Luther: "Jesus in His Human Nature Got It Wrong" ?

Here's an odd Luther-related statement attributed to Tim Staples from the Catholic Answers Forums:

In a recent episode of Catholic Answers focus, Tim Staples said that there was an instance where Martin Luther said Christ in his human nature was in error on the subject of free will and that St. Paul was more reliable. I had never heard this and would be very interested to read where Luther said that. Could anyone here point me to a citation?

There were a number of comments before I joined in, including: that Mr. Staples misinterpreted a section from the Book of Concord,  to

"I very much doubt that Luther made such a remark..."
"This sounds like a case where Luther was probably saying something to the effect that we look at passages that speak directly to an issue to clarify the meaning of a passage which does not address an issue directly..."
"...anything that Tim Staples says about Lutheranism or Luther with a huge grain of salt..." "...Or smaller If he provided no context or source,"
"If Luther had ever said, or written, that Christ was in error, I think we would have heard about it before now. In error about anything at all, however trivial..." 

I had never heard anything like this before either. Luther was prone to strong hyperbole. Mr. Staples could easily be referring to an obscure Table Talk comment. Often those comments lack clear contexts that secure a definite theological position.

The person who originally brought this up was gracious enough to grant my request to provide a link to the broadcast in which Mr. Staples made the remarks in question.  Advance the show to around 15:50. Mr. Staples is having a discussion with Cy Kellett]. Here is a transcription:

Tim Staples: How man times in Matthew 23:37.... Jesus weeps over... at least in Luke's version he weeps... but in Matthew's version, "Oh Jerusalem Jerusalem you that killeth the prophet how often I would have gathered you as a hen gathers her chicks... but you refused...you refused..." Luther was so... Cy, I don't know if I've ever shared this with you, but... this is gonna shock you. Luther was adamant with this understanding of the passivity of the will, that he actually wrote that Jesus in his human nature got it wrong there.

Cy Kellett: oh Man! 

Tim Staples: He got it wrong there. 

Cy Kellett: Jesus is not a reliable teacher. 

Tim Staples: He didn't have the fullness of the revelation that Saint Paul later got. 

Cy Kellett: oh, so you put Saint Paul over Jesus.

Conclusion
Mr. Staples launches into his discussion of Luther by first commenting on Matthew 23:37. The obvious place to look for such a quote as described is Luther’s Bondage of the Will. The passage is discussed, but not quite as explained by Mr. Staples.

See LW 33:144-147 (or Packer’s translation 175-177). There Luther explains that God incarnate weeps and laments over “the perdition of the ungodly.” Then he states, “Nor is it to for us to ask why he does so, but to stand in awe of God, Who can do, and wills to do, such things.” God as the incarnate word in his humanity weeps for those who rejected him. Then Luther presents a typical counter to this… that some would run to the secret will of God when things don’t quite add up. Luther then goes on shortly thereafter to state it’s not his argument to refer to the secret will of God, but Paul’s in Romans, that God is the potter and he can do what he wants to in his hidden and secret will.

Here is link to an inferior English translation of Luther’s Bondage of the Will. This link goes directly to the page in which Luther begins comments on Matthew 23 (the same passage Mr. Staples was commenting on before his Luther comment). This translation refers to Christ shedding “useless tears” over Jerusalem. Luther then goes on to contrast this with Paul’s revelation of the secret will of God (p.168). If possible though, use LW 33 or the Packer translation for reference.

If this is the passage from Luther Mr. Staples has in mind, I can sort of see how, given Tim's presupposition of the freedom of the will, he could make the interpretation he’s making. I think its misconstruing Luther’s words, but only Mr. Staples can clarify if this is the passage from Luther he has in mind, and then explain how he reads it. I believe Mr. Staples was probably speaking “off the cuff” or extemporaneously and misspoke that Luther exactly wrote what he attributes to him. Rather, I think given an opportunity to clarify, Mr. Staples may say his comments about Luther are his conclusion of what Luther's words imply. I’ve interacted with Mr. Staples before. I suspect if I ask him about what he was referring to, this is the context from Luther that he had in mind. I suspect also, if given another opportunity, he would flesh out his remarks and make them more cogent.

To echo one of the folks on the forums, "If Luther had ever said, or written, that Christ was in error, I think we would have heard about it before now." Without actually contacting Mr. Staples to clarify, I suspect this is the context from Luther he's referring to.

Martin Luther Believed Mary Was Crowned Queen of Heaven?

Did Martin Luther believe Mary was "crowned Queen of Heaven" and made sure to have it "carved on his grave"? A defender of Roman Catholicism stated:

We Catholics do believe that Mary was crowned Queen of Heaven. I respect that you don't believe it, probably because it is an event not recorded in the Bible. But Martin Luther believed it. I believe he had it carved on his grave! He expected to meet his Queen in Heaven... We Catholics believe it is part of Sacred Tradition handed down from the Apostles, and from Jesus himself. Mary likely would have MUCH rather have died for humanity than see her son die, if it were only possible, but in her humility and wisdom she certainly knew that only God can do that. She knew her place, always. In icons, she is always pointing to Jesus. 

The response to a request for documentation was: "Just google it. It's out there." We'll see below that there's a strong dose of embellishment going on in regard to Martin Luther's use of the phrase "Queen of Heaven" and there is significant error in regard to what's printed on hiss grave.

Queen of Heaven

Luther was against the Salve Regina (Hail, Holy Queen hymn) and the Regina Coeli ("'Joy to Thee, O Queen of Heaven,' an Eastertide anthem of the blessed Virgin," LW 21:327, fn. 27, WA 7:573). These venerations blatantly affirm Mary's queenship.  I know of only one direct instance in which Martin Luther positively uses the precise phrase "Queen of Heaven," and he does so in order to downplay the excessive Marian devotion of his day. In his 1521 exposition of the Magnificat, he writes,

It is necessary also to keep within bounds and not make too much of calling her “Queen of Heaven,” which is a true-enough name and yet does not make her a goddess who could grant gifts or render aid, as some suppose when they pray and flee to her rather than to God (LW 21:327-328) .

Original text: Es darff auch wol ein maß, das man nit zuweyt treybe den namen, das man sie ein konigyn der hymel nennet, wie wol es war ist, aber doch sie da durch keine abtgottin ist, das sie geben odder helffen muge, wie etliche meynen, die mehr zu yhr denn zu got ruffen und zuflucht haben. Sie gibt nichts, szondern allein got, wie folgt (WA 7:573-574).

In Luther's exposition of the Magnificat, the Mary described by Luther in 1521 and the Mary described by sixteenth century Rome have significant differences.  In the later view, Mary is someone to pray to and flee to who grants gifts... what Luther would describe as, a goddess. According to Luther, by pouring more into the term Queen of Heaven "we can easily take away too much from God’s grace, which is a perilous thing to do and not well pleasing to her." When Luther here says, "Queen of Heaven" "is a true enough name," he does not mean the same thing Rome's defenders do. If there's any agreement here between the defenders of Rome and Luther, it's only surface level.

In fact, Luther's exposition of the Magnificat was seen in his day as an attack against popular Marian piety. There's a sense in which it was a transitional work in Luther's Mariology not entirely reflective of his later thought. In chronological order, Luther's 1521 positive use of "Queen of Heaven" in his exposition of the Magnificat is followed in 1522 with "doing Christ a disservice" if one uses the title. Then for the rest of Luther's career, the Salve Regina and the Regina Coeli were to be avoided as blasphemous:

Here I must say a few words about the song which is called Salve Regina. It is a great blaspheme of God. For it says, "Hail you queen of mercy, our life, our sweetness and our hope." Is that not too much? Who could justify calling her our life, sweetness and mercy when she is satisfied to call herself, a "handmaiden of the LORD?" Now people sing that prayer in every corner of the world and also the bells ring out, and still today in nearly every church the Salve Regina is, unfortunately, retained and sung.

It is the same with the Regina Coeli, which is not much better, in which she is called the queen of heaven. Is that not doing Christ a disservice when you account to a creature what only belongs to and is proper to God? So forget these ungodly and unchristian words. I will gladly concede that Mary prays for me, but I deny that she must be my comfort and my life. Your prayer on my behalf is also just as precious to me and hers. Why? If you believe that Christ dwells just as much in you as He does her, your prayer can help me just as well as hers. [The Festival Sermons of Martin Luther, pp.160-161].

Original text #1:Item von der hailigen jungkfrawen Marie im Salve, was do wort seind die man ir zülegt 'biß gegrüßt ain künigin der barmherzigkait, unser leben, unser süssigkait und unser hoffnung'. Ist das nit züvil? wer wil das verantworten, das sy unser leben, barmherzigkait unnd süssigkait sein sol, so sy sich doch laßt genügen, das sy ain arms gefeß sey? Das gebet singt man durch die ganzen welt und leytet groß glocken darzü. Also ist es auch mit dem Regina celi, das ist auch nicht besser, do man sy ain künigin des himmels nennet. Ist das nit ain unere Christo gethon, das man ainer creatur züleget das allain gott gebürt?

Darumb laß man von den unverschampton worten. Gern will ich sy haben, das sy für mich bitte, aber das sy sol mein trost und leben seyn, das wil ich nicht, und dein gebet ist mir gleich als lieb als irs. Wie so? dann wenn du glaubest, das Christus gleich als wol in dir als in ir wonet, kanst du mir gleich als wol helffen als sy. Darumb halt man die eer der lieben hailigen, als wir ainander schuldig sein züeeren als gotes kind, aber dannocht das man sich hüt vor den zwen schäden, das man Christum nicht verdunkel, lasse den ja unser leben unnd trost sein und ere sy also, das du ye eher... (WA 10.3:322-323).

Original text #2: Secht nu was das fur wortt seind, die wir der heiligen iunfrawen Marie zu legen im salve regina. Wer wil daß verantwurten das sy unser leben, unser trost, unser süßykeitt sein sol, so sy sich doch last benügen, das sie ein armes gesesz sey? solich gebet singt mann durch die gantzen welt und leut gros glocken darzu. Der gleichen ist es mit dem Regina celi, welches nit beser ist, do man sy ein kungin des himels nent. Ist das nit ein on ehr Christo gethon, daß einer creatur wirt zu gelegt das allein got gebürt?

Darum last von solchen ongeschickten worten. Gern wil ich sie haben das sy für mich bit, Aber daß si mein trost und leben sey wil ich nit, unnd dein gebet ist mir gleich als lieb als das ir. Wie so? Wen du glaubst das Christus gleich als wol in dir als in ir wont, kanstu mir als wol helffen als sy. Drum halt du die er der lieben heilgen gleich der, mit welcher wir ann andern schuldig seind zu ehrenn. Einer sol den andern ehren als gottes kind. Hüten euch vor den zween schadenn: verdunckelt mir Christum nit, Las den unsern trost und leben sein, Ehr Mariam und die... (WA 10.3:321-322).

 

Did Luther's Grave Display the Words, "Queen of Heaven"?
According to some of Rome's defenders, Luther's acceptance of the title "Queen of Heaven" became a lifelong deep belief provoking him to make sure to have it "carved on his grave" after died. I've covered this myth before. As far as I can tell, it may have been Rome's defender Peter Stravinskas who popularized it:

Nor was Luther an iconoclast, for he strictly forbade the fanatical destruction of images and demanded at least a crucifix and a representation of Our Lady for his own use. He quite clearly did not see the Old Testament prohibition against images as having any application, so long as the images were not used in an idolatrous manner.  Most interesting of all, perhaps, is the realization that his burial chamber in the Wittenberg church, on whose door he had posted his ninety-five theses, was adorned with Peter Vischer’s 1521 sculpture of the Coronation of the Virgin, with the inscription Ad summum Regina thronum defertur in altum: Angelicis praelatia choris, cui festus et ipse Filius occurrens Matrem super aethera ponit.

This “archaeological” fact would seem to speak volumes about Luther’s final thoughts on the place of Mary in the life of a Christian.

In noting Luther’s absolute and unswerving adherence to the doctrines of Mary’s perpetual virginity and Immaculate Conception, Wright suggests the reason as Luther’s “holding more closely to the late medieval world of thought than Calvin” (Peter Stravinskas, Mary and the fundamentalist Challenge, pp. 73-74).

Let's let another defender of Rome correct this error of Peter Stravinskas. Tim Staples of Catholic Answers says:

Luther Was Not Buried Beneath An Image of Our Lady....  Martin Luther did retain much of his Catholic Mariology after having left the Church. But there are also not a few myths about what Luther did and taught floating about in Catholic circles. If you haven't heard this one yet, you will. It has been written about and spoken about by quite a few Catholics, and I have personally heard some very well-known apologists state it as true as well. The myth claims there to be a relief of the Coronation of the Blessed Virgin Mary with an accompanying inscription by Peter Vischer the Younger over the tomb of Martin Luther in the Wittenberg "Schlosskirche" ("Palace Church") where he is buried. "See?" The argument goes. "Luther believed in Mary assumed into heaven and crowned as Queen of Heaven and Earth!" Unfortunately, it is actually a memorial plaque for Henning Gode, the last Catholic Prior of that church, who died in 1521. Same building, but not connected to Luther.

Conclusion
Yes, if one Google's the information it is "out there," both the errors and the actuall facts. For some of Rome's defenders, anything that remotely seems like their version of Mary becomes "Luther expected to meet his Queen in Heaven" and so should Protestants today.  All their typical attacks against Luther cease and he becomes a staunch supporter of Mary; a leader that all contemporary Protestants should learn a great lesson in Mariology from.

Yes: Luther had a Mariology. It reflected his commitment to Christ and stood in antithesis to popular Roman Catholic belief in the sixteenth century. Roman Catholics during Luther's day actually were suspicious of his Mariology, particularly his explanation of the Magnificat. Even later Roman apologists, some quite hostile to Luther understood this. For instance, Hartmann Grisar commenting on Luther’s Magnificat states, 

[Luther] certainly was in no mood to compose a book of piety on Mary. The result was that the book became to all intents and purposes a controversial tract, which cannot be quoted as a proof of his piety or serenity of mind during those struggles (Hartmann Grisar, Luther IV, p.502).

Revised April 2026

The Canon Was Closed in 1442?

Some years back Tim Staples asserted that the canon was officially closed in 1442. Someone recently challenged me to document this, so here it is:

https://soundcloud.com/james-swan-14/staples-canon

If I recall, the clip is from Tim Staples in discussion with James White on the Bible Answer Man Show. This discussion can be heard in full here:

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=72115192611

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=72215152113

Why does this matter? The typical mantra is that the canon was closed by Hippo and Carthage.

Papal Infallibility: White vs. Staples

Here's an interesting one that's on Sermonaudio.com: Papal Infallibility (James White vs Tim Staples). A video of this would have been fascinating to see, but it's audio only. This link has some interesting comments in regard to the debate.

A Follow-up on Tim Staples and David F. Wright on Calvin's Mariology

Tim Staples: Apologists Make Mistakes Too, Revisited

In a recent entry I noted that Tim Staples admitted "Apologists make mistakes too!" This refers to a recent Catholic Answers blog post in which Mr. Staples documented Rome's defenders misusing facts about the Reformers. The following is an extended version of some comments I left for Mr. Staples on his blog entry.

After some dialog with another of Rome's defenders, Mr. Staples re-edited his blog post. Originally he stated,

This second myth is even more widespread. I have found it not only taught and published by many Catholics, but I even found one popular Calvinist apologist who has it up on his website as being true. And that is, John Calvin actually taught the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. He did not.

He revised it to:

This second myth is even more widespread, but I must qualify it. There can be no doubt that John Calvin, at least at some point in his career, believed in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. But to place him on the same level of Luther, Zwingli and Wesley is misguided. It is not to paint the entire picture accurately.

He has since mentioned in the comments:

I am going to take out even the possibility that Calvin denied the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary for both our electronic version of the book and our next printing. Even though I still think there is evidence there, it is not strong enough to contradict the scholarship you mentioned. I remember Jimmy Akin telling me when I first came to Catholic Answers words to the effect of, "There are lots of things that are possibilities and that we may think are really cool that do not merit being published either in a book, CD set, or DVD." I think this is one of these.

What appears to have happened is that an obscure sermon of Calvin's (documented here) influenced Mr. Staples to make this change in his book. In the comments section of his blog entry, Mr Staples wrote that Calvin was "confused" in this sermon for the following reasons:

St. Joseph did not marry Mary, he never lived with her, but he was "married all along." His reasoning seems muddled. Because he never taught on the topic explicitly to defend it, we don't really know what he believed about 1. when Joseph and Mary would have been "married." 2. Were they ever truly married? 3. Did they live together? He appears to say no. It is difficult to see how that would have been a "marriage" to Calvin at all, considering his teaching on marriage.

In response, I offer the following observations:

1) Typical of Calvin on this issue, the subject matter of the entire sermon does not dwell on Mary, and even less on Joseph. The quote in question is more of a passing comment, or more of an an end-note (for lack of a better term) stuck right at the very end of the sermon.

2) The 1562 published sermon isn't exactly from the pen of Calvin. It's a transcription based on what someone heard him say. It's within the realm of possibility that the reason Mr. Staples thinks Calvin's reasoning is "muddled" is due to distortion or lack of clarity in the way it was heard and written down.

3) I've analyzed the sermon and compared it to Calvin's commentary comments, particularly those comments pertaining to Mary that overlap in the sermon and the commentaries. There are indeed many similarities more than dissimilarities.

In the well-known comments from Calvin's Commentaries, his basic point is that a necessary inference that Mary had other children cannot be made from the Biblical texts of Matthew 13:55 and 1:25, and it's “folly” to make a text say more than it does. In this sermon he likewise stresses that "Though some fantasies have been expressed that this passage is teaching that the virgin Mary had other children than Jesus and that Joseph lived with her afterwards, this is nonsense. The Evangelist had no interest in reciting what happened after."

There are some differences as well. When Calvin says, "And besides this, our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence," Calvin's commentary says, "He is called first-born; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin."

The sermon comments have some interesting details about Joseph. One thing to keep in mind is not reading into what Calvin is saying. For instance, when Calvin says, "He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company," and "Joseph had not taken her as his wife to live with her," it would be inconsistent within the context to conclude Calvin is saying that Joseph and Mary never lived together, even after the birth of Jesus. Calvin is not speculating as to what happened afterwards based on this verse (that's his main point!). It would be a contextual error then to think Calvin here means that Joseph was some sort of monk never dwelling with Mary. The point Calvin is making concerns the period of betrothal. See particularly Calvin's comments on Matthew 1:18-25 where Calvin says "before they came together" means "before they came to dwell together as husband and wife, and to make one home and family" and "The meaning will thus be, that the virgin had not yet been delivered by her parents into the hands of her husband, but still remained under their roof." See also Calvin's comments on Luke 2:1-7 and Luke 2:48-58.

If one reads between the lines of the sermon, it appears Calvin is saying Mary had no other children besides Jesus. Without any clear denial that Mary was not a perpetual virgin, and with comments that safeguard against the idea that Mary had other children- I think this is why so many writers have concluded Calvin held to the perpetual virginity of Mary- it's a conclusion from inference rather than a direct admission from Calvin. The problem with the conclusion is that it goes against Calvin's specific guidelines- to not speculate beyond what he thought the Scriptures stated. To be fair to Calvin is to allow him to say what he said, not what we want him to say. If one really wanted to give Calvin's opinion on this issue, it is to simply say that Calvin did not think it correct to speculate.

Revisions are par for the course. People who take written theological positions will at times revise something they've earlier stated. I've never had any personal interaction with Mr. Staples before, but he seems to be willing to follow evidence where it leads. In this instance though, I think he was correct originally that Rome's defenders are misusing Calvin on the issue of Mary's perpetual virginity. Perhaps all it would really take is for him to clarify that there is no explicit teaching from John Calvin on Mary's perpetual virginity. What there is are statements from Calvin saying not to go beyond the text of scripture to speculate as to whether or not Mary had other children. Calvin offers no clear denial of Mary's perpetual virginity.

David F. Wright Calvin's view of Mary's Perpetual Virginity

Mr. Staples also noted he revised his view in regard to Calvin / Mary because of scholarly consensus. This sort of argument was lodged against me 10 years ago when I concluded Luther did not have a lifelong belief in the immaculate conception. You know what I did? I went and looked up what evidence each scholar used to make their conclusion. In many instances, the evidence presented didn't support the conclusion, or was taken from someone else's conclusion, or made a different conclusion. About 10 years later, it was finally conceded by the person using the scholarly consensus argument that I was correct all along.

For instance, the following comment was directed toward Mr. Staples:

This 1562 sermon may be one reason why many Protestant (including Calvinist) scholars agree that Calvin adhered to Mary's perpetual virginity, as I noted in a paper over four years ago now: David F. Wright, in his book, "Chosen by God: Mary in Evangelical Perspective" (London: Marshall Pickering, 1989, pp. 173, 175), stated: '". . . his more careful biblicism could insist on only Mary’s refraining from intercourse before the birth of Jesus (i.e., her virginity ante partum). On the other hand, he never excluded as untenable the other elements in her perpetual virginity, and may be said to have believed it himself without claiming that Scripture taught it. . . . [Calvin] commonly speaks of Mary as 'the holy Virgin' (and rarely as simply as 'Mary preferring 'the Virgin', etc.).'

What I would want to see is if the scholars cited to Mr. Staples about Calvin's view of Mary utilized the 1562 published sermon as this comment asserts. Let's look at the scholar cited, David F. Wright. I happen to have this book of which he's the editor and a contributor. I don't think the 1562 sermon was a factor. If it was, Wright appears to have neglected to cite it in any of his three chapters- particularly Chapter 8: Mary and the Reformers.

The 1562 published sermon isn't cited on either page 173 or page 175.  On page 173 note what Wright says just before the citation offered above. Wright documents Luther's adherence to Mary's PV and then states:

There is no doubt that the consensus of the Reformers affirmed Mary's virginity not only 'before the birth' (in partu) and after it (post partum). Calvin is something of an exception, in that his more careful biblicism could insist on only Mary’s refraining from intercourse before the birth of Jesus (i.e., her virginity ante partum). On the other hand, he never excluded as untenable the other elements in her perpetual virginity, and may be said to have believed it himself without claiming that Scripture taught it.

The other part of the quote, "[Calvin] commonly speaks of Mary as 'the holy Virgin' (and rarely as simply as 'Mary preferring 'the Virgin', etc.)." is from page 175- a different context. There Wright is discussing Calvin's view of Mary's sinlessness, not her perpetual virginity. These two quotes from two different contexts on two different pages, stuck together (for whatever reason), don't say anything about a 1562 published sermon. There are no footnotes from either page 173 or 175 referring to the 1562 published sermon. In fact, there are no footnotes at all to Calvin's writings on page 173. On page 175 there are references to Calvin's writings on the purification of Mary, not Mary's perpetual virginity.

The only possibility that Wright had the 1562 published sermon in question is that on page 170 he cites a number of comments from Calvin's Harmony of the Gospels vol. 1. In documenting the quotes (all direct references to the Commentary), he refers also to Max Thurian on pages 39-40. Nowhere on page 170 does he cite the 1562 published sermon which Thurian cites in his book on pages 39-40. Neither does he cite any of the content from the 1562 published sermon, other than the fact that the sermon also states Calvin's view to not speculate as to what happened afterwards in regard to Mary. In fact, Wright doesn't cite Thurian at all on page 170, but appears to be using him as a secondary reference to the same material from the commentary.

Notice also Wright points out that Calvin's position was an exception to the Reformers, and then speculates that because Calvin "never excluded as untenable the other elements in her perpetual virginity" "he may be said to have believed it". I appreciate Wright's careful exception and understand his speculation. But it is just that: speculation. Calvin's view is to not speculate as to what happened afterward.

I did a cursory search of the footnotes provided for the entire book, Chosen by God: Mary in Evangelical Perspective (London: Marshall Pickering, 1989) to see if anywhere else the 1562 published sermon was mentioned. It was not. There was though an interesting comment from Tony's Lane in his chapter, The Rationale and Significance of the Virgin Birth (chapter 5). There Lane does refer to Calvin:

The virgin birth does not really exalt celibacy unless it is supplemented with the further doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity. This doctrine is found already in the second century and was well established by the third century. In its interesting to note that Calvin refused to commit himself on this matter while the marginal notes of the Puritan Geneva Bible of 1560 defend Mary's perpetual virginity. (p.111)

Now if one were to characterize the opinion of this book, both Wright and Lane note Calvin never made a precise statement on Mary's perpetual virginity. Wright speculates he may be said to have held it, Lane leaves it at "Calvin refused to commit himself on this matter."

This is simply one of the things I would do with each of the scholars cited to Mr. Staples before deciding one way or the other what the consensus of Calvin's view is on Mary's perpetual virginity. For David F. Wright, he speculates what Calvin's view is ("It may be said...") with the qualification that Calvin was an exception to the general consensus of the beliefs of the Reformers on this issue.


Addendum

Mr. Staples left the following comment:

#58  Tim Staples - El Cajon, California - Catholic Answers Blogger

James,

I think you make very good points. I tend to agree with you. But I don't think these points rise to the level of certainty that we want at Catholic Answers in our apologetics books. I think Calvin may well of waffled on this point, but you do make good points. I appreciate your comments. I especially agree with you when you point out Calvin's constant attempt not to go beyond what is said in the texts of Scripture. Thanks again.

October 24, 2014 at 8:14 am PST

Calvin: "There have been certain strange folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matt 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children..."

Add caption

This entry is a follow-up to: Tim Staples Says: Apologists Make Mistakes Too! There has been some interesting discussion on the blog entry recently posted by Mr. Staples about Calvin's view of Mary's perpetual virginity.

One point of interest was an obscure Calvin quote used by the Roman Catholic author Max Thurian, Mary: Mother of All Christians, pp. 39-40. His book was originally written in French in 1962. Thurian states:

Lastly Calvin's thought is made even more clear in a sermon on Matt. 1:22-25, which was published in 1562 in the shorthand notes of Denys Ragueneau: "There have been certain strange folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matt 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! for the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph's obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company. There we see that he had never known her person for he was separated from his wife. He could marry another all the more because he could not enjoy the woman to whom he was betrothed; but he rather desired to forfeit his rights and abstain from marriage, being yet always married: he preferred, I say, to remain thus in the service of God rather than to consider what he might still feel that he could come to. He had forsaken everything in order that he might subject himself fully to the will of God.

And besides this, our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or no there was any question of the second. Thus we see the intention of the Holy Spirit. This is why to lend ourselves to foolish subtleties would be to abuse Holy Scripture, which is, as St. Paul says, "to be used for our edification."(21)

(21) La Revue réformée 1956/4, pp. 63-64.

Documentation
If one checks Thurian's documentation for his Calvin quote, it doesn't appear to me that he actually utilized a primary source, but rather took his citation from La Revue réformée 1956/4, pp. 63-64. In other words, the Calvin quote in question that is presented in English came from the French, and was taken from a French journal. Where did the French journal get it? Did the journal article use the primary source? I don't know. Thurian says the sermon was published in 1562.  It's unclear to me when exactly the sermon was preached. T.H.L. Parker says Calvin began preaching on a Harmony of the Gospels in 1559 and did so until the end of his life, so it could very well have been 1562, but since the book was published in 1562, I would posit it was probably preached sometime between 1559-1561 (see Parker's chart here). One other interesting detail is that "Calvin left the publishing of his sermons to to others with the exception of four sermons which he revised and published..."

I tracked down the actual sermon. All the sources I checked mentioned that the person who took the shorthand notes on Calvin's sermons during this period, Denys Ragueneau, was a paid professional in this field, and his abilities surpassed earlier attempts to capture Calvin's sermons.

Context
Typical of Calvin on this issue, the subject matter of the entire sermon does not dwell on Mary, and even less on Joseph. The quote in question is more of a passing comment, or more of an an end-note (for lack of a better term) stuck right at the very end of the sermon:

The English Calvin translation from  Neville B. Cyer of Thurian pp. 38-39 is good, but leaves out some things:

And notably it is said that he did not know the Virgin until she had given birth to her first Son. By this the Evangelist means that Joseph had not taken her as his wife to live with her, but rather to obey God, and to fulfill his obligation to her. It was thus not for reasons of carnal love, nor for profit, nor for anything else that he took her as his wife; it was to obey God and to show that he accepted the grace proffered. This was a blessing, that he could not even fully appreciate. Here is what we must retain.

There have been certain strange folk who have wished to suggest from this passage  that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! for the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph's obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company. There we see that he had never known her person for he was separated from his wife. He could marry another all the more because he could not enjoy the woman to whom he was betrothed; but he rather desired to forfeit his rights and abstain from marriage, being yet always married: he preferred, I say, to remain thus in the service of God rather than to consider what he might still feel that he could come to. He had forsaken everything in order that he might subject himself fully to the will of God.

And besides this, our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or no there was any question of the second. Thus we see the Holy Spirit's intention. To give ourselves over to subtle foolishness on this question would be to abuse the holy Scriptures, which is to be useful for our edification, as St Paul says. As for the rest, when men are so unstable and have such itching ears for new and appealing speculations, the devil must possess them as much as they harden themselves, so that they not be brought to the right path and thus trouble heaven and earth; rather, they must maintain their errors and dreams with a diabolical obstinacy. How much the more must we be sober to receive the doctrine that is given to us to accept the Redeemer who is sent to us from God his Father, and that we know his virtue so as to learn to hold ourselves fully in him.

Thus we bow down before the majesty of our good God.

Analysis
There are similarities between this comment and Calvin's earlier comments on Mary's virginity. In the well-known comments from Calvin's Commentaries, his basic point is that a necessary inference that Mary had other children cannot be made from the Biblical texts of Matthew 13:55 and 1:25, and it's “folly” to make a text say more than it does. In this sermon he likewise stresses that "Though some fantasies have been expressed that this passage is teaching that the virgin Mary had other children than Jesus and that Joseph lived with her afterwards, this is nonsense. The Evangelist had no interest in reciting what happened after."

There are some differences as well. When Calvin says, "And besides this, our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence," Calvin's commentary says, "He is called first-born; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin."

The sermon comments have some interesting details about Joseph. One thing to keep in mind is not reading into what Calvin is saying. For instance, when Calvin says, "He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company," and "Joseph had not taken her as his wife to live with her," it would be inconsistent within the context to conclude Calvin is saying that Joseph and Mary never lived together, even after the birth of Jesus. Calvin is not speculating as to what happened afterwards based on this verse (that's his main point!).  It would be a contextual error then to think Calvin here means that Joseph was some sort of monk never dwelling with Mary. The point Calvin is making concerns the period of betrothal. See particularly Calvin's comments on Matthew 1:18-25 where Calvin says "before they came together" means "before they came to dwell together as husband and wife, and to make one home and family" and "The meaning will thus be, that the virgin had not yet been delivered by her parents into the hands of her husband, but still remained under their roof." See also Calvin's comments on Luke 2:1-7 and Luke 2:48-58.

Calvin never comes right out and says Mary was a perpetual virgin, as Roman Catholics understand it. Calvin quite explicitly denies that Mary took a vow of perpetual virginity in his commentary on Luke 1:34-38:

The conjecture which some have drawn from these words, that she had formed a vow of perpetual virginity, is unfounded and altogether absurd. She would, in that case, have committed treachery by allowing herself to be united to a husband, and have poured contempt on the holy covenant of marriage; which could not have been done without mockery of God. Although the Papists have exercised barbarous tyranny on this subject, yet they have never proceeded so far as to allow the wife to form a vow of continence at her own pleasure. Besides, it is an idle and unfounded supposition that a monastic life existed among the Jews.

We must reply, however, to another objection that the virgin refers to the future, and so declares that she will have no intercourse with a man. The probable and simple explanation is that the greatness or rather majesty of the subject made so powerful an impression on the virgin, that all her senses were bound and locked up in astonishment, when she is informed that the Son of God will be born, she imagines something unusual, and for that reason leaves conjugal intercourse out of view. Hence she breaks out in amazement, 'How shall this be?"

But if one reads between the lines of the sermon, it appears Calvin is saying Mary had no other children besides Jesus. Without any clear denial that Mary was not a perpetual virgin, and with comments that safeguard against the idea that Mary had other children- I think this is why so many writers have concluded Calvin held to the perpetual virginity of Mary- it's a conclusion from inference rather than a direct admission from Calvin. The problem with the conclusion is that it goes against Calvin's specific guidelines- to not speculate beyond what he thought the Scriptures stated. To be fair to Calvin is to allow him to say what he said, not what we want him to say. If one really wanted to give Calvin's opinion on this issue, it is to simply say that Calvin did not think it correct to speculate. This isn't the answer polemicists want to hear, but it is letting Calvin be Calvin.


The Argument From Tim Staples on Calvin and Perpetual Virginity
Mr Staples eventually changed his original blog entry. He originally stated:

This second myth is even more widespread. I have found it not only taught and published by many Catholics, but I even found one popular Calvinist apologist who has it up on his website as being true. And that is, John Calvin actually taught the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. He did not.
He revised it to:

This second myth is even more widespread, but I must qualify it. There can be no doubt that John Calvin, at least at some point in his career, believed in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. But to place him on the same level of Luther, Zwingli and Wesley is misguided. It is not to paint the entire picture accurately.

Mr. Staples was right originally. There is no explicit teaching from John Calvin on Mary's perpetual virginity. What there is are statements from Calvin saying not to go beyond the text of scripture to speculate as to whether or not Mary had other children.  In regard to the revised statement, the "one point in his career" in which Calvin is said to have believed in Mary's perpetual virginity is the sermon published in 1562 discussed above.  The way Mr. Staples sees it is that this sermon is "earlier in his career" as compared to Calvin's final word on the matter in his Commentary published in 1563. According to T.H.L. Parker though, Calvin's commentary on the Synoptics was published in 1555. As I stated above, the sermon is probably from 1559-1561. It would appear to me that the commentary was before the sermon. Even if the Staples dating scenario is correct and Calvin vacillated on this question in the span of year at the end of his life- this seems like a stretch to me- certainly possible, but hardly likely. Calvin was a consistent theologian. Certainly there were changes in his thinking, but they typically were not saying one thing one year and the opposite the next.

On the other hand, Mr. Staples makes some interesting arguments that I'd like to contrast with some comments from Steve Hays :

...[I]f we read further in Calvin's commentary and head over to Luke 1:34, in volume 2 of this same work I mentioned above, he seems to deny what he had earlier accepted as true.

Luke 1:34 is the famous text where Mary, having heard God's invitation for her to become the Mother of God through the message of the Archangel Gabriel, asks the obvious question: "How shall this be since I know not man?" In other words, "How is this going to happen since I do not plan on having conjugal relations?" For more details on this and more, get my book!

Calvin's commentary on this text reads: “The conjecture which some have drawn from these words, that she had formed a vow of perpetual virginity, is unfounded and altogether absurd. She would, in that case, have committed treachery by allowing herself to be united to a husband, and have poured contempt on the holy covenant of marriage…”

Notice here, he not only denies this text could be used to prove Mary had a vow of Perpetual Virginity before her marriage to St. Joseph, but that this "would have poured contempt on the holy covenant of marriage." This would seem to deny the Perpetual Virginity of Mary itself as a possible consideration for Calvin, and it seems to be a change in Calvin's thinking on the matter.

So what may have informed this change? I argue, it may well have been his understanding of the "covenant" of marriage. Remember, John Calvin did not believe marriage to be a sacrament that is ratified as such at the altar of a church and then consummated on the wedding night. It was a "covenant" conditioned upon certin essential things, including the exchange of vows, a minister present, public witnesses, and the consummation. In his commentary on Eph. 5:28, for example, he says:

Marriage was appointed by God on the condition that the two should be one flesh; and that this unity may be the more sacred, he again recommends it to our notice by the consideration of Christ and his church.

The consummation, for Calvin, was essential to marriage. But even more, in his commentary on Eph. 5:31:

And they two shall be one flesh. They shall be one man, or, to use a common phrase, they shall constitute one person; which certainly would not hold true with regard to any other kind of relationship. All depends on this, that the wife was formed of the flesh and bones of her husband. Such is the union between us and Christ, who in some sort makes us partakers of his substance. 'We are bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh,' (Ge 2:23;) not because, like ourselves, he has a human nature, but because, by the power of his Spirit, he makes us a part of his body, so that from him we derive our life.

If "all is dependent upon this," it is no wonder that Calvin (and this followers today) would eventually come to view the PVBVM as out of the question.

The Argument From Steve Hays
This same point Mr. Staples makes was alluded to recently by Steve Hays:

Finally, there's a substantive theological issue. If Mary and Joseph never consummated their marriage, then it was never a real marriage (by Jewish standards). In that event, Jesus is not the legal stepson of Joseph, in which case he can't trace his family tree through either the Matthean or Lucan genealogies.

I'm not exactly sure what Calvin would say about this argument in regard to Mary and Joseph. To be consistent, any sort of comment would be going beyond Calvin's stated opinion into the realm of speculation. In terms of sheer logic, the point Hays makes is cogent, and I would agree with him.

Hays also says,

It comes as no revelation that the Protestant Reformers agreed with the Latin Church and (some) church fathers on a number of issues. There's continuity as well as discontinuity. So it wouldn't be some great coup to discover points of agreement between Luther or Calvin with the Latin Church or some church fathers. That was never in dispute.  

Hays gets to the heart of the issue. What I've found is that the alleged Mariology of the Reformers has been used by the defenders of Rome to show that the Reformers practiced sola scriptura and held to distinctly Roman doctrines. Therefore, they argue a few different ways:

a) Romanism is biblical
b) Sola Scriptura is inconsistent (or all Protestants should agree as to what the Scriptura teaches)
c) To be consistent Protestants, following the direct opinions of the original Protestants is necessary.

Hays though points out what any good Protestant historian would say: within all periods of church history, there is continuity and discontinuity. It doesn't surprise me or embarrass me as a Protestant to discover Luther believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Nor does the view of Calvin that appears to affirm the notion of perpetual virginity between the lines while at the same time saying not to speculate beyond the Biblical text. When one closely scrutinizes the Mariology of the Reformers, one finds exactly what Hays says: there's continuity as well as discontinuity with the Reformers and earlier periods of church history as well as the period in which they lived.

Tim Staples Says: Apologists Make Mistakes Too!

Tim Staples has yet another product coming out on Mary. This time it's a book entitled, Behold Your Mother: A Biblical and Historical Defense of the Marian Doctrines.  That Rome's defenders continually produce materials about Mary is not surprising, but what is surprising is that Staples recently pitched the book on his blog stating, Apologists Make Mistakes Too! What Staples is referring to are historical errors some of his fellow apologists have made with the historical facts concerning the Protestant Reformers.

For years Rome's apologists have tried to use aspects of the Reformation in support of their version of Mary. The basic argument is that the Reformers held to sola scriptura and yet had a Roman Catholic Mariology. Luther and Calvin believed this or that about Mary, so... why don't contemporary "Bible only" Protestants?

Some of their argumentation is downright silly. Staples rightly identifies one of the worst:


Luther Was Not Buried Beneath An Image of Our Lady 
 As I point out in my book, Martin Luther did retain much of his Catholic Mariology after having left the Church. But there are also not a few myths about what Luther did and taught floating about in Catholic circles. If you haven't heard this one yet, you will. It has been written about and spoken about by quite a few Catholics, and I have personally heard some very well-known apologists state it as true as well. The myth claims there to be a relief of the Coronation of the Blessed Virgin Mary with an accompanying inscription by Peter Vischer the Younger over the tomb of Martin Luther in the Wittenberg "Schlosskirche" ("Palace Church") where he is buried. "See?" The argument goes. "Luther believed in Mary assumed into heaven and crowned as Queen of Heaven and Earth!" Unfortunately, it is actually a memorial plaque for Henning Gode, the last Catholic Prior of that church, who died in 1521. Same building, but not connected to Luther. Luther did believe in Mary as Mother of God, Perpetual Virgin, and even, at least at times in his writings, free from all sin, though he goes both ways on this one, but there is nary at hint of Mary's assumption.

I first came across the burial vault argument in 2007 while listening to a podcast from Mark Shea. Shea stated:

For Luther the Assumption was a settled fact...indeed Luther's burial vault in the Wittenburg church on whose door he had posted his ninety five theses was adorned with the 1521 Peter Vischer's sculpture of the Coronation of the Virgin.

This led me to a statement by Peter Stravinskas:

Most interesting of all, perhaps, is the realization that his burial chamber in the Wittenberg church, on whose door he had posted his 95 Theses, was adorned with the 1521 Peter Vischer sculpture of the Coronation of the Virgin, with the inscription containing these lines: Ad summum Regina thronum defertur in altum: Angelicis praelatia choris, cui festus et ipse Filius occurrens Matrem super aethera ponit. This "archaeological" fact would seem to speak volumes about Luther's final thoughts on the place of Mary in the life of a Christian.

Staples is correct about the tomb inscription and that Rome's defenders have used it to say, "Luther believed in Mary assumed into heaven and crowned as Queen of Heaven and Earth!" Staples is also correct that in Luther's Reformation writings "there is nary at [sic] hint" he believed Mary was assumed into heaven.

Staples then moves to a mistake about John Calvin:

Calvin Did NOT Believe in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary 
This second myth is even more widespread. I have found it not only taught and published by many Catholics, but I even found one popular Calvinist apologist who has it up on his website as being true. And that is, John Calvin actually taught the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. He did not. The error seems to have stemmed from misunderstanding some few comments from John Calvin’s 3-volume set, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Transl. by Rev. William Pringle (Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 2009). In his commentaries on Matt. 13:55 and Matt. 1:25, in volume 1, he takes Helvidius to task for assuming Mary had other children because of the mention of the “brothers of the Lord,” in Matthew 13:55, and for assuming “Joseph knew her not until…” meant that Joseph then was being said to have known Mary conjugally after Christ was born. Calvin correctly and sternly (in good Calvin fashion) teaches the "brothers" of the Lord may well be a Hebrew idiom representing "cousins" or some other extended relative. And he also points out that the "until" of Matt. 1:25 really says nothing about what happened after Mary gave birth. It was used there to emphasize the virginity of Mary up "until" that point. Don't get me wrong here. This is good stuff from John Calvin. He honestly exegetes these texts and corrects not only Helvidius, but, no doubt, some of his own confreres who were presuming what was not in these texts. That's a good thing! But unfortunately, many Catholics have taken these two sections of Calvin's commentary out of context and claim it to mean he agreed with the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. But in fact, he never says that. He simply concludes these Scriptures to be silent on the matter. They prove neither yeah nor nay when it comes to Mary's perpetual virginity. What my Catholic friends should have done (and I include myself here before I found this while researching for my book... ssssssshhhhhhh!) is to read further in Calvin's commentary and head over to Luke 1:34, in volume 2 of this same work, where he expressly denies Mary’s perpetual virginity.Luke 1:34 is the famous text where Mary, having heard God's invitation for her to become the Mother of God through the message of the Archangel Gabriel, asks the obvious question: "How shall this be since I know not man?" In other words, "How is this going to happen since I do not plan on having conjugal relations?" For more details on this and more, get my book! Calvin's commentary on this text reads: “The conjecture which some have drawn from these words, that she had formed a vow of perpetual virginity, is unfounded and altogether absurd. She would, in that case, have committed treachery by allowing herself to be united to a husband, and have poured contempt on the holy covenant of marriage…” Notice here, he not only denies this text could be used to prove the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, but he denies the doctrine itself as a possible consideration.

This is another issue that's been on this blog for many years now. One of my earliest blog entries addressing this goes back to 2006, and it's come up a number of times since then. I would say that Staples is probably the first of Rome's popular defenders to arrive at the conclusion he has about Calvin on this issue.  I look forward to utilizing Staples here the next time one of Rome's apologists bring this up.

Kudos to Mr. Staples, especially with his position on Calvin. I've accused Rome's defenders for years of sloppy and inaccurate historical work on the Protestant Reformation, especially the Reformers' Mariology. At times it's been like shooting fish in a barrel. I have not purchased the book Staples reveals all this information in.  I would speculate there's a good chance he probably came across this blog while doing his research. I know even if he did utilize my blog for his book, he would probably not admit it. It is possible as well Mr. Staples has no idea who I am and figured this stuff out the same way I did: by looking at evidence and reading documents in context.

Ah well. It's enough for me that one of Rome's popular defenders is now saying some of the same things I've been saying for years.


ht: "guy fawkes" for his blog comment alerting me to the blog entry from Mr. Staples.



Addendum #1
I attempted to purchase the e-book version of Staples' new book on Mary, but as of 10/12/14 it was not yet available. Because (as Staples explains below) his comments about the Reformers are footnotes rather than actual lengthier treatments, I can't see the value in spending more than twice the amount for the actual book.

Addendum #2
A comment was left for Mr. Staples giving (among other things) a Calvin citation from a secondary source (that is, no original or complete context) documenting a sermon from Calvin (a citation from Calvin in English which was translated from the French, originally from shorthand notes), taken from a French journal, not the original sermon (that is- the secondary source utilized a Calvin quote from a journal).

Mr. Staples then responded and gave some further information about his position on John Calvin and Mary's perpetual virginity:

I did not go into this kind of detail in the book because it was a peripheral point and limited to a footnote. I was speaking of how a lack of understanding of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary can lead to the loss of an understanding of many crucial teachings, like the indissolubility of marriage, sacraments, consecrated celibacy, the biblical notion of consecration in general, and more. In passing I note how the loss of an understanding of these things can lead to a loss of understanding of Mary's Perpetual Virginity or vice versa. That is when I toss out the idea that Luther's followers could be examples of the former while Calvin's followers the latter. I then footnote the fact that I believe Calvin rejected the Perpetual Virginity of Mary in his commentary on Matthew, Mark, and Luke and that I think many of us have taken this work out of context over the years. I don't comment on his earlier sermon at all. Again, maybe I should have, but it was a footnote. At any rate, here's my take on what you say. I think Calvin, like Luther on the Immaculate Conception, seemed to waffle on this teaching. Calvin was much more systematic than Luther, but he evolved (or devolved) in his teaching at times as well. But the use of his commentary on Matthew, Mark, and Luke, specific to his comments on Matt. 13:55 and especially Matt. 1:25 is misguided, in my opinion. When you consider that Calvin explicitly takes a position in between Helvidius and Jerome in his commentary on Matt. 1:25 and he says as much, he says the text does not conclude either way, and then he footnotes his own work in Matt. 1:25 when he comments on Matt. 13:55 that the "brothers of the Lord" could be a Hebrew idiom for some other extended relation, that seems to me to be more agnostic than declaratory of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. I don't think the references to "the Virgin Mary" would carry the day either. I know I referred to Mary as "the Virgin Mary" when I was Protestant, but that did not mean I believed she was a perpetual virgin. While it is true that the "title" "Virgin Mary" did carry with it a connotation of a permanent state in the first 16 centuries of the Christians era, so it is an interesting point, I think it more important to go to Calvin's writings on the topic to get at what he really believed. To the point: I would give more weight to his Commentary on Matthew, Mark, and Luke, than to the earlier sermon. A major commentary on Scripture that probably took years to write seems to me to be more telling than a sermon that is written in a few days. Moreover, the translation of Calvin's commentary (by Pringle) I used is a collation of both the original Latin 1555 edition and the 1563 French translation that Calvin himself translated from his original Latin text just about a year before he died. So this would come after his 1562 sermon. To give you more of the citation, I'll pick up near the end of my citation and continue: "... and would have poured contempt on the holy covenant of marriage; which could not have been done without mockery of God. Although the Papists have exercised barbarous tyranny on this subject, yet they have never proceeded so far as to allow the wife to form a vow of continence at her own pleasure. Besides, it is an idle and unfounded supposition that a monastic life existed among the Jews." Thus, he rejects the notion that Mary could have had a vow of perpetual virginity at the annunciation to be sure. He then goes on to reject that Mary could be referring to the future and never having intercourse with a man either: "We must reply, however, to another objection that the virgin refers to the future, and so declares that she will have no intercourse with a man. The probable and simple explanation is that the greatness or rather majesty of the subject made so powerful an impression on the virgin, that all her senses were bound and locked up in astonishment, when she is informed that the Son of God will be born, she imagines something unusual, and for that reason leaves conjugal intercourse out of view. Hence she breaks out in amazement, 'How shall this be?'" What jumped out at me reading this was this: He is responding to an "objection." An objection to what? To his teaching that the very idea of a virgin giving herself to a husband while planning to be a perpetual virgin would be tantamount to committing "treachery by allowing herself to be united to a husband, and... pour[ing] contempt on the holy covenant of marriage." Those are very strong words that would, in my view, lend themselves to Calvin having second and third thoughts about the perpetual virginity of Mary at the very least. If he wanted to clarify things, it would seem to me Matt. 1:25 would be the place to do it because that is where "Joseph takes Mary his wife," but there he is clearly agnostic on the matter. Again, I don't go this deep into Calvin's mind in the book, but I would think, at the very least, one should say Calvin may have held to the view and then waffled on it, rather than just claiming he held to the dogma as did Luther, Zwingli, and even Wesley. Whenever I cite Luther on the sinlessness of Mary, I also note that this was early in his career and he seemed to move away from it later. That seems to me to be the honest thing to do. I would hope folks would have this same courtesy toward me if they come upon things I taught early on that I have come to see I was mistaken on. Or, at least, I would hope folks would inform their audience of my change in thinking. That's my two cents worth. Though you may think it worth less than that!

Tim Staples vs. Catholic Answers on Matt. 5:29

Catholic Answers says:

Christ used hyperbole often, for example when he declared, "If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell" (Matt. 5:29, cf. 18:9; Mark 9:47). Christ certainly did not intend this to be applied literally, for otherwise all Christians would be blind amputees! (cf. 1 John 1:8; 1 Tim. 1:15). We are all subject to "the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life" (1 John 2:16). 

Source: Call No Man Father NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors. Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004 IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827 permission to publish this work is hereby granted. +Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

Tim Staples says it isn't hyperbole. Listen here.Tim says if your eye or hand offend, cut the eye out and cut the hand off.. "because I'm gonna get a new one when I get to heaven..."

James White vs. Tim Staples on BAM

I recently re-listened to the first White / Staples debate on Sola Scriptura: Is The Bible the Only Infallible Rule of Faith? This debate is from 1996. If you listen to this debate, you'll hear references to an earlier discussion between James and Tim on the Bible Answer Man show. I had never heard this before, so I tracked it down: The Roman Catholicism Debate on BAM (White vs Staples - I). This is a lively discussion as well. It's an inexpensive downloadable mp3.  Since it's an old recording, for best sound results, lower the bass frequencies and raise the highs.

I mention this old discussion because it serves as a reminder that Dr. White was interacting with Roman apologists long before many of us even cared. His argumentation back in 1996 (probably a lot of it compiled without the Internet or "e books" or gizmos) was excellent, both in this discussion, and in his debate with Tim.

Addendum #1
In the BAM discussion, you'll hear a basic outline of the White vs. Staples Purgatory debate, many years before the debate actually happened. This is the 2010 debate Catholic Answers has no interest making available.

Addendum #2
During this 1996 BAM show, Iron Sharpens Iron host Chris Arnzen called in to explain to Tim Staples how to beat the "old" James White in debate. Click to hear the answer.

Tim Staples, Luther, and "Error Begets Error," a Review

I was sent a link over to a recent Catholic Answers article by Tim Staples: Error Begets Error. The "errors" Mr. Staples has in mind are Luther's understanding of justification without the contribution of human works, Luther's error of claiming Roman Catholics deny the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice,  the error of denying free will,  the error of "simul justus et peccator," and finally the ultimate error of double predestination.


1. Justification
In regard to the first "error," Staples cites the Packer / Johnston translation of Luther's The Bondage of the Will, (he doesn't cite the page number, 294):

The assertion that justification is free to all that are justified leaves none to work, merit or prepare themselves… For if we are justified without works, all works are condemned, whether small or great; Paul exempts none, but thunders impartially against all.

Staples says Luther misinterpreted Paul because,

St. Paul was answering "Judaizers"—believers in Christ who were attempting to re-establish the law of the Old Covenant as necessary for salvation in the New. This was tantamount to forfeiting Christ, or rejecting the free gift, because it represented an attempt to be justified apart from Christ.

What Staples appears to mean by "the law of the Old Covenant" is the Mosaic law. The actual debate then Staples should have with Luther is over this very issue: what constitutes the Law, according to Paul? Had Staples backed up a few pages in The Bondage of the Will, he would have found Luther specifically addressing this issue. Luther states the moral law (the Decalogue) was indeed important to Paul as being commanded by God, as were the other aspects of the Mosaic law:

Ceremonial works were as much commanded and made obligatory in the old law as was the Decalogue; therefore, the latter had neither more nor less force than the former. Paul speaks to the Jews first, as he says in Rom. x (v. 16); so none need doubt that by 'the works of the law' all the works of the entire law are meant. Indeed, they could not be called 'the works of the law' if the law was abrogated and death-dealing, for an abrogated law is law no more, as Paul well knew. When he speaks of 'the works of the law', therefore, he is speaking, not of a law that is abrogated, but of a law that is in force and authoritative. Otherwise, how easily he might have said: 'The law itself is now abrogated!'—which would have been a plain, clear statement of the case. But let us appeal to Paul himself, his own best interpreter. In Gal. 3, he says: 'As many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, Cursed is everyone that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them' (v. 10). Paul is here urging the same point as in Romans, and in the same words; and you see that when he makes mention of the works of the law he speaks of all the laws that are written in the book of the law. Moreover—what is still more remarkable —Paul cites Moses as cursing those who continue not in the law, whereas he himself pronounces accursed those who are of the works of the law; thus adducing a passage with a different scope from his own expressed view, the former being negative and the latter affirmative. This he does, however, because the real position in the sight of God is that those who are most zealous in the works of the law are furthest from fulfilling the law; for they are without the Spirit, Who alone fulfills the law. Men may try to keep it in their own strength, but they can accomplish nothing. Thus, both statements are true—that of Moses, that they are accursed who 'continue not', and that of Paul, that they are accursed who 'are of the works of the law'. Both speakers require that men should have the Spirit, without Whom works of law, however many are done, do not justify, as Paul says; so that men do not continue in all things that are written, as Moses says. In a word: Paul fully confirms what I say by his division. He divides workers at the law into two classes, those who work after the Spirit and those who work after the flesh, leaving no middle state. He says: 'By the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified.' What is this, but to say that when men work at the law without the Spirit, being themselves flesh, that is, ungodly and ignorant of God, their works profit them nothing? In Gal. 3, he makes use of the same division when he says: 'Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?' (v. 2). Again, in Rom. 3 he says: 'But now the righteousness of God has been revealed without the law'; and again: 'We conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law' (VV. 21, 28). From all these passages it is clear and plain that in Paul the Spirit is set in opposition to the works of the law, as He is to all other things that are not spiritual, and to all the powers and qualities of the flesh. So it is certain that Paul's view here accords with Christ's teaching in John 3 (v. 6), that everything which is not of the Spirit is flesh, however specious, holy and excellent it may be, even the most - glorious works of God's law, by whatever powers wrought. For the Spirit of Christ is needed, and without Him all is nothing but a matter for condemnation. Let it be settled, then, that Paul by 'the works of the law' means, not ceremonial works, but all the works of all the law. Then it will also be settled that all works of law that are wrought without the Spirit are condemned. But the power of 'free-will' (which is the matter in dispute), though no doubt the most excellent thing in man, is without the Spirit. That he is 'of the works of the law' is the finest thing that can be said of a man. But Paul does not say, 'who are of sins, and of ungodliness, contrary to the law'; he says, 'who are of the works of the law'—. that is, the best devotees of the law, who, over and above the power of 'free-will', are also aided—that is, instructed and encouraged—by the law itself. If, now, 'free-will,' when aided by the law, and occupied in the law with all its powers, profits nothing and fails to justify, but is left in ungodliness in the flesh, what must we think it could do on its own, without the law? 'By the law is the knowledge of sin,' says Paul (Rom. 3.20). Here he shows how much and how far the law profits, teaching that 'free-will' is of itself so blind that it does not even know what sin is, but needs the law to teach it! And what can a man essay to do in order to take away sin, when he does not know what sin is? Surely this: mistake what is sin for what is not sin, and what is not sin for what is sin! Experience informs us clearly enough how the world, in the persons of those whom it accounts its best and most zealous devotees of righteousness and godliness, hates and hounds down the righteousness of God preached in the gospel, and brands it heresy, error, and other opprobrious names, while flaunting and hawking its own works and devices (which are really sin and error) as righteousness and wisdom. By these words, therefore, Paul stops the mouth of 'free-will', teaching tat by the law it is shown sin, as being ignorant of its sin; so far is he from allowing it any power to make endeavors towards good. (pp. 285-287)

2. The Sufficiency of Christ's Work 
In  regard to the second "error" Staples cites an undocumented sermon from Luther:

[Catholics] know very well how to say of him: I believe in God the Father, and in his only begotten Son. But it is only upon the tongue, like the foam on the water; it does not enter the heart. Figuratively a big tumor still remains there in the heart; that is, they cling somewhat to their own deeds and think they must do works in order to be saved—that Christ's person and merit are not sufficient. . . . They say, Christ has truly died for us, but in a way that we, also, must accomplish something by our deeds. Notice how deeply wickedness and unbelief are rooted in the heart.

The sermon being cited is Luther's Sunday After Christ's Ascension (1522). The error this is supposed to represent is that Luther "claimed any belief that man must actively cooperate in salvation at all to be equivalent to a denial of the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice."

In context, Luther is speaking about those who claim to "know" God broadly, not simply "Catholics" (a word that was added to Luther's quote by Mr. Staples). In fact, if one were to look at that which immediately precedes what Mr. Staples quotes, Luther refers to the Turks and a little earlier mentions the pope, not "Catholics" generally, but I grant that Luther certainly has the "papists" of his day in mind as well.

Staples argues,

Saying man must 'accomplish something' in Christ does not deny the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice; it merely states, in agreement with St. John no less, that man must, among other things, 'walk in the light' of Christ in order for Christ’s all-sufficient sacrifice to become efficacious in his life."

Notice what Luther immediately goes on to say from the same context:

But to know Christ in the other and true sense is to know that he died for me and transferred the load of my sin upon himself; to so know this that I realize that all my doings amount to nothing. To let go all that is mine, and value only this, that Christ is given to me as a present; his sufferings, his righteousness and all his virtues are at once mine. When I become conscious of this, I must in return love him; my affections must go out to such a being. After this I climb upon the Son higher, to the Father, and see that Christ is God, and that he placed himself in my death, in my sin, in my misery, and bestows upon me his grace. Then I know also his gracious will and the highest love of the Father, which no heart of itself can discover or experience. Thus I lay hold of God at the point where he is the tenderest, and think: Aye, that is God; that is God's will and pleasure, that Christ did this for me. And with this experience I perceive the high, inexpressible mercy and the love in him because of which he offered his beloved child for me in ignominy, shame and death. That friendly look and lovely sight then sustain me. Thus must God become known, only in Christ. Therefore, Christ himself says to his disciples: "No one knoweth the Son, save the Father; neither doth any know the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him." Mt 11, 27.

The issue in the actual debate between Luther and Romanism is that for Luther, one who is saved by faith alone goes on to live a life in gratitude to what Christ has done, but this life of gratitude is not a salvific contribution. As was stated of Luther's sermons long ago, "[Luther’s] leading thoughts were always faith and charity, justification and sanctification, giving to each its proper place and its due importance. He did not preach sanctification at the expense of justification, a sin which many sectarian preachers are guilty; but he did not fail to emphasize the necessity of the Christian life. His sermons were immensely practical, as all preaching, in order to serve its purpose should be” [Rev. John H.C. Fritz, “Luther as a Preacher,” found in W.H.T. Dau (editor), Four Hundred Years: Commemorative Essays on the Reformation of Dr. Martin Luther and its Blessed Results [St Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1917), 204].


3. Free Will
Mr. Staples then refers to another "error of Luther:

The errors continue in The Bondage of the Will when Luther takes the next logical step by declaring man’s will to be absolutely passive when it comes to salvation; and consequent to that, he expressly denies the truth of man’s free will. This again follows logically from the principle of "no works," meaning there is nothing we can do, leading to two-for-one errors.

He cites The Bondage of the Will (he doesn't cite the page number, 103-104):

So man’s will is like a beast standing between two riders. If God rides, it wills and goes where God wills. . . . If Satan rides, it wills and goes where Satan wills. Nor may it choose to which rider it will run, or which it will seek; but the riders themselves fight to decide who shall have and hold it.

Certainly Mr. Staples is correct that Luther denies "free will." As to whether it's a denial of "the truth of man’s free will" is more an example of Mr. Staples preaching to his own choir rather than a detailed argument against Luther's book (and, I realize the article by Staples was not meant to be a detailed refutation of Luther).


4. Simul justus et peccator
Mr. Staples then cites another error:

Luther’s famous notion of simul justus et peccator (“at the same time just and sinner”) is another error rooted in leaving man completely out of the equation when it comes to his own justification. It means, in effect, man's justification is accomplished extrinsic to him. God declares a man just via a divine, forensic declaration—a legal fiction—rather than the biblical notion of a real inward transformation that makes him truly and inwardly just (cf. II Cor. 5:17).

Once again this is another snippet of preaching to the choir rather than an interaction with any of Luther's argumentation, nor does Mr. Staples offer any particular Luther quote. What Mr. Staples should have done, to be fair to Luther, is to explain what Luther actually believed the role of works were in the life of a Christian.


5. Predestination
Mr Staples then goes on to state what he believes was Luther's worst error:

There are many other errors we could add to this litany of Lutheran misstandings, but what I would argue to be Luther’s most egregious errors came as a direct consequence of his denial of free will. Think about it. If you deny free will, but you also teach that at least some people will end up in hell—and Luther did just that—then it necessarily follows that God does not will all to be saved. This is logical if you accept Luther's first principles. The problem is it runs contrary to plain biblical texts like I Tim. 2:4: “God wills all to be saved” (see also II Peter 3:9: I John 2:1-2), and Matthew 23:37, which records the words of our Lord himself.

Well, I'm Reformed, so I don't particularly have a problem with Luther if his view was "God does not will all to be saved." However, as far as I've been able to understand Luther, he did not limit the extent of the atonement. He rather argued Christ died for "all", as in, every single person.  Mr Staples then provides actual argumentation from Luther on this issue from The Bondage of the Will (he doesn't cite the page number, p. 176),

Here, God Incarnate (sic) says: “I would and thou wouldst not.” God Incarnate (sic), I repeat, was sent for this purpose, to will, say, do, suffer, and offer to all men, all that is necessary for salvation; albeit he offends many who, being abandoned or hardened by God’s secret will of Majesty, do not receive Him thus willing, speaking, doing, and offering. . . . It belongs to the same God incarnate to weep, lament, and groan over the perdition of the ungodly, though that will of Majesty purposely leaves and reprobates some to perish.

Mr. Staples interprets Luther as follows:

So what is Luther’s response to Jesus’ obvious willing all to be saved? Certainly, he would acquiesce to the Master and acknowledge God's universal salvific will, would he not? After all, Jesus Christ is, in one sense, the will of God manifest in the flesh. Unfortunately not. Luther claimed Christ's human knowledge to be lacking when it came to understanding "God's secret will of Majesty," which led our Lord's human will to find itself in opposition to the divine will. Poor Jesus. If he only knew what Luther knew.

Exactly where is Luther saying this about Christ's human knowledge? Luther certainly isn't saying this in the quote cited by Mr. Staples. What's interesting is this very section is quoted in Packer's introduction along with an explanation of Luther's Deus absconditus (pp. 55-57), and that appears to be the actual text Mr. Staples is citing (based on the fact that both Mr. Staples and Packer leave out the same sentences). Luther describes God in his bare majesty as the hidden God (deus absconditus). This God has absolute control over everything. Of the agenda of the hidden God, a finite creature can know nothing. He is the God who enforces his “hidden and awful will” which includes the predestinating punishment for sinners. Of this hidden will, no creature is to speculate on or inquire. Rather, as Packer explains, "...we must listen to, and deal with, God as He speaks to us in Christ." Packer, as far I could see from the immediate context, does not say anything about Luther's solution being to limit the knowledge of Christ. In fact, I would refer Mr. Staples to one of the standard works on Luther's theology for his review.