Thomas Cranmer on Martin Luther: "It is he who is insane!... oh, the arrogance of a most wicked man!"

Rome's defenders fail again to go deep into history. In a recent video attack against Martin Luther, a defender of Rome argues Martin Luther was a "delusional narcissist," and even the allies of Luther thought so. The proof presented comes in the form of harsh comment made by Protestant Reformer Thomas Cranmer. Rome's defender states,

That basically everybody besides Luther was either stupid or ignorant or evil. And they often don’t realize that this view of the world comes largely from Martin Luther himself, who is by all appearances from his own writings, something of a delusional narcissist. Now, look, that’s a big claim. So let me back it up. By even appealing to his allies, even people like Thomas Cranmer who would go on to lead the Church of England, into schism from the Catholic Church, Cranmer responded upon reading Martin Luther’s writings, "Luther Wantonly attacks and raves against the pontiff..." That’s the Pope. "He accuses a whole counsel of madness; It is he who is insane!... oh, the arrogance of a most wicked man!" And so it wasn’t just that Luther thought that the pope was the antichrist or that he lightly dismissed, ecumenical counsel is that throughout so many of his writings, we come away with this idea that he thinks everyone besides him is evil and wrong."

The quote from Thomas Cranmer caught my attention because the screen shot of the text used in the video goes on to say, "Yet thirty-three years later, this man went through the martyr’s flames for his Protestant faith, embracing Luther’s doctrine of justification by faith alone. The man was Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556)." This sentence, though presented in the video screenshot at around 8:07, was not mentioned by the narrating defender of Rome. This provoked my curiosity: how it that fellow Reformer Thomas Cranmer thought Luther was "insane" and "wicked" and later was burned at the stake for believing the same thing Luther did? Why would another Reformer be against negative statements about the authority of the popes and councils? Something doesn't add up. 

I'll demonstrate below that Thomas Cranmer wasn't "reading Martin Luther’s writings" when he made these comments, nor was he Luther's ally. Once again, Rome's defenders are playing fast and loose with the facts of church history!

Documentation
Given that material presented comes from a video meant to provoke "hits" and "likes," I fully realize that documentation suffers in visual presentations like these. Fortunately, from the screen shot presented, it looks like this is the webpage being utilized: The Legacy of Thomas Cranmer. The webpage is actually an edited version of this article: Factitive or Forensic? Thomas Cranmer and the Doctrine of Justification. 

From this article we find the source for the quote: Diarmaid MacCulloch, Thomas Cranmer (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1996), 27. It is in this book we discover the quote from Cranmer comes from a comment he scribbled in the margin of a book: John Fisher's Assertionis Lutheraneae Confutatio (1523). This book is an attack on Luther written by a Roman Catholic (not a book from Luther!). According to the analysis of Diarmaid MacCulloch, there is not a precise dating of Cranmer's marginal notes. Obviously they cannot be earlier than 1523, but the author says they cannot be later than 1532. Says the author, "these are no emotional jottings of a youth, but the thoughts of a man who is at least thirty-four and more probably in his late thirties."

Conclusion

Lest someone think I explore bibliographic tedium for the sake of nitpicking, when these marginal notes were written is the key to explaining the Cranmer quote from the video. The dating explains why Cranmer was reading a Roman Catholic book against Luther and scribbled down that Luther was "insane" and "wicked" about popes and councils.  After mentioning these negative comments about Luther from Cranmer, Diarmaid MacCulloch writes, "So here is Cranmer, the papalist." The reason why Cranmer wrote so negatively about Luther was.. he was still a Roman Catholic when he wrote those words!

General historical inquiries will explain that Cranmer was originally critical of Luther and only later came to embrace distinctively Protestant doctrines. Rome's defender though completely neglected this important historical nuance in his video. Why? Only he can answer this question. The lesson to learn is ALWAYS look up the references Roman Catholic apologists use. 

Addendum #1

Here is the text from Diarmaid MacCulloch, Thomas Cranmer (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1996), 27. 

Addendum 2

This is a page showing a sampling of Cranmer's marginal notes found in John Fisher's Assertionis Lutheraneae Confutatio (1523).

Addendum 3

In case it gets deleted, I left a few comments under the YouTube video:

Roman Catholic Hostility Over Luther's View of Aristotle

I was sent a link to one of Rome's defenders using a less-than-typical angle of attack against Protestantism: Martin Luther's view of the philosopher Aristotle. As explained in this short You Tube video: Martin Luther's Narcissistic War on Philosophy, this Roman Catholic apologist claims Luther's view of this pagan philosopher serves as evidence of his mental instability. Allegedly nefarious proofs from Luther's writings denigrating Saint Aristotle (read: sarcasm) are presented in the video, coupled with the final coup de grâce: Luther's utter narcissism impacted his view of church history... Luther believed everyone before him was wrong on everything, and only he was right. The same revered Reformer that was deluded about Aristotle was also deluded about the church of his day. If you're a Protestant, you're in a tradition that was begun by a delusional narcissist. 

 I've broken the complaints from the video down into four broad groupings:

1. Luther Despised Aristotle, Philosophy, and Logic: "Luther had a long-standing hatred of Aristotle as early as 1517." Luther went as far as saying that a man cannot become a theologian unless he ignores Aristotle. Luther referred to Aristotle as a "damned conceited rascally heathen whose false words have deluded and made fools of so many of the best Christians." Luther believed that "[C]ompared with the study of theology, the whole of Aristotle is as darkness is to light, as well as arguing that logic and syllogisms have no place when reasoning about God." Luther wrongly thinks "Christians have nothing to learn from Aristotle."

2.Luther Wanted to Ban Aristotle's Books:  Luther said many of Aristotle's best books should be banned from the university by the secular authorities, especially his Physics, Metaphysics, On the Soul, and Ethics. Particularly grievous is Luther's disdain for Aristotle's work on ethics because the recent scholarship of Brad Inwood from Yale has shown its profound significance on the history of the philosophy of ethics.  This is also substantiated by the online declarations of The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. They also have made statements of the importance of Aristotle to the philosophy of ethics. Contrary to Luther disdain, this defender of Rome claims "the works of Aristotle [on ethics] were and are massively important to Christians...".    

3. Luther Was a Narcissist:  Luther first said no one can understand Aristotle (which necessarily means Luther admitted even he himself cannot understand Aristotle). Contradictorily, Luther also claimed he understood Aristotle better than anyone else, including Saint Thomas Aquinas. With this assertion, Luther had made an "implausible claim" about how well he knew Aristotle. "[H]e thought of himself as the greatest expert on Aristotle who ever lived." This is disproved by a scholar named Ralph McInerny and also the use of ChatGPT. They both deemed Thomas Aquinas to be "the greatest Aristotelian in the history of at least Western philosophy." Luther, is therefore in error in regard to his abilities, and qualifies as "a delusional narcissist."  This is also proved by a Protestant source: Thomas Cranmer. This contemporary of Luther's thought he was "insane" and "wicked."

4. Luther Did Not Follow Ancient Christian Doctrine: Beside Luther claiming Aristotle was in error, Luther also thought everyone in Church History before him was in error, "...including Augustine and Ambrose and the great Christians of old." Luther also thought "everyone besides him is evil and wrong."  Luther compared himself to Noah against the world; "[Luther] sees the Christian Church for the 1500 years preceding him as if it were the same as the wicked and godless men of Noah’s day." "So if you’re a Protestant and you believe that you’re practicing the original real form of Christianity, this should absolutely give you pause. The first Protestant reformer knows he’s breaking away from the early Christian religion, and he’s fine with that."

These are only a sampling of the charges presented, but I think they capture the gist of this particular video. Sincere kudos to this defender of Rome for putting so much content into a short video and communicating it in a clever and well executed manner! As a point of general criticism though, I think the video suffers from painting with too broad a brush. The issues raised could (and have) filled entire books. Hopefully, this response will likewise paint with a broad brush in a clever and well executed manner.  Let's first take a look at the documentation used and then provide a response to the charges. 

Documentation

Three primary sources of Luther evidence are offered in the video. Based on screen shots of book pages, the first appears to be James Atkinson (ed.), Luther: Early Theological Works (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962), 269-270 (Disputation against Scholastic Theology, 1517). The second appears to be The Works of Martin Luther vol. 2 (Philadelphia: The Muhlenberg Press, 1943), 146-147 (An Open Letter to the Christian Nobility, 1520). The third appears to be John Nicholas Lenker (Trans.) Martin Luther's Commentary on Genesis vol. 2 (Minneapolis: The Luther Press, 1910), 182. Oddly, these writings are also contained in the standard contemporary English source: Luther's Works (Concordia Publishing House) with superior translations, yet this apologist chose to utilize out-of-print sources. For someone seemingly well-versed in Luther's writings, these choices are suspicious to me. I've found in the past that when old primary sources are heavily relied upon, there's a hidden secondary source the quotes were taken from. As my cursory searches though came up empty, I'll assume these out-of-print references are solely from the investigation of this Roman Catholic apologist, and for whatever unknow reason, the most current English editions of Luther's writings were not utilized.

Analysis of the Charges

  

1. Luther hated Aristotle: This defender of Rome says Luther "curses Aristotle as a damned conceited, rascally heathen, whose false words have diluted and made fools of so many of the best Christians. He even goes so far as to say that God has sent him as a plague upon us for our sins." Yes, it's true, Luther did insult Aristotle in this context using these words. Did he curse him? Not necessarily. If it's true Aristotle was a pagan outside of the Christian faith (which I believe he was), then he was indeed damned. It's never been hidden that Luther disapproved of Aristotle, but it wasn't a crude disapproval devoid of reason. Luther's disdain was provoked by the upper educational systems in place during the period in which he lived. In the universities which produced Christian theologians, Aristotle was heavily utilized in theology. The editors of Luther's Works point out Luther was not alone in chastising the heavy use of Aristotle: "Scholars other than Luther were and had been against the Aristotelian domination in the medieval universities, e.g., Roger Bacon and Erasmus" (LW 44:200, fn. 211).  Luther actually provided an example to substantiate his disdain for Aristotle in An Open Letter to the Christian Nobility (ironically included in the zooming screen shot in the video at 1:42 but not mentioned):

Why, this wretched man, in his best book, On the Soul, teaches that the soul dies with the body, although many have tried with vain words to save his reputation. As though we had not the Holy Scriptures, in which we are abundantly instructed about all things, and of them Aristotle had not the faintest inkling! And yet this dead heathen has conquered and obstructed and almost suppressed the books of the living God, so that when I think of this miserable business I can believe nothing else than that the evil spirit has introduced the study of Aristotle.  (Works of Martin Luther, 146-147).

The editors of Luther's Works also point out that in Aristotle's ethics, a person becomes good by doing good (LW 44:200, fn. 211). Such is fundamentally antithetical to the Gospel... in essence... darkness. It's here where we discover why Luther had such disdain for Aristotle's ethics.  In An Open Letter to the Christian Nobility, Luther chastises Aristotle: "Again, his book on Ethics is the worst of all books. It flatly opposes divine grace and all Christian virtues, and yet it is considered one of his best works. Away with such books!" (Works of Martin Luther, 47). For Luther, mixing Aristotle in to explain grace was tantamount to pouring poison into Christian theology. 

2. Luther Wanted to Ban Aristotle's Books: Yes, Luther does ask the Christian Nobility to ban Aristotle's books, but that banning is specific to "the universities" (LW 44:199). But, even more egregious, the defender of Rome selectively cited An Open Letter to the Christian Nobility. At 4:23 in the video, page 147 from this treatise is shown, but it neglects to show the text that reads, "I should be glad to see Aristotle's books on Logic, Rhetoric and Poetics retained or used in an abridged form; as textbooks for the profitable training of young people in speaking and preaching." In fact, Melanchthon was tasked with placing Aristotle in the curriculum in the territories of Lutheran reform, and this was done during Luther's lifetime.

3. Luther Was a Narcissist:  In regard to Luther's mental capabilities in understanding Aristotle, the type of argument presented in the video is a version of, "My dad is smarter than your dad." Aquinas is put forth as the Grand Master of Aristotle, Luther is presented as a boisterous narcissistic madman claiming he understood Aristotle better than Thomas Aquinas. I take a different position: Luther probably did speak bombastically in regard to his expertise in Aristotle, but it does not necessarily follow that he was "a delusional narcissist." He actually did show a knowledgeable and meaningful understanding of Aristotle. See for instance, Theodor Dieter, Der junge Luther und Aristoteles. Eine historisch-systematische Untersuchung zum Verhältnis von Theologie und Philosophie (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2001). A helpful English review of this book was put together by a Roman Catholic scholar: Jared Wicks, Luther and "This Damned, Conceited, Rascally Heathen" Aristotle: An Encounter More Complicated Than Many Think. As these authors demonstrate, Luther's understanding of Aristotle is a complicated and layered subject. Using one of the same methods of determining truth as presented in the video, The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy actually includes an entire section on Luther and Aristotle, and their discussion does not conclude "Luther was a narcissist." Rather, theirs is a meaningful exploration. They state, 

As with Luther’s critique of reason, however, some of his more notoriously negative judgements—such as his claim in the Disputation Against Scholastic Theology that "the whole Aristotle is to theology as darkness is to light” (1517, WA 1:226/LW 31:12)—need to be balanced against other more positive judgements, and set in context.

Why is it that they looked at the same subject and did not conclude Luther was delusional? I suspect it's because they actually explored the subject in depth rather than just spouting out their emotional opinion based on their presuppositions. The video never proves Luther was deficient in his understanding of Aristotle.  If it's true Luther was clueless about Aristotle, prove it, don't just say it. 

I will grant this concession: generally speaking, Thomas Aquinas is now considered the leading synthesizer of Aristotle into Christian theology. But I, like Luther, do not consider this a positive thing. It is a tragedy. The video states "the works of Aristotle [on ethics] were and are massively important to Christians..." Maybe they're "massively important" to Roman Catholicism, but they were not at all important to the human authors of the Old and New Testament or the Divine author, the Holy Spirit. Nor were they important to Christians previous to their reintroduction into literary history.  Many Christians lived and died without ever hearing about Aristotle. They experienced a full and robust faith.  Aristotle is therefore... not necessary to the Christian faith! If there were times in which his influence was absent and the Christian faith flourished, he's not "massively important." Roman Catholics often claim the early church proves their pedigree of authenticity. If this is so, then anything Aristotle wrote is not "massively important." He was not utilized in the early church. 

The video also seems to think that unless one embraces and incorporates Aristotelianism into Christianity, one is denying faith and reason working together, hence embracing irrationalism. If this defender of Rome thinks Luther completely denied the use of reason, this shows a deep ignorance of Luther's basic understanding. It is true Luther rejected the Thomistic scholastic dialectical method, but he did not deny the use of reason. He did teach that God had fashioned His human creatures so we could learn a great deal about Him through empirical ways of learning. Luther valued reason as the “handmaid” to theology. It must be the servant. It is not that Luther denigrated or did not understand the use of reason, it is simply that reason must be kept in its place, particularly in theological matters.    

4. Luther Did Not Follow Ancient Christian Doctrine: The fourth charge is a conclusion from the previous three. If one grants that Luther was a madman on his perspective of Aristotle, then he was also a madman in regard to the church history that preceded him. According to the video, Luther claimed only he was right and everyone else was wrong. This may be the most ridiculous aspect of the video. It demonstrates this defender of Rome may not have actually read Luther writings in a meaningful way. This is proved by picking up virtually any volume of Luther's writings. One will find him interacting, positively and negatively with those who came before him. Luther did not believe that everyone on everything before him was necessarily wrong or necessarily right. He did not jettison all the centuries of previous Christianity and create something new like Joseph Smith's Mormonism. There's also a severe irony at this juncture because there have been a countless number of Roman Catholic apologists claiming Luther did not reject Mary's perpetual virginity, Mary's bodily assumption, Mary's status as the Mother of God and Queen of Heaven, the real presence of Christ in the eucharist, baptismal regeneration, and many other distinctly Roman Catholic beliefs. It's pathetic that Rome's defenders will claim on the one hand that Luther jettisoned all of church history and tradition claiming he alone was right, and then on the other hand utilize Luther when he seemingly agrees with anything distinctive of Roman Catholicism.   

Nor did Luther think he was right and everyone else was wrong on everything... even in his own lifetime.  In An Open Letter to the Christian Nobility, Luther begins this treatise by asking a friend "to pass judgment on it, and if necessary, improve it" (62). A number of other similar examples could be provided, but one of the most revealing about Luther's opinion of his own writings can be found towards the end of his life. Luther, looked back over his work and spoke negatively of the desire his associates had to collect them and republish them.  He also said to use caution with his earlier writings because they contained error. These are hardly the words of a narcissist, thinking his words were the only correct and right words.

In regard to Luther comparing himself to Noah: The idea from the video is that Noah stood alone against the entire world. The world thought Noah was wrong, but Noah alone was the only one correct, and the world was destroyed. Similarly, Luther saw himself in the same way, standing against Papal authority and all of Christian tradition: "Luther saw himself as the new Noah, the lone righteous man in an evil world, come to save his followers." The video cites Luther's comments on Genesis 6, and from what the video portrays, one would expect opening up this context and finding Luther going on page after page expounding on his importance in God's divine plan for the world, like an apocalyptic cult leader. Rather though, all you'll find is this brief statement from the context: 

The wretched Papists press us today with this one argument: Do you believe that all the fathers have been in error, It seems hard so to believe, especially of the worthier ones, such as Augustine, Ambrose, Bernard and that whole throng of the best men who have governed Churches with the Word and have been adorned with the august name of the Church. The labors of such we both laud and admire.

That's odd... that someone portrayed as having such a deep narcissism would only mention himself in passing and spend the overwhelming majority of the time exegeting the Biblical text about Noah! Maybe it's because.... Luther was not a "delusional narcissist"??? He was not! Luther was a theologian and a biblical expositor, preaching and shepherding a congregation. Notice importantly in this brief snippet of context, Luther specifically uses the plural word "us." He does not say "I" or "me." The video would have its viewers believe the context is entirely Luther talking about himself as the sole correct interpreter of Christian truth. The video states, "Catholics were making those arguments to him asking Luther if he really believes that all the church fathers had been an error, including Augustine and Ambrose and the great Christians of old, and that only Luther himself is wise." Roman Catholics may have been making those arguments and Luther may have compared himself to Noah, but this context is not expounding on it in the detail explained in the video.  

This defender of Rome though has substantiated his interpretation of this particular context by an appeal to (non-Roman Catholic!) authorities: Michael Parsons and Eric Gritsch. It appears to me this apologist only accessed this article by Parsons which also mentions Gritsch. What I found fascinating is that Parsons appears to be expressing a minority opinion about Luther thinking he was Noah: 

It is interesting that several Luther scholars write on the subject of Luther’s apocalypticism, but only one directly mentions his interest in Noah within that context. Eric Gritsch says that, “Although Luther’s friends often thought of him as the reincarnated Elijah, Luther liked to see himself as Noah. Like Noah, he thought he stood alone against an ungrateful, licentious world . . . The world began to look to him like the world before the flood.”

So, of the survey of scholars done by Parsons, he came up with exactly one that held the view Luther considered himself a type of Noah! But what of that scholar? I looked the reference up to see what was said (Gritsch, “The Cultural Context of Luther’s Interpretation” 276.). I expected to find an in-depth detailed study exegetically proving Luther thought he was a type of Noah. Here is the extent of what Eric Gritsch says:

Although Luther's friends often thought of him as the reincarnated Elijah, Luther liked to see himself as Noah. Like Noah, he thought he stood alone against an ungrateful, licentious world, even though he was haunted by doubts, "Are you alone wise?" (Bist du allein klug?) (WA 42,300:25. LW 2,54). He even figured out that the chronological distance between Adam's death and Noah's birth was the same as between himself and John Hus — one hundred and twenty-six years (WA 53,40). The world began to look to him like the world before the flood. 

This is the extent of Gritsch's research presented in this article about this topic. True he does reference Luther's comments on Genesis 6 (WA 42,300:25. LW 2,54) but offers no meaningful exegesis. The reference to WA 53:40 in regard to a Noah- Hus - Luther parallel is found in a footnote, not the text proper. I think the text proper is actually a chart, not an exegetical treatise. The footnote does say, "126, annos... natum] ante natum Noha 126 mortuus, tanquam si loh. Hus ante Lutherum feurit 126," though I'm not sure how this note factors into the chart. If Luther saw himself as Noah in this chart, this would be a more interesting proof, but again it lacks a detailed explanation. I don't deny Luther may have paralleled his life to Noah, but it does not appear to me to be as narcissistic as the video expresses. The parallel would probably factor more into Luther's belief that the end of the world was imminent.   

Conclusion

The general argument in this video is not new. It has a long history, falling under the "Luther had psychological problems" rubric. As the theory goes, Luther had mental problems, Protestantism was founded by a mentally unstable man, therefore one should abandon fallible Protestantism and embrace the infallible authority of Rome. While the Vatican does not follow this line of attack, this fallible Roman Catholic commentator readily uses social media to share his personal opinion, an opinion which he appears to think is more meaningful than anything the Vatican is now ecumenically saying about Luther. I find it to be one of the greatest of all ironies that Roman Catholic laymen make their own fallible pronouncements on issues the Vatican currently ignores or says the opposite of. Rome rarely mentions Luther now, and when they do, usually in papal addresses, it's a much different Luther than what Roman Catholic laymen with an internet connection are communicating through social media. To borrow a phrase from the video, what "utter hubris"!

Four Surprising Facts About John Calvin and the “Apocrypha”?

I came across an interesting John Calvin article written by one of the apologists from Catholic Answers: Four Surprising Facts About John Calvin and the “Apocrypha”. Let's take a look at their first surprising fact: "Calvin Implicitly Concedes that the Deuterocanon Supports Catholic Teachings."

Quoting a section from Calvin's Acts of the Council of Trent with the Antidote (Acta synodi Tridentinae cum antidoto), the author explains Calvin believed the Apocryphal books clearly taught: purgatory, the worship of saints, satisfactions, and exorcisms. Calvin of course, rejected the Apocrypha as canonical scripture. Despite this rejection, Rome's defender states Calvin realized the clarity of these doctrine in the Apocrypha. He states, "John Calvin: Admitted the Deuterocanon teaches Purgatory, veneration of the Saints, exorcisms, and other doctrines denied by Protestants." Therefore, this implies:

...if Catholics are right about the Deuterocanon, then we’re also right about Purgatory, praying to (not worshipping) the Saints, exorcisms, and so on. That’s pretty huge.

Let's take a closer look at Calvin's text to see if he admits the Apocrypha (Deuterocanon) validates Rome's unique doctrines. I contend that the context demonstrates no such thing. Rather, Calvin was of the opinion that the Papacy would read into any portion of the Bible (canonical or not) to make it say what they wanted it to say. The passage below from Calvin is lengthy, and only slightly edited. 

Context

First, they ordain that in doctrine we are not to stand on Scripture alone, but also on things handed down by tradition. Secondly, in forming a catalogue of Scripture, they mark all the books with the same chalk, and insist on placing the Apocrypha in the same rank with the others... Lastly, in all passages either dark or doubtful, they claim the right of interpretation without challenge...for whatever they produce, if supported by no authority of Scripture, will be classed among traditions, which they insist should have the same authority as the Law and the Prophets. What, then, will it be permitted to disapprove? for there is no gross old wife’s dream which this pretext will not enable them to defend; nay, there is no superstition, however monstrous, in front of which they may not place it like a shield of Ajax. Add to this, that they provide themselves with new supports when they give full authority to the Apocryphal books. Out of the second of the Maccabees they will prove Purgatory and the worship of saints; out of Tobit satisfactions, exorcisms, and what not. From Ecclesiasticus they will borrow not a little. For from whence could they better draw their dregs? I am not one of those, however, who would entirely disapprove the reading of those books; but in giving them in authority which they never before possessed, what end was sought but just to have the use of spurious paint in coloring their errors?...

...they devise a most excellent remedy, when they adjudge to themselves the legitimate interpretation of Scripture. Who can now imagine any improvidence in them? By one article they have obtained the means of proving what they please out of Scripture, and escaping from every passage that might be urged against them. If Confession is to be proved, they are ready with — “Show yourselves to the priests.” If it be asked, Whether recourse should be had to the intercession of the dead? the passage will immediately occur, “Turn to some one of the saints;” also, “For this every holy man will pray to thee.” Nor will Purgatory be left without a sure foundation, for it is written, “He shall not come out thence till he shall have paid the uttermost farthing.” In short, anything may be made of anything! When they formerly produced such passages they made themselves ridiculous even to children. Now, if credit is given them, the right of authorized interpretation will remove every doubt. For what passage can be objected to them so clear and strong that they shall not evade it? Any kind of quibble will at once relieve them from difficulty. Against opposing arguments they will set up this brazen wall — Who are you to question the interpretation of the Church? This, no doubt, is what they mean by a saying common among them, in that Scripture is a nose of wax, because it can be formed into all shapes. If postulates of this kind were given to mathematicians, they would not only make an ell an inch, but prove a mile shorter than an ell, till they had thrown everything into confusion.

What, then, are we to do with this victorious and now, as it were, triumphal Session? Just stand and let the smoke clear away. In regard to Traditions, I am aware that not unfrequent mention of them is made by ancient writers, though not with the intention of carrying our faith beyond the Scriptures, to which they always confine it. They only say that certain customs were received from the Apostles. Some of them appear to have that origin, but others are unworthy of it. These touch only upon a few points, and such as might be tolerated. But now we are called to believe, that whatever the Romanists are pleased to obtrude upon us, flowed by tradition from the Apostles; and so shameless are they, that without observing any distinction, they bring into this class things which crept in not long ago, during the darkness of ignorance. Therefore, though we grant that the Apostles of the Lord handed down to posterity some customs which they never committed to writing; still, first, this has nothing to do with the doctrine of faith, (as to it we cannot extract one iota from them,) but only with external rites subservient to decency or discipline; and secondly, it is still necessary for them to prove that everything to which they give the name is truly an apostolical tradition. Accordingly they cannot, as they suppose, find anything here to countenance them either in establishing the tyranny of their laws, by which they miserably destroy consciences, or to cloak their superstitions, which are evidently a farrago gathered from the vicious rites of all ages and nations. We especially repudiate their desire to make certainty of doctrine depend not less on what they call agrafa, (unwritten,) than on the Scriptures. We must ever adhere to Augustine’s rule, “Faith is conceived from the Scriptures.”

Of their admitting all the Books promiscuously into the Canon, I say nothing more than it is done against the consent of the primitive Church. It is well known what Jerome states as the common opinion of earlier times. And Ruffinus, speaking of the matter as not at all controverted, declares with Jerome that Ecclesiasticus, the Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit, Judith, and the history of the Maccabees, were called by the Fathers not canonical but ecclesiastical books, which might indeed be read to the people, but were not entitled to establish doctrine. I am not, however, unaware that the same view on which the Fathers of Trent now insist was held in the Council of Carthage. The same, too, was followed by Augustine in his Treatise on Christian Doctrine; but as he testifies that all of his age did not take the same view, let us assume that the point was then undecided. But if it were to be decided by arguments drawn from the case itself, many things beside the phraseology would show that those Books which the Fathers of Trent raise so high must sink to a lower place. Not to mention other things, whoever it was that wrote the history of the Maccabees expresses a wish, at the end, that he may have written well and congruously; but if not:, he asks pardon. How very alien this acknowledgment from the majesty of the Holy Spirit! [source]

Conclusion

Granted, Calvin's main argument against the Apocrypha rests on the fact of its spurious canonicity in church history; but the context demonstrates Calvin thought the Council of Trent was interpreting the passages of the Bible the way it needed to in order to substantiate their unique doctrines. Why would Calvin be admitting the Deuterocanon proved Trent's unique doctrines, and then go on to say that Trent treated the text of the Bible like a wax nose ("Scripture is a nose of wax, because it can be formed into all shapes") bending a passage any way it wanted to? It isn't consistent. 

But maybe Calvin was inconsistent... maybe he really did think the Apocrypha taught purgatory, the worship of saints, satisfactions, and exorcisms, etc.? Let's take one example, Purgatory, by popping over to Calvin's magnum opus (and that which ultimately defines his theology): The Institutes of Christian Religion. There we find Calvin going through all the popular Roman Catholic Biblical proof texts for purgatory. In his treatment of 2 Maccabees 12, Calvin writes of what the passage is actually addressing... and it isn't Rome's doctrine of purgatory:

...[T]he piety of Judas is praised for no other distinction than that he had a firm hope of the final resurrection when he sent an offering for the dead to Jerusalem [2 Macc. 12:43]. Nor did the writer of that history set down Judas’ act to the price of redemption, but regarded it as done in order that they might share in eternal life with the remaining believers who had died for country and religion. This deed was not without superstition and wrongheaded zeal, but utterly foolish are those who extend the sacrifice of the law even down to us, when we know that by the advent of Christ what was then in use ceased. [Institutes III.5.8].

While Calvin wrote commentaries on almost every book of the Bible, he did not write commentaries on the Apocrypha.  Therefore, extracting out Calvin's interpretations of passages from the Apocrypha will be slim. What we find though in the rare instance in which Calvin exegetes an Apocryphal passage, he denies Trent's interpretation.  Thus, the first "surprising fact about John Calvin and the Apocrypha" turns out not to be a fact, and therefore not surprising.

Addendum

Many years ago, I picked up a "four views" book on hell. The person defending the Roman Catholic view ("The Purgatorial view") was Zachary J. Hayes. As to Rome's popular prooftext 2 Maccabees 12:41-46, Hayes notes, The Council of Trent maintained this passage provides a scriptural basis, but they were reading the passage with "the mindset of late medieval people" (p. 103). He contrasts this with contemporary Roman Catholic exegetes, and see these verses differently, as "evidence for the existence of a tradition of piety which is at least intertestamental and apparently served as the basis for what later became the Christian practice of praying for the dead and performing good works, with the expectation that this might be of some help to the dead" (pp. 104-105). Hayes says modern Roman Catholic exegetes conclude:  

"Since the text seems to be more concerned with helping the fallen soldiers to participate in the resurrection of the dead, it is not a direct statement of the later doctrine of purgatory" (p. 105).

How to Maneuver 2 Maccabees and Prayers for the Dead

Here are a few highlights from a blog I just skimmed. Note the clever use of the word "superstitious" (I've placed the word in bold). By the use of one word, "Poof!"mortal sin becomes venial sin.

Shameless Popery says:
The Second Book of Maccabees is completely straightforward about praying for the departed, and praying to the Saints. In 2 Macc. 12:43-46, some of Judas Maccabeus’ soldiers fall in combat. Although they’re fighting for Israel, the Israelites discover superstitious amulets on the fallen soldiers, and realize this is why they were allowed to fall. Maccabeus responds to this by praying for the dead, and offering a sin offering on their behalf:

He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection. For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. 

Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin. You can’t get much clearer then that. The Bible tells us that he prayed for the dead, praises him for it, and then tells us that he thereby made atonement for them that they might be delivered from their sin. All of this is linked to the resurrection of the dead, which puts the author of 2 Maccabees ahead of the Sadducees when it comes to orthodoxy (cf. Luke 20:27).

Detractor in the comment box:
Concerning 2 Maccabees. It has been a few years since I read this book, but I think even in what you quoted you have a few problems. First, idolatry is a mortal sin and they died in their mortal sin. Prayers cannot avail those who have not done penance for such a sin. So, if you interpret 2 Maccabees as Scriptural proof of prayers for the dead, you just eviscerated your own dogma.

Shameless Popery says:
Underlying your confidence that the fallen are in Hell is the idea that they were idolaters. But it doesn’t actually say that in the Bible. Rather it says that the fallen were wearing the “sacred tokens of the idols of Jam′nia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear” (2 Macc. 12:40). So maybe they were idolaters, or maybe they were just superstitious. But err on the side of praying for them, obviously!

The Dark Side of Martin Luther: As He Became Less and Less Catholic, He Became Less and Less Christian

An old-school style hit against Martin Luther has recently been posted on the blog Shameless Popery: The Dark Side of Martin Luther. The piece claims to give "an honest assessment of some of the darker parts of Luther's legacy, and consider their implications" by exposing the "whitewashing of the real history of Luther and the early Protestants." The general thesis is that "The real-life Luther was a man passionately convicted of his own rightness, so convinced that he thought anyone who disagreed with him was either ignorant, stupid, or evil." This overconfidence was "the root" behind the following darker aspects of Luther's life:

1. Luther's unleashing of the Peasants Revolt
2. Luther's hatred of the Jews
3. Luther's responsibility for Nazism

These sort of blog entries that claim to be setting the record straight with blatant "honest assessments" are typically one-sided and ahistorical. If put forth by one of Rome's defenders they almost always neglect to apply their own standard to their own church, neglecting the logical conclusion that if one's own argument indicts one's own position, it isn't a valid argument. Typical as well is a selective use of the historical facts leading to negligent historical conclusions.


1. "Luther's Darker Side: the German Peasants"

The first "dark side" that's been hidden from the unsuspecting world is that Luther initially caused the Peasant's War of 1525-1526, that he wrote "an admonition to massacre" "in which he called on everyone to kill the peasants, en masse," he offered "the prospect of martyrdom to those fighting for the aristocracy, but only hellfire for all the slain peasants," and that in all this Luther "had his way" with the eventual slaughtering of 100,00 to 300,000 peasants.

The first blatant criticism is that on a basic level, this alleged "darker [part] of Luther's legacy" that is supposed to have been an example of the "whitewashing of the real history of Luther" is a fairly common aspect of Luther's history, found easily and readily in popular Protestant biographies of Luther. In today's explosion of easily accessible information, even a 6th grader utilizing Wikipedia's basic entry on Luther  for a book report on the Reformer will uncover this alleged whitewashed dark fact kept hidden away by those wishing to secure the heroic myth of Luther.

Second, the view being put forth by Shameless Popery is ahistorical. They state, "A few years after Luther's break from the Catholic Church, the revolutionary momentum that he had helped to unleash culminated in a massive popular (and bloody) uprising called the German Peasants' War," and also that Luther "accidentally sparked a bloody revolution." The simple fact of the matter is that the unrest and uprisings of the peasants in Germany was not something that began with Luther. It's not as if the peasants were content in their oppression until Luther came along as their potential political savior. The revolts and insurrections were throughout the fifteenth century (see Boissonnade, pp. 327-331). Roland Bainton points out,

The Peasants' War did not arise out of any immediate connection with the religious issues of the sixteenth century because agrarian unrest had been brewing for fully a century. Uprisings had occurred all over Europe, but especially in south Germany, where particularly the peasants suffered from changes which ultimately should have ministered to their security and prosperity. Feudal anarchy was being superseded through the consolidation of power. In Spain, England, and France this had taken place on a national scale, but in Germany only on a territorial basis; and in each political unit the princes were endeavoring to integrate the administration with the help of a bureauc- racy of salaried court officials.

Third, Shameless Popery mentions that initially Luther called for peace from both the rulers and the peasants, but then took a "new position" that "can fairly be characterized as an admonition to massacre."* The caricature being presented is that Luther initially wanted peace, but then changed his mind that the peasants should be slaughtered. The historical record though shows Luther wrote Duke John of Saxony July, 1524 and presented the same position he maintained throughout 1525- that ruler's have a right to keep order in society by suppressing revolts.  Even in his Admonition to Peace, Luther warned the peasants that societal unrest and anarchy would be met with judgment.

Fourth, after quoting Luther's "new position" Shameless Popery (citing Mark U. Edwards) concludes that "Luther had his way" and the "peasants were brutally suppressed." If all that is meant is that societal order was restored by suppressing the peasants, this would be consistent with Luther's thought that rebellion was to be met with force and containment. On the other hand, there is a sense in which Luther did not have his way, because the rulers did not distinguish between the seditious and innocent peasants.

Fifth, I think it's ironic that Luther's Roman Catholic critics are so quick to blame Luther for the deaths of peasants, but yet never offer an answer as to why the papacy didn't intervene to protect the peasants, or why they weren't actively working behind the scenes previous to 1525 to better the lives of the peasants. The hard truth appears to me to be that the papacy was content with letting the peasants remain peasants, and whatever their plight was, really wasn't an important issue. On the other hand, once Luther could be linked to the deaths of peasants, the peasants all of sudden became... important members of society that died tragically. Now for hit pieces like that put forth by Shameless Popery, there's never any thought to look into the role of the papacy throughout those periods of history in which the peasants were neglected and downtrodden. This never enters the picture.

It's a bit naive though to think somehow a person living in a peaceful country, hundreds of years later, can actually determine the guilt of Luther's writings in the entire peasants revolt. How would Shameless Popery write their criticisms if it was they who lived through 1524-1525? What would they say about the peasants while the peasants ransacked their houses, or killed their family members, and threatening the stability of the land? I would posit many the same defenders of Rome criticizing Luther would be the first to buy his book Against the Robbing and Murdering Mobs of Peasants.

It certainly is true that Luther's ideas had an impact upon Germany in the early 1520's, and particularly that the Peasants sought to utilize Luther in their plight.  Bainton points out, "...Luther's principles were to his mind perverted and the radicalism of the sectaries contributed to a state of anarchy. Nothing did so much as the Peasants' War to make Luther recoil against a too drastic departure from the pattern of the Middle Ages." If Shameless Popery really desires to put forth an "honest assessment," they should take a simple step back from their myopic view that Luther's theology and fight against Rome caused the Peasants revolt to realizing that oppressed people will utilize anything they can for their cause. Luther was popular and available, so they made use of him.

* Shamless Popery states "In May of 1525, he published a work originally titled Against the Rioting Peasants, the title of which was quickly changed to Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants...".  I haven't found a reputable source yet to document this change in title. It is quite possible Shameless Popery took this fact from Wikipedia's Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants. They state, "In May 1525, he wrote Against the Rioting Peasants, a title which would be harshened by printers in other cities without Luther’s approval." If this fact was taken from Wikipedia, it's interesting that Shameless Popery didn't mention it was the printers who changed the title. If they didn't take the fact from Wikipedia, I would be interested in further documentation.


 2. "Luther's Darker Side: the Jews"
 3. "Germany's Darker Side"

As with the Peasant's Revolt, Shameless Popery appears to think that Luther's anti-Jewish writings and beliefs are secrets kept from the general public. Such is not the case for the same reasons mentioned above. Perhaps though Shameless Popery is more concerned about emphasis- that when people generally tell Luther's story of his battle against Rome they neglect to mention his attitude toward the Jews. They state, "There's a popular Luther narrative that plays out a little like Star Wars" in which "A humble son of the Church rises up to overthrow the Dark Side, the Evil Empire, the Roman Catholic Church..." This same sort of criticism was lodged by Luther's detractors when the 2003 film Luther was released. Why didn't the movie present the real Luther who hated the Jews? While Hollywood may be a cesspool and manipulates the facts of history, in this instance, along with many who tell the "popular Luther narrative" it's because Luther's anti-Jewish writings come primarily at the end of his life. Even Shameless Popery could've put their own facts together to construct this answer. They mention "One of the last works Luther ever wrote was his 1543 book On the Jews and Their Lies, published just three years before his dead [sic]." When the basic Luther story is told, the major events are from the beginning of his Reformation career, not from his final days in which he wrote scathing attacks not only against the Jews, but Islam and the Papacy as well. Even many good biographies only focus on the first years of Luther’s career up to 1530.

The simple and hard truth here is that Luther's stand against the Roman church is the primary highlighted historical fact which Luther is rightly remembered for, while his anti-Jewish statements are facts better suited to the story of medieval Christendom. To tell the story of Luther's negativity towards the Jews is really to tell the story of the Roman church as well as medieval Christianity in their similar negativity towards the Jews. If Luther had a dark side with his negativity towards the Jews, Romanism does as well. If some of Luther's supporters are whitewashing his history on his attitude toward the Jews,  some of Rome's defenders do the same for their dark past. For instance similar to Luther, one of the leading Roman Catholic theologians of his day, his nemesis Johann Eck, also wrote some virulent anti-Jewish tracts. Here we find two leading theologians of the Protestant Church and the Roman Catholic Church both engaging in clearly anti-Christian attitudes. How could two of the best minds of the sixteenth century be so wrong and not realize it? Had it just been Luther, perhaps a critic could say: “See the basis of Protestantism is flawed and leads to anti-Semitism.” However, Johann Eck was considered a Roman Catholic theologian of great brilliance (see his entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia). He was respected and revered by the Papacy (and utilized by the Papacy!), and yet he also attacked the Jews unjustly.

Surprisingly, Shameless Popery identifies the world that Luther was part of had "widespread Catholic suspicion and hatred of the Jews," and that "Luther lambasted the Catholic Jew-haters who he accused of both treating the Jews in a subhuman manner, and in driving them from the Gospel." They also rightly point out that Luther did not put forth a biological antisemitism like Hitler, but rather Luther was against Judaism. This doesn't stop Shameless Popery though from putting forth the argumentation of William Shirer.  Here they put their facts together and conclude, "...anti-Judaism predates Luther. That said, it is undeniable that Luther recognized the dangers of this hatred of the Jews, and yet fueled the fires nonetheless."  It's a situation in which Luther knew better, but went ahead in hatred anyway.  In actuality, As Gordon Rupp pointed out, even the early Luther thought that humanly speaking, the Jews were nonconvertible and could not be saved by human action, and, because they reproach God and blasphemed against Christ their faith is an actively anti-Christian religion [see: Gordon Rupp, Martin Luther and the Jews (London: The Council of Christians and Jews, 1972), 9] .


4. "Why This Matters"

The final section of this hit piece delves into why the Peasants' Revolt and Luther's anti-Jewish writings matter. They are said to serve as examples of Luther's "sin of pride." With the peasants, Luther was gentle with them until they disagreed with him. With the Jews, when he thought the Gospel would be accepted by them, he was nice to them, when they didn't convert, he turned on them. Luther's pride was that he alone considered himself right, and everyone else wrong. As noted above though, Luther's position towards the peasants was consistent throughout- civil unrest was not to be tolerated and those disrupting society faced dire consequences. The change for Luther is in tone based on circumstances, not in theory. With Luther's attitude toward the Jews, it's true that Luther was disappointed that they still rejected the Gospel once it was unshackled from Rome.   On the other hand, this was not the only reason, and his blatant anti-Judaism took years to develop (see my paper here). Luther had no objections to integrating converted Jews into Christian society, but he maintained a lifelong intolerance of Judaism.

Shameless Popery goes a step further in why it matters by stating:

When Catholics point out that several of Luther's early writings sound pretty Catholic, the standard Protestant response (and a quite reasonable one, I might add), is that Luther wasn't completely reformed yet. Even after he went into schism, he spent another quarter-century slowly divesting himself of his Catholic beliefs. But what's remarkable is that, as Luther became less and less Catholic, he became less and less Christian.

So based on two historical caricatures presented by Shameless Popery, it is concluded that Luther became less Christian. Here's an obvious tip off that they've never read many (or any) of Luther's sermons. In Luther's sermons one is confronted with his deep theology and piety, which was consistent throughout his life. He always preached Christ, and he always exhorted his hearers to a life of being conformed to the image of Christ. Shameless Popery though gravitates to Luther's later polemical writings, which are only one aspect of his writing output, as the epitome of his thought.

Here's a tip off as well that only certain facts will fit their paradigm. It would be interesting to know where they think the year 1527 fits (it's after the peasants' war). In 1527 the plague ravaged Wittenberg. Many of Luther’s friends died, and his students and colleagues fled for their lives. Luther’s son even became ill for a time. Luther though felt “public servants, preachers, mayors, judges, doctors, policemen, and neighbors of the sick who have no one to take care of them are on duty and must remain.” He did not begrudge those who fled, “for to flee dying and death and to save one’s own life is a natural instinct implanted by God and is not forbidden.” But for Luther, fleeing the plague was not an option. He turned his house into a makeshift hospital, where he and his pregnant wife took care of the dying. The house was quarantined, remaining so even after the plague subsided. Well, maybe he was still too Roman Catholic at this time. Or the years after that (up until his death) when Luther was quite ill, but still managed to fulfill he duties as a preacher and husband- perhaps he was still too Roman Catholic. Or, where does 1541 fit in when the Luther's took in a transient woman and cared for her, only to find out she lied to them and stole from them, "Yet Luther believed no one would become poor by practicing charity"? (Christian History Issue 39 Vol. XII, No. 3, 1993, pp. 2-3).  Many more examples like these could be given. When it comes right down to it, Shameless Popery appears to not have done any actual historical study to make such an absurd conclusion.

Lastly, Shameless Popery ask a question that Protestants by and large could care less about: "Was Protestantism Founded by a Saint?" They state:

Within the same year, 1525, he both cautiously encouraged the peasant's revolt as possibly of God, and called for everyone involved in the revolt to be killed, saying that they were all going to hell. Does that sound like someone being led by the Holy Spirit, or like those that St. Paul warns (Eph. 4:14) are “tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles”? I understand that even Saints make mistakes, and that even Saints sin. I get that, really. Nobody is expecting that Luther be perfect. But it does seem to me that there's a far cry from that platitude to saying that the guy who goes to his grave crying out for mass murder is a Saint.

This demonstrates a selective reading of Luther's text. Even in Luther's Admonition to Peace, Luther states the peasants would be wrong to use force, and that the law requires submission to the authorities. It appears Shameless Popery missed the following kind of comment from Luther's Admonition to Peace:

Second, it is easy to prove that you are taking God’s name in vain and putting it to shame; nor is there any doubt that you will, in the end, encounter all misfortune, unless God is not true. For here is God’s word, spoken through the mouth of Christ, “All who take the sword will perish by the sword” [Matt. 26:52]. That means nothing else than that no one, by his own violence, shall arrogate authority to himself; but as Paul says, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities with fear and reverence” [Rom. 13:1]. How can you get around these passages and laws of God when you boast that you are acting according to divine law, and yet take the sword in your own hands, and revolt against “the governing authorities that are instituted by God?” Do you think that Paul’s judgment in Romans 13 [:2] will not strike you, “He who resists the authorities will incur judgment”? You take God’s name in vain when you pretend to be seeking divine right, and under the pretense of his name work contrary to divine right. Be careful, dear sirs. It will not turn out that way in the end. [Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 46: The Christian in Society III. (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, and H. T. Lehmann, Eds.) (Vol. 46, pp. 24–25). Philadelphia: Fortress Press].

In conclusion Shameless Popery states, "So these are the reasons that I raise these unpleasant bits of history. In doing so, I hope that I've been fair to Luther, while raising questions worthy of serious examination." Based on their treatment of two historical situations from Luther's life and concluding "Luther became less and less Catholic, he became less and less Christian," I find that Luther hasn't been treated fairly at all. I could just as easily point out the Council of Florence, held "those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart 'into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels,'" and then later the Catholic Catechism stated, "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims, to the Pope in 2000 stating, "All who seek God with a sincere heart, including those who do not know Christ and his Church, contribute under the influence of grace to the building of this Kingdom." The further the Roman church moves away from the teaching of the Bible, the less and less she is Christian. When they conclude "he became crueler and more bloodthirsty, the longer he spent away from the Church" this is from someone whose church has actually taken part in cruelty and the spilling of blood.  If there's a consistent argument from a Roman Catholic against Luther out there, "The Dark Side of Martin Luther" is nowhere near it.

Calvin vs. Augustine on Free Will?

I recently came across the link, Luther and Calvin v. Augustine and Justin Martyr on Free Will on a blog entitled Shameless Popery. Obviously, on a blog with a url including the phrase "catholic defense," Luther and Calvin are probably not going to fare well.

Calvin and Luther are said to "contradict themselves throughout their writings."  Luther is said to be "the first of a long string of Protestant theologians to make these sort of internally-incoherent arguments" in regard to the will. Calvin is said to "talk himself in circles" on free will.

What fascinated me about this entry was the comparison of Augustine to Calvin on the issue of the will:

Both Luther and Calvin are big fans of St. Augustine, and derive their views on predestination and free will in part from some of Augustine's writings (particularly one of his speculative works, his Letter to Simplician). But taking a fuller view of Augustine's own writings, it's clear he was neither a Lutheran nor a Calvinist on the issue of free will related to salvation.

Calvin's view is basically presented as utter fatalism, while a snippet from Augustine's City of God is presented to show that humans committing atrocities are responsible for their actions. The basic argument appears to be thus: in Calvin's theology of the will, humans committing atrocities would not be responsible, while in Augustine's they would be. Calvin didn't believe in free will, while Augustine did. Case closed.

What isn't presented in this entry is any sort of analysis as to what is meant by free will other than the following:

Admittedly, free will is a bit of a mystery. We don't fully grasp what it is, or how it works. It puzzles theists and atheists alike. But we can be sure that it exists, in part because it is necessary for God's Justice, and in part because we cannot coherently speak of it not existing (any more than we can coherently speak of a self-caused universe arising without God).

There are a few problems here as I see it. First, the writer appears to assume we all basically have the same understanding of the will, which is at best, naive. Second, the will is defined (for lack of a better term!) in regards to philosophical speculation (the will must be necessarily free for God to be just) rather than according to Biblical theology. One  passage is mentioned, Ezekiel 14:6, but that verse assumes what has never been biblically defined, a free will.  I can excuse those problems to a degree. I realize what's being put forth is a short blog entry rather than a detailed study. But what I find inexcusable is a third problem:  neither Augustine nor Calvin's view is fleshed out in any meaningful way. It's just assumed Calvin was a fatalist and Augustine believed in free will. Calvin is not only guilty of being a fatalist, he's also guilty of not treating Augustine honestly (cf. this entry as well).

This is indeed shameless popery. This sort of shameless popery in regard to Calvin goes all the way back to 1542 in which a Dutch Roman Catholic theologian, Albert Pighius, wrote a direct response to the 1539 edition of The Institutes. Calvin had stated that apart from Augustine, the early fathers of the church were all over the map on the issue of the will. Pighius pointed out that it may appear in some places that Augustine held to an enslaved will, but if all of Augustine's works are taken into consideration, Augustine is rather the champion of free will, and is in harmony with those who came before him.

Calvin did not dismiss these charges, but actually hastily responded to much of what Pighius had written, particularly using patristic allusions or citations.  Twenty-five of Augustine's writings are either named or cited., three writings of Pseudo-Augustine were used (along with mentioning doubts about authenticity) , and at least thirty-three other patristic sources appear to have been used. Calvin makes abundant allusions or citations of Augustine's writings. Contrary to Shameless Popery, Augustine's Letter to Simplician (mentioned above as that which was of major importance to Calvin's view) is cited one time. There have been studies to ascertain Calvin's citations in his response, most notably by A.N.S. Lane. It appears that while Calvin presents rather loose citations of Augustine, Lane contends this was probably because he worked from memory (he no longer had the source in question) and wrote in haste.  If this proves anything, it proves Calvin's intellect, memory, and familiarity with Augustine.

Lane states that Calvin sincerely believed he was on the same page with Augustine in regard to human will. In one revealing comment, Lane states:

But how accurate was Calvin's interpretation of Augustine? For centuries there has been controversy between Catholics and Protestants over this issue. But in recent times it has become easier for both sides to acknowledge historical developrnent and to interpret the Fathers more objectively. An influential essay by the Benedictine Odilo Rottmanner in the nineteenth century marked a new willingness by Roman Catholics to admit that in the areas of grace and predestination the Reformers were largely justified in their appeal to Augustine.67 A few notes indicate areas where Calvin's interpretation of Augustine is open to question, but it is very widely conceded today that  the main thrust is accurate.68

67. 0. Rottmanner, Der Augustinismu.s (Munich: J. J. Lenrner, 1892).
68. For a recent Roman Catholic writer who argues that the Reformers (especially Luther) were basically justified in their claim to represent the Augustinian tradition of the church on this issue, See H. J. McSorley, Luther: Right or Wrong? (New York: Newman & Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1969).

John Calvin, The Bondage and Liberation of the Will (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996), p.xxiv

Lane states elsewhere:

Calvin’s position seems to run counter to the tradition of the Western church. Even those, such as Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, who laid great stress on God’s sovereignty and predestination took care to safeguard man’s freewill. Augustine, Calvin’s great mentor, at the end of his life wrote a work entitled On Grace AND Freewill in which he opposed those who ‘so defend God’s grace as to deny man’s freewill’.2 It would appear that Luther and Calvin, in denying freewill, were falling into just that error and were departing from the whole Augustinian tradition. This is the traditional Roman Catholic interpretation, pioneered in 1542 by the Dutch theologian Albertus Pighius.3 But the little word ‘freewill’ can have many different meanings. More recent Roman Catholic scholarship has been less hasty to proclaim the discord between Calvin and the Augustinian tradition. The Dominican writer C. Friethoff concluded fifty years ago that while Thomas accepted and Calvin rejected freewill, there is no contradiction involved because they meant such different things by the term.4 A more recent Roman Catholic writer, H. J. McSorley, has sought to show that the Reformers were reviving the ‘biblical and catholic concept of servum arbitrium’, though he also detects an unbiblical and uncatholic ‘necessitarian concept of servum arbitrium’.5

Lane's article, Did Calvin Believe in Free Will? does with an extended treatment exactly what Shameless Popery should have at least attempted to do if even in a simplistic way: define what Calvin held in regard to the will, then compare and contrast it with Augustine's view. Lane isn't simply a Calvin defender. He points out the similarities and the differences between Calvin and Augustine on the will, concluding:

Did Calvin believe in freewill? Even Calvin himself could not give a clear and unequivocal answer to this question. At different stages in man’s history different degrees of freedom are conceded to the will. Calvin’s teaching on freewill is very close to that of Augustine. Perhaps the greatest difference is one of attitude. Augustine, while clearly teaching the bondage of the will and the sovereignty of grace, took great care to preserve man’s freewill. Calvin was much more polemical in his assertion of human impotence and was reluctant to talk of freewill. What Augustine had carefully safeguarded, Calvin grudgingly conceded.

Whether one agrees with this conclusion or not should be based on Lane's careful analysis. What Lane is most careful to point out is defining terms.  It appears that some scholars (including Roman Catholic scholars)  that take the time to see how Augustine and Calvin use and understand "free will" find a great degree of harmony. It would be interesting to see how a blog like Shameless Popery would evaluate Lane's synopsis, rather than simply presenting vaguely defined "shocking" differences that amount to caricatures.

Shameless Popery: When To Stop Reading a Text

I came across A Fascinating Concession By Albert Mohler on the Shameless Popery blog. The post has little to do with Mohler, but turns out to be the typical Roman Catholic rhetoric on Luther's translation of Romans 3:28. For a response, see my post Luther Added The Word "Alone" To Romans 3:28? as well as, Debate: Did Martin Luther Mistranslate Romans 3:28?

When I say Shameless Popery put up a "typical" post on this issue, take a look at where they stopped citing Luther's Open Letter on Translating. They stopped quoting Luther right before he actually provides exegetical reasons for his translation of Romans 3:28. Shameless popery? No, that's shameful popery.

At the time I saw their post, there were 41 comments, and as I quickly skimmed through them, it appears no one even bothered to check the context. Now that's shameful as well.

When should one stop reading a text? At the end of the text.

Addendum

Shameless Popery does at least quote Luther saying:

I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text — the papists did not have to teach me that. It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text -- if the translation is to be clear and vigorous [klar und gewaltiglich], it belongs there.

Many Roman Catholics miss the historical context as to why this treatise is angry, sarcastic, and humorous in tone. Luther shows himself fed up with his Papal critics. His anger was fueled against them for an ironic reason- they rallied against his translation, while at the same time utilizing it for their own new translations. In other words, Luther's translation had been plagiarized by a Roman Catholic apologist, while they criticized him at the same time. A strong Papal critic of Luther (Emser) did just that:

 “We have seen that scribbler from Dresden play the master to my New Testament. I will not mention his name again in my books, as he has his Judge now, and is already well-known. He admits that my German is sweet and good. He saw that he could not improve upon it. Yet, eager to dishonor it, he took my New Testament nearly word for word as it was written, and removed my prefaces and notes, replaced them with his own, and thus published my New Testament under his name!”

Luther does explain his translating methodology in his Open Letter on Translating "for you and our people": "For you and our people, however, I shall show why I used the [German equivalent of the] word sola — even though in Romans 3 it was not [the equivalent of] sola I used but solum or tantum."