaffirm Catholic doctrines and to revitalize the Church, proclaimed that these books always had belonged to the Bible and had to remain in it. After all, it was the Catholic Church, in the fourth century, that officially decided which books composed the canon of the Bible and which did not. The Council of Trent came on the scene about twelve centuries later and merely restated the ancient position (pp. 46-47).

Keating states "it was the Catholic Church, in the fourth century, that officially decided which books composed the canon of the Bible and which did not." Now if Keating is referring to the councils of Hippo and Carthage, they were provincial councils which did not have ecumenical authority. Neither is the Council of Rome with Pope Damasus helpful. So why is it these local Councils were binding on decreeing the canon, while just a few paragraphs earlier, Keating explains local councils aren't binding on the church for all time?

To make it even a bit more complicated, Tim Staples (who works for Karl Keating as a staff apologist for Catholic Answers) says the canon was dogmatically closed in 1442. Ah, what a tangled web they weave.

Luther on Reprobation: "This mightily offends our rational nature"

From the Beggars All mailbox:

James, I am reading Loraine Boettner's book, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. The section on "the doctrine of reprobation" is interesting in regard to the emotional resistance to the doctrine of election. He states a quote from Luther saying, "This mightily offends our rational nature". But I don't understand the book source of the quote: In Praefat, and Epist. ad Rom., quoted by Zanchius, Predestination, p. 92. I tried asking others in the chat room, they sent me to you...

One of the weaknesses of Boettner's book is his method of citation. While his book on Predestination is doctrinally sound, his scholarly methods are less than adequate. This isn't such a problem with this text, but becomes a real challenge with his book on Roman Catholicism.

Only the last quote in the paragraph on page 106 in Boettner's book refers to the citation. That is, all the previous Luther quotes on the page do not refer to the citation offered by Boettner. Boettner is quoting Luther via Jerome Zanchius's (1516-1590) book Absolute Predestination, chapter 2. Zanchius is quoting Luther's preface to Romans (one of his most famous writings), but for only this part:

"Luther observes that in Rom. ix., x. and xi. the apostle particularly insists on the doctrine of predestination, "Because," says he, "all things whatever arise from and depend upon the Divine appointment, whereby it was preordained who should receive the word of life and who should disbelieve it, who should he delivered from their sins and who should be hardened in them, who should be justified and who condemned."

As to the quote you want, Boettner is probably still quoting Luther via Zanchius, see this link. The primary source for the quote is Luther's Bondage of the Will, and the quotes come from different sections as well. Here is probably the section you are looking for, from an older translation of Bondage of the Will . If you have the Packer/Johnston translation this section begins on page 218.

Sect. 94.—BUT it is this, that seems to give the greatest offence to common sense or natural reason,—that the God, who is set forth as being so full of mercy and goodness, should, of His mere will, leave men, harden them, and damn them, as though He delighted in the sins, and in the great and eternal torments of the miserable. To think thus of God, seems iniquitous, cruel, intolerable; and it is this that has given offence to so many and great men of so many ages.

And who would not be offended? I myself have been offended more than once, even unto the deepest abyss of desperation; nay, so far, as even to wish that I had never been born a man; that is, before I was brought to know how healthful that desperation was, and how near it was unto grace. Here it is, that there has been so much toiling and labouring, to excuse the goodness of God, and to accuse the will of man. Here it is, that distinctions have been invented between the ordinary will of God and the absolute will of God: between the necessity of the consequence, and the necessity of the thing consequent: and many other inventions of the same kind. By which, nothing has ever been effected but an imposition upon the un-learned, by vanities of words, and by "oppositions of science falsely so called." For after all, a conscious conviction has been left deeply rooted in the heart both of the learned and the unlearned, if ever they have come to an experience of these things; and a knowledge, that our necessity, is a consequence that must follow upon the belief of the prescience and Omnipotence of God.

And even natural Reason herself, who is so offended at this necessity, and who invents so many contrivances to take it out of the way, is compelled to grant it upon her own conviction from her own judgment, even though there were no Scripture at all. For all men find these sentiments written in their hearts, and they acknowledge and approve them (though against their will) whenever they hear them treated on.—First, that God is Omnipotent, not only in power but in action (as I said before): and that, if it were not so, He would be a ridiculous God.—And next, that He knows and foreknows all things, and neither can err nor be deceived. These two points then being granted by the hearts and minds of all, they are at once compelled, from an inevitable consequence, to admit,—that we are not made from our own will, but from necessity: and moreover, that we do not what we will according to the law of "Free-will," but as God foreknew and proceeds in action, according to His infallible and immutable counsel and power. Wherefore, it is found written alike in the hearts of all men, that there is no such thing as "Free-will"; though that writing be obscured by so many contending disputations, and by the great authority of so many men who have, through so many ages, taught otherwise. Even as every other law also, which, according to the testimony of Paul, is written in our hearts, is then acknowledged when it is rightly set forth, and then obscured, when it is confused by wicked teachers, and drawn aside by other opinions.

Sect. 95.—I NOW return to Paul. If he does not, Rom. ix., explain this point, nor clearly state our necessity from the prescience and will of God; what need was there for him to introduce the similitude of the "potter," who, of the "same lump" of clay, makes "one vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour?" (Rom. ix. 21). What need was there for him to observe, that the thing formed does not say to him that formed it, "Why hast thou made me thus?" (20). He is there speaking of men; and he compares them to clay, and God to a potter. This similitude, therefore, stands coldly useless, nay, is introduced ridiculously and in vain, if it be not his sentiment, that we have no liberty whatever. Nay, the whole of the argument of Paul, wherein he defends grace, is in vain. For the design of the whole epistle is to shew, that we can do nothing, even when we seem to do well; as he in the same epistle testifies, where he says, that Israel which followed after righteousness, did not attain unto righteousness; but that the Gentiles which followed not after it did attain unto it. (Rom. ix. 30-31). Concerning which I shall speak more at large hereafter, when I produce my forces.

The fact is, the Diatribe designedly keeps back the body of Paul's argument and its scope, and comfortably satisfies itself with prating upon a few detached and corrupted terms. Nor does the exhortation which Paul afterwards gives, Rom. xi., at all help the Diatribe; where he saith, "Thou standest by faith, be not high-minded;" (20), again, "and they also, if they shall believe, shall be grafted in, &c. (23);" for he says nothing there about the ability of man, but brings forth imperative and conditional expressions; and what effect they are intended to produce, has been fully shewn already. Moreover, Paul, there anticipating the boasters of "Free-will," does not say, they can believe, but he saith, "God is able to graft them in again.." (23).To be brief: The Diatribe moves along with so much hesitation, and so lingeringly, in handling these passages of Paul, that its conscience seems to give the lie to all that it writes. For just at the point where it ought to have gone on to the proof, it for the most part, stops short with a 'But of this enough;' 'But I shall not now proceed with this;' 'But this is not my present purpose;' 'But here they should have said so and so;' and many evasions of the same kind; and it leaves off the subject just in the middle; so that, you are left in uncertainty whether it wished to be understood as speaking on "Free-will," or whether it was only evading the sense of Paul by means of vanities of words. And all this is being just in its character, as not having a serious thought upon the cause in which it is engaged. But as for me I dare not be thus cold, thus always on the tip-toe of policy, or thus move to and fro as a reed shaken with the wind. I must assert with certainty, with constancy, and with ardour; and prove what I assert solidly, appropriately, and fully.