The Imprimatur: Watch What You're Reading My Catholic Friends

Imprimatur: The Permission of a bishop to print books regarding the Faith [Source: A Brief Catholic Dictionary (Boston: St Paul Catechetical Center, 1985), 15].

The Nihil obstat and Imprimatur are a declaration that a book or pamphlet is considered to be free from doctrinal or moral error. It is not implied that those who have granted the Nihil obstat and Imprimatur agree with the contents, opinions, or statements expressed. This applies only after precensorship; it is not specifically applied to the permission of a major religious superior. [Source: Robert C. Broderick, ed., The Catholic Encyclopedia Revised and Updated (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1987), p. 288.]

I bring up the Imprimatur because I was involved in a mini-discussion on the CARM discussion boards with a man who is not Roman Catholic, but spends a significant amount of time defending the Roman Catholic Church. He goes by the nickname “Walt”, and I believe he’s Anglican. He’s actually more knowledgeable than most Roman Catholics on Catholicism, and claims to simply be “Trying to keep Apologists honest…”

The discussion centered on the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 19. Of course in a discussion about “interpretation”, some non-Catholic is bound to bring up the fact that very few Bible verses have an official interpretation providing the “certainty” that Roman Catholics always claim to have. This is indeed a weighty criticism, and is generally ignored by Catholic laymen. The certainty they have is not in the text of Scripture, but in the doctrines infallibly put forth by the Roman Catholic Church.

The problem for Catholics is compounded even more, because the church also says that a doctrine can be defined, but the scriptural proofs used to support it utilized by the Church’s theologians might not actually support it. In other words, one can have certainty for a doctrine, but not have certainty in the scriptural proof texts for that doctrine. The infallibleness is in the decree, not in the reasoning to that decree. The Catholic Encyclopedia states,

“…the validity of the Divine guarantee is independent of the fallible arguments upon which a definitive decision may be based, and of the possibly unworthy human motives that in cases of strife may appear to have influenced the result. It is the definitive result itself, and it alone, that is guaranteed to be infallible, not the preliminary stages by which it is reached.”

Note the words of Roman Catholic theologian, Johann Mohler:

“Catholic theologians teach with general concurrence, and quite in the spirit of the Church, that even a Scriptural proof in favour of a decree held to be infallible, is not itself infallible, but only the dogma as defined.” [Source: Johann Adam Mohler, Symbolism: Exposition of the doctrinal Differences between Catholics and Protestants as evidenced by their Symbolic Writings, trans James Burton Robertson (New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1997), p.296. I cited this quote from David T. King, Holy Scripture: The Ground And Pillar Of Our Faith Volume 1 (WA: Christian Resources Inc, 2001), 224].

But, Catholics boldly interpret and comment on the Scriptures all the time. How is this possible?

The well-informed non-Roman Catholic "Walt" at CARM had an answer. He stated,

“The _Imprimatur_ is ecclesial certification that a work does not violate the defined teaching of the Church on faith and morals; a Roman Catholic scholar who submits his interpretation of Matthew 19 for ecclesial review, and receives ecclesial permission to publish, is an *authentic* Roman Catholic interpretater[sic], even if it is not the *only* possible Roman Catholic interpretation.”

After talking with David King, (author of the most important book on Sola Scriptura written in the last 100 years) about this, he informed me of some difficulties with the above statement. The way the above statement is phrased it is impossible to refute because it's a "catch-all" disclaimer. It's a double standard. If the statement is true, Roman Catholics want to tell you that you need an infallible interpreter, while they only need an authentic possible explanation.

The statement also raises the idea of differing possible authentic Roman Catholic opinions. If doctrine develops, and one cannot know when a doctrine has completely developed, one must consider many differing Catholic opinions as possible authentic Roman Catholic opinion. In other words, Roman Catholics are far from having the certainty they always claim to have. Catholics claim Protestants need an infallible interpreter. We need that, but they have the freedom to read and hold possible authentic Roman Catholic opinions! Now, this is a vicious double standard.

But what of the Imprimatur? Jaraslov Pelikan has put forth an interesting overview, and if he’s correct, I have to wonder how Roman Catholics can create web pages on Catholic apologetics without such an approval:

“To prevent the incursion of opinions that conflict with the church's teaching, the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, created in 1542, has the authority to ban books which it adjudges to be dangerous to the faith and morals of the faithful. The catalog of such books is called the ‘Index of Prohibited Books’ and Roman Catholics are prohibited from reading any book on the Index without permission.

In addition, the members of the church may not read or even sell any book that is dangerous to faith and morals, even if it is not on the Index. Wherever faith and morals are involved, the church claims the right of censorship over books. No Roman Catholic may publish a book dealing with doctrinal or moral matters without having it censored. The Imprimatur which appears at the beginning or the end of a Roman Catholic book is the official notice that the book has been censored and that permission for its publication has been duly granted. It does not mean that the church assumes responsibility for every statement of fact and opinion in the book, but only that the book does not contain anything inimical to the faith and practice of the church. The Index prohibits, the Imprimatur protects.

By these means the church exercises its authority over the thought of its members—or at least tries to. Prohibition of books and boycott of movies have ricocheted so often that thoughtful members of the church, both clergy and laymen, have expressed their doubts about the wisdom and effectiveness of the entire system of passing judgment upon the production of non-Roman authors and companies. Meanwhile the system still stands." [Source: Jaraslov Pelikan, The Riddle of Roman Catholicism, 92].

A Look At "Luther, Exposing The Myth" (Part Two): The commandments

"The rich idolaters are with us in the persons of those who say on the basis of Scripture (Matt. 19:17): “If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” Here they conclude that justification is by works. "- Martin Luther (LW 17:23)

This will the second installment evaluating the Link Luther, Exposing The Myth hosted by Catholic Apologetics Information. Part one can be found here. The author, Raymond Taouk divides up Luther’s comments by category. He first lists a Bible passage, and then culls a few quotes from Luther. I’m going to follow his outline. Taouk’s Luther quotes will be in red.

The Commandments

Christ taught: “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.”

Luther teaches:

“If Moses should attempt to intimidate you with his stupid Ten Commandments, tell him right out – chase yourself to the Jews”[Lecture At Wittenburg].

“Thou shalt not covet,’ is a commandment which proves us all to be sinners; since it is not in man’s power not to covet, and the same is the drift of all the commandments, for they are all equally impossible to us” [De Liv. Chris. Tom. 4:2].

“It does not matter what people do; it only matters what they believe” [Erlangen Vol. 29, Pg. 126 ].

Response:

Taouk begins by quoting Matthew 19:17. Without a context, Christ appears to be teaching that eternal life is gained by works. Taouk’s sparse citation is more Pelagian than it is Roman Catholic; official Roman Catholic dogma states the need for grace and faith as well.

The passage in context is a striking declaration of the impossibility of being saved by keeping the law. Salvation by the works of law is indeed a way to salvation: unfortunately, since mankind is dead in sin and hates the law no one can be saved by keeping it. By striving to do so, one learns the need for Christ the savior who did keep the law. The rich young ruler who spent his life attempting to keep the law is given the truth by Jesus that he hasn’t even begun to keep even the first of the commandments. Upon seeing this, the disciples ask in astonishment, “who then can be saved?” The Lord responds, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” Rather than Christ teaching that salvation is accomplished by works, the passage demonstrates the futility of achieving it by works, and Christ declares that salvation is completely the work of God.

Luther commenting on Matthew 19:17 said,

"...[T]he papists make a big noise about the verse: “If you would enter into life, keep the commandments” (Matt. 19:17). To be sure, they hear and understand the words as to their form. But when we go on to ask about the content: “What does it mean to keep the commandments? Or how does one keep them?” then one goes this way, another that way. At best, they do not get beyond the Second Table of the Ten Commandments. A Mohammedan says: “It means to be circumcised, to abstain from wine, etc.” A papist: “One must fast, pray, and vow chastity and obedience.” Only a few, the best and the most sensible among them, apply this to the works of the Ten Commandments. But even they are totally ignorant of the Gospel’s doctrine of Christ, which insists above all that the Law must be fulfilled."[LW 24:188]

Indeed, the law must be fulfilled in both heart and action. Only Christ has kept the law perfectly. If one seeks for the "good news" of the Gospel in Matthew 19, one will not find it in Matthew 19:17, but in Matthew 19:25-26, "Who then can be saved? Jesus looked at them and said to them, with men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

A common charge against Luther is that he despised the Old Testament law and taught a radical antinomianism. I took a close it look at this charge here:

· *Luther And The Law: Did Martin Luther Abhor God's Law? (Part One)*

· *Luther And The Law: Did Martin Luther Abhor God's Law? (Part Two)*

Luther’s theology indeed has a place for the Law of God and its use in the life of a Christian. The Law for Luther was dual purposed: it first drives one to see their sin and a need for a savior; secondly it functions in the life of a Christian to lead one to a correct understanding of the good one ought to do.

Let’s take a look at the Luther quotes used by Taouk. I'm going to disregard the source citations he used, since i contend he did not read any of the three sources he quoted. I will though list good guesses as to the probable source he used if I can. Further, I'll try to give an actual reference to the English edition of Luther's Works.


1. "If Moses should attempt to intimidate you with his stupid Ten Commandments, tell him right out: chase yourself to the Jews.”
Probable Source: Luther as cited by Patrick O’Hare, The Facts About Luther (Illinois: Tan Books, 1987), 311.

This quote is from the 1525 treatise How Christians should regard Moses. Luther says,

“Now if anyone confronts you with Moses and his commandments, and wants to compel you to keep them, simply answer, “Go to the Jews with your Moses; I am no Jew. Do not entangle me with Moses. If I accept Moses in one respect (Paul tells the Galatians in chapter 5[:3]), then I am obligated to keep the entire law.” For not one little period in Moses pertains to us” [Source: LW 35:165].

The editors of Luther’s Works explain,

“How, then, is “Moses” Word of God, and how is “Moses” law? How do Word of God and law relate to each other? Here Luther makes sometimes the most contrary statements. On the one hand “Moses” is completely abolished: “Moses does not pertain to us.” On the other hand we hear Luther expressing the wish “that [today’s] lords ruled according to the example of Moses.” Anyone who, like the enthusiasts, erects Mosaic law as a biblical-divine requirement does injury to the preaching of Christ. Just as the Judaizers of old, who would have required circumcision as an initial requirement, so also the enthusiasts and radicals of this later era do not see that Christ is the end of the Mosaic law. For all the stipulations of that law, insofar as they go beyond the natural law, have been abolished by Christ. The Ten Commandments are binding upon all men only so far as they are implanted in everyone by nature. In this sense Luther declares that “Moses is dead” [Source: LW 35:158].


2. "Thou shalt not covet,’ is a commandment which proves us all to be sinners; since it is not in man’s power not to covet, and the same is the drift of all the commandments, for they are all equally impossible to us” [De Liv. Chris. Tom. 4:2].

Taouk’s usage of this Luther quote only furthers my suspicion of his Pelagianism. He seems to be implying that mankind has the ability to keep the commandments, while Luther and the reformers say we can’t.

The quote seems to be a condensed version of a passage from The Freedom Of A Christian:

“Should you ask how it happens that faith alone justifies and offers us such a treasure of great benefits without works in view of the fact that so many works, ceremonies, and laws are prescribed in the Scriptures, I answer: First of all, remember what has been said, namely, that faith alone, without works, justifies, frees, and saves; we shall make this clearer later on. Here we must point out that the entire Scripture of God is divided into two parts: commandments and promises. Although the commandments teach things that are good, the things taught are not done as soon as they are taught, for the commandments show us what we ought to do but do not give us the power to do it. They are intended to teach man to know himself, that through them he may recognize his inability to do good and may despair of his own ability. That is why they are called the Old Testament and constitute the Old Testament. For example, the commandment, “You shall not covet” [Exod. 20:17], is a command which proves us all to be sinners, for no one can avoid coveting no matter how much he may struggle against it. Therefore, in order not to covet and to fulfill the commandment, a man is compelled to despair of himself, to seek the help which he does not find in himself elsewhere and from someone else, as stated in Hosea [13:9]: “Destruction is your own, O Israel: your help is only in me.” As we fare with respect to one commandment, so we fare with all, for it is equally impossible for us to keep any one of them" [Source: LW 31:348].

Luther is saying what Jesus did in Matthew 19. No one as a member of sin-filled humanity can keep the commandments, and knowledge of that inability leading to despair drives one to Christ. Luther goes on a few sections later to point out that a Christian is the only one who can do good works. A faith-filled Christian does works to the glory of God. In other words, the regenerate are those who seek to lead godly lives, and not covet, or break the other commandments. For an in-depth look at the relationship of faith and good works in Luther’s theology, see my paper, *Did Luther Say: Be A Sinner And Sin Boldly?*


3. "“It does not matter what people do; it only matters what they believe” [Erlangen Vol. 29, Pg. 126 ].
Probable source: Peter Weiner, Martin Luther: Hitler’s spiritual Ancestor

I couldn’t find a reference in the English edition of Luther’s Works for this quote. A quick search of the World Wide Web produced a few hits, none of which gave a helpful reference or context. If Taouk got the quote from Wiener, note the context of Wiener’s usage, and his interpretation of Luther:

“It is here that I have found Luther's teaching so very surprising. According to Luther, what we do and how we act does not matter in the least. All that matters is our belief. He came to this staggering, and in my view thoroughly unchristian, doctrine by the addition of one single word—the word “alone”—in His German translation of the Bible. In Rom. Iii, 28, Luther makes the Apostle say: “Thus we hold that a man is justified by faith alone without the works of the law.” (This, incidentally, is one of his many falsifications of the Bible).

“It does not matter what people do; it only matters what they believe.” “God does not need our actions. All He wants is that we pray to Him and thank Him.” Even the example of Christ Himself means nothing to him. “It does not matter how Christ behaved—what He taught is all that matters” (E29, 196), is Luther's subtle distinction."

One can only hope that Taouk didn’t use Wiener for this quote, simply because Wiener has no idea what he’s talking about. I mentioned previously Wiener was not a scholar, and his small work on Luther is "full of falsifications of quotations and dishonest rhetoric that it cannot be taken seriously as a scholarly work...". This a glaring example of just that.

For Luther grace, faith, and the work of Christ are essential ingredients that justify, and that justification is a gift as well as the very faith involved. As Paul says in Ephesians 2:8-9, “For by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, that no man should glory.” But isn’t the Roman Catholic charge against Luther valid? If God judges a man by Christ’s perfect works, why should any Christian ever care about leading a righteous life? If grace, faith, and justification are God’s gifts, what is left for us to do? Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.

Paul answers for Luther in Ephesians 2:10, “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God afore prepared that we should walk in them.” Faith performs good works, not to keep one justified, but out of heartfelt gratitude to God graciousness. Salvation is unto good works. Note what this means: good works are not unto eventual salvation. We are saved in order to perform good works, not by performing them.

“Faith,” wrote Luther, “is a living, restless thing. It cannot be inoperative. We are not saved by works; but if there be no works, there must be something amiss with faith.” Luther scholar Paul Althaus notes: “[Luther] also agrees with James that if no works follow it is certain that true faith in Christ does not live in the heart but a dead, imagined, and self-fabricated faith." The book of James describes a real true faith in Christ: a real saving faith is a living faith. If no works are found in a person, that faith is a dead faith (c.f. James 2:17). James then describes a dead faith: the faith of a demon. A demon has faith that God exists, that Christ rose from the dead- I would dare say a demon knows theology better than you or I. But is the faith of this demon a saving faith? Absolutely not. Luther says, “Accordingly, if good works do not follow, it is certain that this faith in Christ does not dwell in our heart, but dead faith…”

Luther defines good works as those “works that flow from faith and from the joy of heart that has come to us because we have forgiveness of sins through Christ.” Only what God commands is a good work: “Everybody should consider precious and glorious whatever God commands, even though it were no more than picking a wisp of straw from the ground.” Works aren’t done because we want salvation and fear damnation. Luther says, “…[W]e are not to do them merely because we fear death or hell, or because we love heaven, but because our spirit goes out freely in love of, and delight in, righteousness.” Luther plainly teaches that saving faith is a living faith.

Luther taught a life under the cross, which is a life of discipleship of following after Christ. Our crosses though, do not save. They serve the neighbor. We are called to be neighbor to those around us. Luther says,

“We receive Christ not only as a gift by faith, but also as an example of love toward our neighbor, whom we are to serve as Christ serves us. Faith brings and gives Christ to you with all his possessions. Love gives you to your neighbor with all your possessions. These two things constitute a true and complete Christian life; then follow suffering and persecution for such faith and love, and out of these grows hope and patience.”

-Continued-

A Look At "Luther, Exposing The Myth" (Part One)

To The Right: The webpage "Luther, Exposing The Myth" attacks the Reformer with the alleged "facts" against him along with this picture of his "death mask". The picture though is not the "death mask". Even if it were, evidence put forth by Luther scholar Heinrich Boehmer suggests the mask is not authentic (see his book, Luther And The Reformation In The Light Of Modern Research, 349-350).

"Luther, Exposing The Myth"attributes this picture to the artist "Lucas Fortnagel – Leipzig, University Library."Probably "Fortenagel" was meant.Only a few paintings of Luther after his death exist, and this painting to the right might not even be the work of Fortenagel (compare this painting with that of Fortenagel's in Oberman's Luther: Man Between God And The Devil, 7).

There are countless web-pages written against the Reformers- I’m always amazed how many there are. Recently, I was reminded of a particularly bad webpage: Luther, Exposing The Myth by Raymond Taouk. Taouk has put together one of the worst web-pages I’ve ever come across: context, history, and truth don’t seem to be any sort of factor in Taouk’s analysis of Luther. As the issues raised by Taouk are the usual Catholic invective, I think it would be worthwhile to work through his webpage, and demonstrate the recklessness of someone with a few books, a flawed religious worldview, and access to the Internet.

Taouk begins,

“Who will doubt that the best judge of Luther’s true character is Luther himself? And so from Luther’s own words we shall see him for what he really was, that is a rebellious apostate, who abandoned the faith and led many into apostasy from God under the guise of “reformation” in order to follow his perverse inclinations. Keeping in mind that none of the following statements of Luther, which I will quote, were ever retracted by him, and so they may still be considered as part of his “religious thought”. This should show the aspect of Martin Luther which Protestants and all alike so conveniently overlooked in these days of false ecumenism and intellectual dishonesty.”

Taouk begins with bold rhetoric that immediately demonstrates a naïveté about his subject. He thinks that Luther never “retracted” the statements he will quote. Any Reformation scholar will explain though that Luther’s theology grew and developed. His positions on many issues were in a state of flux as he reevaluated the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in light of the sole authority of Scripture. Had Taouk actually studied his subject, he would find that Luther himself admits he wasn’t always consistent, and certain statements that were not retracted were nonetheless denied by Luther (See for instance his autobiographical admissions in his Preface To The Complete Editions Of Luther’s Latin Writings, 1545). The statements though that Taouk will quote by and large are only outrageous because he’s ignored the context (immediate, historical, or overarching theological). Protestants don’t “overlook” comments from Luther: they try to read them in context, as anyone honestly approaching a historical figure would do.

One may get the notion from such bold rhetoric that Taouk has done extensive study of Luther’s writings. Skimming through his footnotes, one is amazed at the collection of German books and collections he’s cited Luther from: Erlangen and Weimar German editions of Luther’s Works, Enders, Trischreden, Wittenberg Edition, etc. Some of the books cited have been out of print well over 100 years, like Dewette. A few of the references don’t even make sense to me, like “De Liv. Chris. Tom. 4:2”. Some of the references don’t give enough information to even qualify as references, like “Of Married Life”, “On Marriage”, or “Lecture At Wittenberg.”

I strongly doubt Taouk has read any of the German editions of Luther’s Works, or volumes by Dewette. He does reference a few secondary materials that I think he actually did read: he probably strongly relied on Father Patrick O’Hare’s Facts About Luther for many of the outrageous quotes utilized. He may have actually used Hartmann Grisar’s Luther Volume IV and Jacques Maritan in one or two instances. If you read my blog regularly, you know how I feel about Father O’Hare’s book: I have gone on record stating (and proving) it is one of the worst books on Luther ever written in English. Grisar fares better, but along with Maritan generally is classified in the genre of outdated Luther-vilifying Roman Catholic polemic.

Taouk also uses the popular article by Peter F. Wiener, Hitler's Spiritual Ancenstor (1945). Wiener was a school teacher from Prussia. The webmaster that hosts "Luther, Exposing The Myth" informed me the link was "largely based" on Wiener's article. This may be one of the main reasons then that Taouk is so misinformed about Luther. Wiener was not a scholar, and his small work on Luther is "full of falsifications of quotations and dishonest rhetoric that it cannot be taken seriously as a scholarly work" according to Lutheran theologian Uwe Siemon-Netto. Siemon-Netto, along with other scholars have reviewed and commented on the value of Wiener's essay, and have found it far from accurate. If Taouk's main intent was accurate research, one wonders if he sought out any of the reviews of "Hitler's spiritual Ancenstor" that have been published in the last 50+ years. My speculation is that he did not.

In only two or three references Taouk may have actually read Luther proper: he mentions John Dillenberger’s compilation of brief selections from Luther’s writings and a selection from Project Wittenberg. Taouk quotes Luther approximately 50 times, maybe only 4 or 5 times can one have any certainty that he actually read Luther proper, rather than someone else’s second hand work of extracted citations. This is a common practice among those who make vilifying web pages of Luther: they haven’t actually read Luther, they’ve read some quotes attributed to Luther by someone touting propaganda an agenda, or a differing religious view.

I can’t begin to emphasize how important it is to actually read a person’s words in context. Secondary sources can be helpful, but actually reading writers words rather than having them filtered through a biographer can be profoundly enlightening. I’m not saying that a biography shouldn’t be read, but if possible, check the references. If you read something outrageous, go get the book in question and determine whether or not the citation is accurate. Luther in particular is extremely easy to misquote. In my own studies and interactions with people, my primary emphasis has been the Reformation period. I began interacting with various critics of the Reformation period- which drove me to do ad fontes work. The charge,“ Luther said…” in my thinking becomes “What did Luther really say, and why did he say it?”

I doubt Raymond Taouk asked these questions when he compiled his Luther quotes. In the next few days I’m going to go through some of the quotes he used, and demonstrate that “Luther, Exposing The Myth” is not the result of a detailed investigation into what Luther actually said or meant. It is yet another link put forth by Catholic apologetics that makes their work look very silly. Sorry to be so blunt, but when something is bogus, I think it should be pointed out. Truth and fairness did not really matter in “Luther, Exposing The Myth”. They lay slain in the cyber-streets of the World Wide Web.

Adendum: I did contact the site that hosts "Luther, Exposing The Myth" to let the author Raymond Taouk know about my review. I couldn't seem to find his e-mail address on the website. They responded: "We will forward Mr. Taouk's your comments and ask him to send us a respond.Once he has sent us a response to your article, we will try to forward to you what he sends back to us. " A response will indeed be interesting. I am not expecting one, but I would appreciate the link "Luther, Exposing The Myth" be either removed, or edited to reflect balance and truth.

-continued-

Scripture Interprets Scripture: Isaiah 53 And The Atonement

I had the unfortunate opportunity to watch programs on the Trinity Broadcasting Network and another Pentecostal station while on vacation. I caught a show claiming to explain the "atonement". Two guys sat across from each other explaining to each other what the word meant. I, being Reformed have done a lot of work on the word “atonement.” I figured it would be interesting to hear what these two Pentecostal gentlemen had to say about this concept.

The first passage of scripture put forth to explain the atonement was Isaiah 53:4- "Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows..." It was pointed out that the word "infirmities" meant "sickness" (they noted that the King James Version does a great injustice by translating the word “griefs”). Hence, in the atonement, Christ also completely atoned for sickness. These men held that Christians need realize they not need be sick, because Christ carried your sickness also in his work of atonement.

Reformed Christians claim that Scripture interprets Scripture (the “analogy of faith” Sacra Scriptura sui interpres). Here's a great example of just that. Check out Matthew 8:14-17. After Jesus healed Peter's mother-in-law, cast out demons, and healed other sick people, Matthew records,

"This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah: 'He took up our infirmities and carried our diseases'."

Far from proving what the show claimed, Matthew interprets the passage for us. He explains that the healings recorded in Matthew 8:14-17 were done to fulfill Isaiah 53:4. If you're looking for Christ's atonement to heal your current sickness and disease, you've misintepreted Isaiah 53:4. Jesus never promised to remove sickness from the world before He comes again. If He did, someone had better come up with a good explanation of why Christian people still die (see Matthew 8:20-23; 1 Cor. 15:26; Rev. 21:4).

Here’s something that I’ve done in my own Bible. I went through the entire New Testament- every time I found a quotation from the Old Testament, I looked the passage up and underlined it with a red marker. That way, when I’m reading the Old Testament, I see instantly that a particular passage was quoted by a New Testament writer. With Isaiah 53:4, I saw immediately that the verse had been quoted in the New Testament. Not only quoted, but prophetically fulfilled.

You’re probably thinking, “hey Jim, Bibles usually have verse cross-references in the side margin or at the bottom of the page.” Yes, I know this, but it is quite different to actually have the Old Testament passages the New Testament writers quoted jump off the page. It is a time consuming process to underline all the verses, but I assure you it will be well worth it. It could've helped the two guys trying to explain the atonement on TV. But then again, I doubt having the New Testament interpret the Old is something they care about.

Luther, Basil, Michuta, and 1st Century Indians

I’m going to be away from the blog for a few days, so I’m going to leave a few snippets of what I’ve been thinking about. I just wanted to first thank everyone for stopping by. You've all been a blessing to me, whether you wanted to or not.


Item #1 Michuta on Luther
Catholic apologist Gary Michuta has started a new website. I saw Gary a few years ago when he debated James White on the apocrypha. He’s taken up the theme of the validity of the apocrypha on his new site.

When you click on the link for his material on the apocrypha, one of the first things you’ll find is a big picture of Martin Luther and this Luther quote: “ "...[Maccabees] has weight with the faithful, but it avails nothing with the obstinate." Now, what is Gary trying to prove? Does he really think Luther held a lifelong commitment to the canonicity of Maccabees? It’s fairly sad when one of the first items on webpage purporting to provide "truth" is a misuse of a Luther quote.

Gary Michuta gives the reference for this quote as "Martin Luther, Second Liepzig Disputation, July 8, 1519." Now, i'm not the best speller, but it's "Leipzig", not "Liepzig". Also, I don't think you will find this quote in the English edition of Luther's Works. I did a quick check, and couldn't find anything.

The topic of debate on July 8, 1519 was purgatory. Catholic apologetic references point out that Luther challenged the canonicty of Maccabees during this debate. The Luther quote Michuta uses implies Luther accepted the canonicity of the book during the Disputation. I would challenge Gary to produce a context, produce a reference, correct his spelling, or delete the Luther quote entirely from his website. If Gary wants Protestants to take his work seriously, he should at least quote Luther correctly. If he's simply putting out "shock" apologetics and using Luther as a pawn, then I will treat his work accordingly. Perhaps one of my Catholic readers can mention this to Gary. I think it's embarrassing.

Item #2 St Basil on Tradition

I came across this quote in a book I’ve been reading:

“Gratian cites an important text from St. Basil’s On The Holy Spirit that claims a mystical and secret tradition coming down from the fathers. Toward the end of the thirteenth century, St. Thomas recognized the existence of such a tradition but did not define its nature. He asserted that the apostles had believed certain things that must be preserved which were not left in scriptures but in the care of the Church through the succession of the faithful.” (John Headley, Luther’s View of Church History, 76).

Sounds Gnostic doesn't it? Secret tradition? Mystical? Yeah, that sounds like the Bible (I mean that with heavy sarcasm). For those of you with the King/Webster Holy Scripture 3 volume set, refer to pages 143-146 in volume 2 for some excellent research on this subject. Webster shows the misuse of Basil by Catholic apologetics, provides context, and clarifies the text. Also check out Colossians 2:8. When I get back, i'm going to write something up on this.

Item #3 Apolonio on the Fairness of God.
It’s been nice having Apolonio Latar around the last few days. He mentioned this:

“…[A] certain religious man in the Americas in the first century who does not know Christ but follows truth the best he can. Does this mean that his ignorance saves him? No. It just means that he is not held accountable for his ignorance. The judgment of this man is God's. *Can* he be saved? Of course, that is certainly a possibility. He may very well have implicit faith (Aquinas).”

Question: Is this part of the plan of salvation put forth in Holy Scripture? It sounds really good doesn't it? It's part of the theology of glory, not the cross. The cross is foolishness. "Glory"theology always tries to work stuff like this out. I mean, it's foolish to think that God would only allow the preached Gospel to reach certain ears throughout history. Certainly, God must offer salvation without the preached Gospel. God is fair guy! Well, i'm Reformed, so I don't have to work out solutions like that put forth by Mr. Latar.

Catholic Opinions On Protestant "Heretics"

I’ve encountered various responses to the Catholic position on Protestant “heretics.” Are Protestants who deny key dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church their “brothers in Christ”? Or, are they “separated brethren”? Are they “outside the church and in need of salvation”? Below I’d like to outline three positions I’ve come across from Roman Catholics. Now, each of these positions differs, and they’ve all been given to me by Roman Catholics.


1. The Presuppositional/ fideism Answer: Blissful Ignorance Of The “Truth”

Some have simply told me the only way I could be deemed a “lost”heretic doomed to eternal hell was if I knew the Roman Catholic Church was the true church- and still I denied her truth. But since I remain convinced the Roman Catholic Church does not teach the truth and is a false church, i'm not a doomed heretic, but rather, “seperated brethren.” Since I don’t believe the Roman Catholic Church is the true church, my ignorance saves me.

I admit, it is a “clever” response, and has always facinated me because it is an example of Roman Catholic presuppositional apologetics. In presupositional apologetics, one admits upfront that all arguments begin with unproven truth claims. At some point way back in every argument, something is stated that is “faith” claim, but is presented as a “fact” claim.

The argument above assumes beforehand that the Roman Catholic Church is the true church. In other words, it is a beginning faith in an unproven truth claim, rather than the result of reason and evidence proving it as a truth claim. I doubt Catholics who have used this line of reasoning with me have ever realized they’re doing Presuppositional Catholic apologetics! There really is only one way to respond: by presenting evidence and reason that the faith placed in this presuppositional claim is faulty. One has to argue that the evidence of history and reason do not best fit the inital presupositonal claim. Of course, the Catholic laymen using this argument may simply resort to fideism. That is, evidence and facts don’t really matter: “I’m going to believe what I want to believe…don’t confuse me with the facts.”

Perhaps this approach is simply the uniformed opinion of Catholic laymen. Or, perhaps this is the next phase of development in the understanding of the salvation of those who are not in fellowship with Rome.

2. There Really Is “No Salvation Outside The Church”- A Classical Apologetics Approach (Traditionalist)

I don’t think the presuppositional approach has always been the Catholic position, and most Catholics champion the “facts” that their church is steeped in the “facts of history”. For instance, I picked up a 1938 copy of Fathers Rumble and Carty’s “Radio Replies” (vol. 1): 1538 Questions and Answers on Catholicism And Protestantism [St. Paul: Radio Replies Press]. The book claims to be “Invaluable for the uninformed Catholic- the educated and uneducated lapsed Catholic and prospective Convert.” Lets take a look at question #536.

536. Do you maintain that one is obliged to join your infallible, one, holy, catholic, apostolic, end indefectible Church, if he wishes to be saved?

If a man realizes that the Catholic Church is the true Church, he must join it if he wishes to save his soul. That is the normal law. But if he does not realize this obligation, is true to his conscience, even though it be erroneous, and dies repenting of any violations of his conscience, he will get to Heaven. In such a case, it would not have been his fault that he was a non-Catholic and God makes every allowance for good faith.


Elsewhere Rumble and Carty point out, “…[R]emember the conditions of salvation for a Protestant. If he has never suspected his obligation to join the Catholic Church, it is possible for him to be saved. But it is necessary to become a Catholic or be lost if one has the claims of the Catholic Church sufficiently put before him.” Now Carty and Rumble are saying that if one has been presented with the “claims of the Catholic Church” and rejects them, one may be lost. Rumble and Carty want one to look at the evidence for Roman Catholicism and then make a decision on whether or not to believe it. If one rejects it, one is probably doomed to hell.


3. Hybrid Presuppositionalism: Modern Ecumenical Catholicism:

Apolonio Latar commented on this blog recently, “Why do we call Protestants separated brothers? Because they are baptized and hence, in Christ in some way. Are they heretics? Materially, yes. Formally, I don't know--it depends on the person.”

Latar notes that I need to be baptized, and echoes the Catholic Catechism: “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter." Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.”

In this third position, denial of Catholic dogma is an “imperfect communion with the Catholic Church”. Similar to the presuppositional/fideistic position, it begins with the presupposition that the Catholic Church teaches the “truth,” and denials of any of its dogmas is simply “imperfection.” So, my good fortune from this perspective is that I’m probably not doomed to hell, as long as I don’t in some way, become a formal heretic, and of course, I need to be baptized.

If Latar is right, the possibility exists that I, as a Protestant, could become a “formal” heretic. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes though “…a born Catholic may allow himself to drift into whirls of anti-Catholic thought from which no doctrinal authority can rescue him, and where his mind becomes incrusted with convictions, or considerations sufficiently powerful to overlay his Catholic conscience. It is not for man, but for Him who searcheth the reins and heart, to sit in judgment on the guilt which attaches to an heretical conscience.” For Latar’s position to have coherence, Protestants must be defined as “born Catholics”.

Mantra: Read The Article In The Catholic Encyclopedia

I’ve been in a lot of discussions in which I was told, “Read the article in the Catholic Encyclopedia.” Granted, the Catholic Encyclopedia has some useful information. Because I use it frequently, I link to it off this blog in the sidebar. On the other hand, one must be careful when using the Catholic Encyclopedia. It is a collection of articles collected in the early 1900’s. It contains research that is almost 100 years old- and in some cases, the sources and facts it presents are much older.

It’s material on Martin Luther and the Reformation is severely flawed, as I detailed in my paper on Roman Catholic approaches to Luther. The writer of the Luther entry was George Ganns (1855-1912). He relied on heavily biased sources when he compiled his entry on Luther. When a new version of the Catholic Encyclopedia was published in 1967, Ganns’s entry was not used, nor cited, nor were the sources he utilized. The new entry actually corrected some of the mis-information put forth by Ganns.

While the general Catholic apologetics community is disowning the work of Robert Sungenis these days (remember when he was loved and adored?), Robert recently commented on the Catholic Encyclopedia in his Q & A section:

Catholic Encyclopedia Fails to Appreciate the Patristic Witness for a Universal Flood

"Dear Robert, May I ask you to reply to this question I have? The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia + other sources tend to believe that the biblical deluge was only local, not universal, that both biblical and scientific research point to this conclusion. Are there any MAGISTERIAL pronouncements on the scope of deluge? What can be said in defense of the universality of the flood?"

Sungenis: Michael, the article on Noah’s flood in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia is one of the most biased and inept scholarly treatises I have seen in quite a while. The author, A. J. Maas, tries his best to convince the reader that the flood was local not universal, but he utterly fails in this task. The fact that Maas uses the hermeneutic of the Protestant scholar Julius Wellhausen and his infamous JEPD theory shows his liberal bent, since JEPD is an unproven biblical hypothesis, and one that has strong evidence against it (besides the fact that it denies biblical inerrancy). Maas makes the claim that:

“Neither Sacred Scripture nor universal ecclesiastical tradition, nor again scientific considerations render it advisable to adhere to the opinion that the Flood covered the whole surface of the earth.”

Well, this is quite an assertion but none of it is provable, or even likely. Regarding Sacred Scripture, the account in Genesis 7-9 reads like a newspaper, telling us painstaking details of the Flood, which Maas himself admits was “written by an eye-witness.” In fact, except for genealogical records, I don’t know of anything in Scripture that is more detailed than the Flood account. Accordingly, nothing in the Genesis account says it was a local flood, and we have distinct indications that it had to be universal, since the text specifies that the highest mountain was covered by 23 feet of water (Genesis 7:19).

Now, I haven’t checked Sungenis’s claim that A.J. Mass was putting forth his view based on the JEDP theory, but, given the timeframe when the article was written, it is very likely Sungenis is correct. If anyone else has any other examples of error in Catholic Encyclopedia, i'd be interested in hearing about it.

Who Has "The Gospel", And What Happens Without It?

In my review of the Gerry Matatics seminar, I mentioned “I couldn’t help but like Gerry, despite the fact that he denies the very Gospel I treasure.” This statement received a response in the blogback comments:

“I am a Catholic convert who reads and enjoys your blog (even if I do disagree with you on many points). I am, however, troubled by this statement from your post: "despite the fact that he denies the very Gospel I treasure."Is this statement directed solely at Matatics or all Catholics? Surely, you don't believe that all Catholics are "gospel deniers." I mean, it's one thing to say that Catholics are mistaken in their interpretation of the Bible, and it's quite another to characterize that as denying the gospel. It just seems to me that with the culture rotting at its core, and Catholics and reformed protestants sharing much common ground, there ought to be a desire to use less hostile characterizations. I am not suggesting that we paper over our serious theological disagreements, but calling every Catholic a gospel denier seems a bit over the top.”

My comment was directed toward Gerry. During the seminar, Gerry repeatedly denied that justification is by faith alone. He made sure to emphasize this. I believe the Bible teaches Justification by faith alone (Romans 3-4). Thus, Gerry denies that which I treasure.

The next response:

“James-I respect your position. It's one that I once held. But opposition to sola fide is not peculiar to Gerry. Indeed, all orthodox Catholics would reject that doctrine. But it's one thing to say, "Catholics reject a biblical doctrine that I believe to be at the very heart of the gospel," and quite another to call someone who disagrees with sola fide a "gospel denier." I just think we, as brothers in Christ, ought to move beyond such rhetoric. I may think that your wrong about sola fide, but I certainly don't question your love/devotion to Jesus Christ.Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to promote some sort of "warm fuzzy," let's-pretend-we-don't-have-any-theological-differences dialogue. I am just suggesting that questioning whether the other side is even Christian strikes me as unproductive.”

At the seminar, Gerry Matatics used the old analogy that if one is suspending a heavy object in the air by a chain, if one link is weak or bad, the entire object will crash to the ground. I feel similarly about Rome’s denial of the heart of the gospel- sola fide. While Rome may say some nice things about the Gospel, it denies the very heart of the Gospel. Thus, the entire Gospel “falls” in official Roman Catholic declaration. If one link in the chain is bad, the entire chain is bad and will not support what it intends to.

Right before the seminar, my wife leaned over to me and asked, “Are these people here our brothers and sisters in Christ?” I whispered back, “No…and maybe.” I said this because my opinion is that Rome denies the heart of the Gospel and so therefore does not officially teach the “Gospel.” On the other hand, I don’t deny that there are some Roman Catholics that are my brothers and sisters in Christ- but this is despite Rome’s teaching, not because of it.

I know it must seem arrogant and foolish to believe that sola fide is the heart of the Gospel. But I believe the Bible teaches it, and also teaches that finding justification in any other way is a doomed endeavor. I will attempt to present this position with as much respect as I possibly can. I realize this is a harsh opinion to Roman Catholic ears- but this does not mean I “hate” Catholics or dislike them. You won’t find me calling Rome the “Whore of Babylon” or saying that the Pope is the antichrist.

Now, Gerry Matatics and I at least seem to agree on one thing: I do believe that doctrine is important- so did Gerry Matatics. I believe doctrine has eternal consequences- so did Gerry Matatics. I think Gerry would likewise say to me, “If you are outside the church you will not be saved” or “you cannot be saved if you believe the heresy of sola fide”.

Take a look at these quotes from Gerry’s website:


Catholic Faith: no salvation outside of

“This true Catholic Faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now profess and truly hold …”

(Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 2, Profession of Faith, 1870)


Church: no salvation outside of

“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic Faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity … This is the Catholic Faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

(Athanasian Creed; quoted and solemnly ratified ex cathedra by Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, session 8, November 22, 1439)

“There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”

(Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215)

"The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church -- not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics -- cannot share in eternal life, and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; [the Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches] that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgivings and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and [the Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches] that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

(Ex cathedra solemn definition of Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence (Ecumenical Council), "Cantate Domino," 1441; Denzinger)

“It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and the Rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members ... By divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and … this is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church.”

(Pope Leo XII, Ubi Primum, May 5, 1824; paragraph 14)

Church: only the baptized are members

"Only those are really to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith and who have not unhappily withdrawn from Body-unity or for grave faults have been excluded by legitimate authority."

(Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi)

Faith, Catholic: Necessary for salvation

“ Whoever wishes to be saved must, above all, keep the Catholic faith.For unless a person keeps this faith whole and entire he will undoubtedly be lost forever. This is what the Catholic faith teaches …

This, then, is what he who wishes to be saved must believe about the Trinity. It is also necessary for eternal salvation that he believes steadfastly in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ …This is the Catholic faith. Everyone must believe it, firmly and steadfastly; otherwise He cannot be saved.”

(Athanasian Creed)

Jews: forfeit covenant relationship with God due to unbelief

“… If you be Christ’s then you are the seed of Abraham” (Gal 3:29). If we because of our faith in Christ are deemed children of Abraham, the Jews therefore because of their perfidy [“deliberate breach of faith; calculated violation of trust; treachery” – American Heritage Dictionary, Second edition] have ceased to be His seed.”

(St. Gregory the Great, Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers, vol. 1, p. 92)

Non-Catholics: are not Christians

“Even the heretics appear to have Christ, for none of them denies the name of Christ; yet, anyone who does not confess all that pertains to Christ does in fact deny Christ.”

(St. Ambrose (+389): cited in Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2, p. 163)

“Therefore the holy martyr Cyprian, writing about schism, denied to the pseudo-bishop Novatian even the title of Christian, on the grounds that he was cut off and separated from the Church of Christ. ‘Whoever he is,’ he says, ‘and whatever sort he is, he is not a Christian who is not in the Church of Christ.’ “

(Pope Pius IX, Etsi multa, November 21, 1873, paragraph 25)

Unevangelized peoples: faithless and in bondage to Satan

“We are thankful for the success of apostolic missions in America, the Indies, and other faithless lands…They search out those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death to summon them to the light and life of the Catholic religion… At length they snatch them from the devil’s rule by the bath of regeneration and promote them to the freedom of God’s adopted sons.”

(Pope Gregory XVI, Probe Nostis, Sept. 18, 1840; paragraph 6)

Now- the times have changed, and Protestants are not normally considered “heretics” by Roman Catholic apologists anymore. We are considered “separated brethren” or something to that effect. Gerry Matatics though would conclude differently. At least Gerry and I can agree truth is vital, and both agree Catholics and Protestants believe in two different Gospels. Both of us believe the other is eternally wrong.

During the Reformation period the new Protestants were popularly considered heretics. But since Protestants are supposedly not heretics anymore- I have to wonder why there is a need for most Roman Catholic apologetics. What’s the point? Why do Catholic apologetics? Why spend so much time writing against the Reformation or Protestants? It seems time could be spent better elsewhere.

I've been in more than a few discussion with Roman Catholics. Very few wish to call me a heretic. I tried one time to appeal to Galatians 1:6-9-

"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!"

I've asked- Isn't Justification by faith alone considered "another gospel" to a Roman Catholic? Why not condemn me a heretic?

The answer:The only way I could be deemed a heretic was if I knew the Roman Catholic Church was the true church- and still I denied her truth. But since I remain convinced the Roman Catholic Church does not teach the truth and is a false church, i'm not a heretic, but rather, seperated brethren- due to my ignorance- even though I adhere to faith alone, and believe that it is the Gospel- and I condemn as anathema any system that would deny it.

Now apply Catholic apologist logic to the Scriptures, and church history. What happens? It's not possible to consistently apply this logic to the Scriptures and church history. It certainly doesn't seem to fit with Paul's emphatic plea in Galatians 1. It also doesn't seem to fit with what the Council of Trent declared:

Canon 9- "If Anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema."

Even the Catholic Encyclopedia grips it:

"The doctrine of justification by faith alone was considered by Luther and his followers as an incontrovertible dogma, as the foundation rock of the Reformation, as an "article by which the Church must stand or fall" (articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesia), and which of itself would have been a sufficient cause for beginning the Reformation, as the Smalkaldic Articles emphatically declare. Thus we need not wonder when later on we see Lutheran theologians declaring that the Sola-Fides doctrine, as the principium materiale of Protestantism, deserves to be placed side by side with the doctrine of Sola-Scriptura ("Bible alone", with the exclusion of Tradition) as its principium formale -- two maxims in which the contrast between Protestant and Catholic teaching reaches its highest point. Since, however, neither maxim can be found in the Bible, every Catholic is forced to conclude that Protestantism from its very beginning and foundation is based on self-deception."

16th Century Marian Piety Or Mariolatry?

My last blog entry Young Luther, Saints, And The Virgin Mary looked at Mariolatry in the 16th century and its influence on Luther. There were serious problems with Marian theology in the 16th Century, and these problems helped fuel the Reformation. I think its important to realize the lack of doctrinal standards of Marian piety in the Sixteenth Century. One cannot appeal to the latest version of the Catholic catechism as the doctrinal standard for Marian piety four hundred years ago, or for that matter the Second Vatican Council.

Max Thurian notes , “At the Reformation anything to do with Marian doctrine was considered as being part of free theological opinion, so that Orthodox Christology should not be comprised by this or that opinion” [Max Thurian, Mary Mother of the Lord Figure of the Church (London: the Faith Press, 1963), 23].

David Wright focuses the situation:

“At the outset of the Reformation era, formally approved Church teaching about Mary encompassed only the virgin birth, her role as 'God-bearer' (theotokos) in the incarnation, and her perpetual virginity—and all of these were the legacy of the age of the Fathers. But since these early definitions theological speculation had steadily mounted. If there had so far been no further dogmatic deliverances, this was partly because on one or two issues different segments of the medieval Church were at loggerheads”[David Wright, Chosen By God: Mary in Evangelical Perspective,161-162].

Hhistorian Hilda Graef points out, “…the Mariology of pre-Reformation times had really in many cases become Mariolatry, and needed to be pruned from excesses which could only lead to a debased form of Christianity among the people who were encouraged to place the blessed Virgin beside or even above God” [Hilda Graef, Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion Vol. I (New York: Sheed and Ward) 318].

Perhaps this description from the Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue is adequate:

"Late medieval piety was marked by a great emphasis on the intercession of deceased saints and in particular by an intensification of confidence in the power of Mary. The steadily increasing number of saints invoked to remedy human needs and ills, and the long-accustomed role of Mary as mediator between the faithful and Christ, obscured the traditional theological distinction between adoration (latria) and veneration (dulia). In 1517, when Martin Luther called for an academic disputation on the use of indulgences and their relationship to the sacrament of penance, the cult of the saints and Mary became a related issue."[Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VII, 23]. (I would question on what basis one evaluates dulia and latria in the sixteenth century).

Some may think that 16th Century “theologically educated Catholics” were well aware of the basic truths of Marian doctrine and devotion, and it was only the back-woods' laymen who venerated Mary in excess . What one fails to question though is whether sixteenth century elite Catholics knew what excessive Marian devotion was, and by what standard they used. It seems apparent that many of the theologically educated of the sixteenth century participated in excessive Mariology and deviant piety. Sixteenth-century “theologically educated Catholics” did not understand Marian piety by standards that were created much later. I find it fascinating that the “theologically educated Catholics” who wrote the Confutation against the Augsburg Confession did not write against Mariolatry:

“The Confutation thus defended both the veneration and the invocation of the saints. Asserting that Christ is the sole Mediator of redemption, it proposed Mary and the saints as mediators of intercession. It did not regard invocation as contrary to Scripture but as having a biblical basis. At the same time it did not criticize aberrations in this form of Christian piety. What the Confutation did was to call for trust in the church's understanding of itself as a body whose members (deceased as well as living) are empowered by Christ their head to help one another.”[ Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VII, 29].

Luther relates an interesting account of his dealings with “elite educated Catholics” in LW47: 45-46:

“Furthermore, how will you endure their terrible idolatries [of the Papists]? It was not enough that they venerated the saints and praised God in them, but they actually made them into gods. They put that noble child, the mother Mary, right into the place of Christ. They fashioned Christ into a judge and thus devised a tyrant for anguished consciences, so that all comfort and confidence was transferred from Christ to Mary, and then everyone turned from Christ to his particular saint. Can anyone deny this? Is it not true? Did we not all, alas, at one time try this and experience it? Are not books extant—especially those of the shabby Barefoot Friars and of the Preaching Friars —which teem with idolatries, such as the Marialia, Stellaria, Rosaria, Coronaria , and they may as well be Diabolaria and Satanaria .  Still there is no sign of repentance or improvement, but they obstinately and impudently insist that all this must be defended, and they ask for your body and life for its protection.

Here I must call attention to an incident that occurred at the diet in Augsburg, to show what a precious reason they have for such holy idolatry. When the article regarding the invocation of the saints was being discussed in the committee, Dr. Eck cited the words found in Genesis 48 [: 16 ], where Jacob says of Ephraim and Manasseh, “And my name shall be invoked upon those children.”  When, after many words by Master Philip, John Brenz  said casually that nothing about calling on the saints could be found in Scripture, Dr. Cochlaeus,  to expedite matters, blurted out—profound thinker that he is—that the saints had not been invoked in the Old Testament because at the time they were not yet in heaven but in the anteroom of hell. Then my gracious lord, Duke John Frederick, duke of Saxony, etc., tightened the noose on both of them and said to Dr. Eck: “Dr. Eck, there you find the verse answered which you quoted from the Old Testament.” So sure are they of themselves, so nicely do they agree with one another—these precious writers of contradictions!  The one says that the saints were not invoked in the Old Testament, the other says that they were. They cite verses from the Old Testament, just as if we did not know that God performed all the great miracles in the Old Testament for the sake of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as he himself often declares, and that he did not perform one-half, indeed, not one-tenth, as many in the New Testament for the sake of any saint. Like fools, they spit out the first thing that comes into their mouth. Yet all this must be accounted true and be the basis of the articles of faith. All of this goes unrepented; moreover, it is defended. People are condemned and executed over it, and for this you are to war and fight, etc.”

Even the strict orders of monks were infected with Mariolatry:

“The Augustinian Order which [Luther] joined paid high honour to Mary. He remembered being afraid of Christ and taking refuge with Mary and saints, as though they were the mediators and Christ the judge and executioner. 'We held Christ to be our angry judge, and Mary our mercy-seat, in whom alone was all our trust and refuge.”[David Wright, Chosen By God: Mary in Evangelical Perspective, 163].

Eric Gritsch likewise observes, “The young Luther was nurtured in a spiritual environment that stressed the cult of Mary either in personal piety or in liturgical celebration… Marian devotions were intense at the monastery of the Augustinian monks in Erfurt. Some of the theologians there whom Luther revered, such as John of Paltz, based the assertion that Mary was Christ's co-redemptrix on the doctrine of Mary's Immaculate Conception.”(Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VII, 235-236).

William Cole comments, “As an Augustinian monk Luther found himself in a circle in which the Marian cult was very highly honored and practiced. In Mary's honor the Augustinians wore a white robe and scapular. A legend of the order recounted that St. Monica had received this habit from Mary herself. Everyday the Augustinians greeted Mary in the afternoon with a hymn and there even existed among them a fraternity of the Cincture of Our Lady. When Luther came to Wittenberg, he encountered the giant Catholic Church which supposedly contained among other things pieces of hair, the garments, the mantle of Our Lady, and even wax from the candle she held in her hand as she lay dying” (Marian Studies XXI, 114).

That both the laity and the clergy were in need of reformation is generally not disputed. When the early Reformers criticized the Catholic Church on deviant excess, some Catholic theologians responded: “We never taught such things!” The Reformers in unison replied, “But your people believed it, and you do nothing about it!” Historian Charles Guignebert explains their responsibility:

“Certain Catholic writers of our own day confess that the condition of the clergy was degraded but think themselves to be justifying this state of affairs by saying that it corresponded to that of the laity at that time, on the principle that, in the main, people always get the religion and the church they deserve. This is so, and it cannot be denied that society in the fifteenth and at the beginning of the sixteenth centuries seems very corrupt, judging by its upper classes, and that the religion of the lower classes appears very uncouth. Nevertheless the conclusion indicated is that the Church is largely responsible for this depravity and superstition, upon ascertaining that the demand of the Inquisition for orthodoxy can be satisfied with its appearance only, and that crimes and sins are of little ecclesiastical importance save as they represent a fruitful source of revenue for the vendors of absolution.”[Charles Guignebert, Ancient, Medieval and Modern Christianity (New York: University Books, 1961) 386-387].

I am well aware though of the differentiation between popular belief (or “folk piety”) and elite belief in the medieval world. Elite theology formed by the elite class was Biblical thought placed in the context of Greek philosophical traditions. Scholasticism and Nominalism fed Marian excess. Recall that Luther’s spiritual grandfather, the great Nominalist theologian Gabriel Biel, had a strong excessive Marian piety, particularly in Mary’s role as mediator. Gritsch notes in Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VII, that Melancthon agreed with Luther’s Christocentric stance, particularly against the backdrop of Biel: “[Melancthon] had encountered liturgical practices, particularly in formulas of absolution, that were based on the view that the invocation of Mary and the saints is a divinely instituted order” (241). “Melanchthon's source was Gabriel Biel's Exposition of the Canon of the Mass as well as contemporary worship handbooks” (382).

"Elite belief" was also a channel that fed Marian devotion toward excess. That the theologically educated during the Reformation similarly added to Marian excess is usually not disputed. Owen Chadwick points out,

"The strong and popular devotion to the Virgin was accompanied by a marked growth in the cult of the saints and their relics, and of pilgrimage to their shrines. Ill-regulated fervour could be superstitious or even demonic... But superstition was no innovation. Since the darkest ages peasants had consumed the dust from saints' tombs or used the Host as an amulet or collected pretended relics or believed incredible and unedifying miracles or substituted the Virgin or a patron saint for the Savior. In 1500 they were ardently doing these things. What was new was not so much the practice as the way in which the leaders of opinion were beginning to regard it.”
[Owen Chadwick, The Reformation (London: Penguin Books, 1964), 23-24].

An interesting point is similarly raised by Jaroslav Pelikan in regard to modern elite Roman Catholic theologians: “The real evil is in the elevation of ... naive piety to the status of a system and in the use of advertising tricks to 'merchandise' the cult of Mary. The simple and unreflecting Ave Maria of a South American peon is one thing, and a multi-volume theological opus on 'the prerogatives of the Blessed Virgin Mary' is quite another thing. The theologians and bishops of the Church, who ought to watch and warn the faithful of the excesses in such piety, are actually the ones who encourage the excesses." [Jaroslav Pelikan The Riddle of Roman Catholicism (New York: Abingdon Press, 1959, 140.]

Historian Leopold von Ranke gives an interesting look at Sixteenth Century prayer books given to the people:

“There are prayers to which an indulgence for 146 days, others to which one for 7000 or 8000 years are attached: one morning benediction of peculiar efficacy was sent by a pope to a king of Cyprus; whosoever repeats the prayer of the venerable Bede the requisite number of times, the Virgin Mary will be at hand to help him for thirty days before his death, and will not suffer him to depart unabsolved. The most extravagant expressions were uttered in praise of the Virgin: ‘The eternal Daughter of the eternal Father, the heart of the indivisible Trinity:’ it was said, ‘Glory be to the Virgin, to the Father, and to the Son.’” [Leopold von Ranke, History of the Reformation in Germany (volume 1), (New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Co, 1966) 119-120].

These types of prayer books were condemned by Rome twenty-five years after Luther died. They had enjoyed a rich life as normal piety in the medieval Catholic Church:

“The death knell to the traditional Roman prayer books was struck by a bull issued by Pius V on March 11, 1571. Influenced by the reforms of the Council of Trent, the pope placed under strict censorship the same prayer books Luther had named so contemptuously in an introductory letter to his own prayer book in 1522.”[Luther's works, vol. 43 : Devotional Writings II (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.) (Philadelphia: Fortress Press), 10].

Young Luther, Saints, And The Virgin Mary

Young Luther was enveloped in a religious climate consisting of a host of saints and superstitions. All worked together in a grand scheme of relief from the ravages of medieval life, as well as appeasing the always-watching wrathful God. Perhaps a few thought they were fortunate enough to one day attain ultimate salvation. Most expected the dismal grind of medieval life to continue beyond into the bowels of Purgatory, or worse. It was a religious “survival of the fittest,” with saints beseeched for aid in enduring the grueling journey. Participating in the cults of sainthood with all the fervent zeal of the time, young Martin called on three saints at every Mass. He recalled selecting twenty-one saints, “Thus I came the round in a week.”[i]

In popular Luther biographies attention is drawn to his youthful devotion to Saint Anne, patron saint of miners. It was she to whom young Luther would cry when terror stricken by a severe thunderstorm, the experience propelling him to join the local Augustinian monastery. Luther recalls, “Saint Anne was my idol.”[ii] She invoked a fanatical devotion. The world of young Luther was filled with a rapid expansion of brotherhoods of laymen devoted to the cult of a specific saint, and Anne had gained in popularity. Toward the end of the Fifteenth Century, Anne as “saint” rose in great prominence due to an order of Franciscans, who had become champions of the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary. Luther recalls that the honor paid St. Anne rivaled, if it did not exceed, that shown to he Virgin herself.[iii]

But regardless of St. Anne’s increased followers in medieval Europe, the Blessed Virgin did indeed reign above her as a preeminent spiritual power. To her was bestowed the highest veneration. Historian Joseph Lortz explains,

"Everything was dedicated to her and bore her name – places, churches, alters, girls. The widespread custom of singing the Salve Regina on Saturday evenings arose as a means of extolling her fame. The devout soul of the people was as much expressed in fervent hymns to Mary and legends about her, as in the countless number of paintings and sculptures of the Madonna, some of them very beautiful. Many confraternities were formed in her honor, and many endowments made. In all of this period her praise was never silent." [iv]

While emphasis on Anne is usually explicit in Luther’s story, Mary’s impact on the young Luther is often overlooked. Historian Robert Fife attempted to paint a graspable image of Luther the child in the realm of saint and Mary veneration:

"The Virgin Mother and the saints greeted the eyes of a boy from alter and windows, and their glory became familiar in prayers and hymns. Here love and pity, protection and help came to him clothed in warm humanity. The Virgin, whose song, the Magnificat… was usually sung at vesper services. Her figure sank into his memory as she appears at the last judgement, showing to her Son the breasts that suckled Him and pleading for mercy on mankind. Singing the Litany and the Rogations in the choir he learned to know the saints, and these brief figures gave him protection against the severity of the Judge and the wiles of the demons. The shining form of the saints stamped themselves enduringly on the boy’s imagination." [v]

A recollection from Luther’s Table Talk verifies the impact medieval Mariolatry had on the young Martin Luther. Sometime in 1503, he unintentionally stabbed his shin on a short sword and cut an artery in his leg. Thinking himself near death from the wound, he cried out, “Mary, help!” Help indeed arrived, but in the form of a surgeon who dressed the wound. Later that evening, the wound broke open again. The same fear of death gripped him, and Mary was called upon once more to save his life. Had Mary saved Luther? The mature Luther looking back on this experience realized how far from the spiritual help of Christ he actually was: “I would have died with my trust in Mary.”[vi]

The thunderstorm of 1505 that had chased him to the cloister also accompanied him inside in the guise of fear and trepidation. This prevailing dread was none other than Christ as the severe judge. As Robert Fife explains,

"[Christ] became a great source of unhappiness in the cloister…he refers frequently to his conviction that Christ was indifferent to human woes and must be won over through the intercession of his mother, the Virgin. The picture of Christ sitting in judgement on the last day dwelt vividly in his mind, so that he could not shake off fears connected with it. [Luther said,] 'When I looked on Christ, I saw the Devil: so [I said], ‘Dear Mary, pray to your Son for me and still His anger.’"[vii]

In the Augustinian monastery, meditation on the blessed mother was also a unique channel to make the heart fertile for divine grace. Mary was crowned with a special degree of glory that surpassed others in the divine realm. Bernard of Clairvaux had popularized her through his sermons. He had expounded the degrees of salvation, with Mary at the highest point. Jarislov Pelikan points out, “She was at the same time the personal embodiment of the supreme virtues of which humanity was made capable through the gift of grace: in her, as Bernard said, ‘is every goodness found in any creature.’”[viii]

Luther’s frequent mentioning of Saint Bernard speaks of his fondness and familiarity with his writings. Later recollecting Bernard’s influence on his own Mariolatry, Luther looked back on the years before his break with Rome and said,

"St. Bernard, who was a pious man otherwise, also said: ‘Behold how Christ chides, censures, and condemns the Pharisees so harshly throughout the Gospel, whereas the Virgin Mary is always kind and gentle and never utters an unfriendly word.’ From this he inferred: ‘Christ is given to scolding and punishing, but Mary has nothing but sweetness and love.’ Therefore Christ was generally feared; we fled from Him and took refuge with the saints, calling upon Mary and others to deliver us from our distress. We regarded them all as holier than Christ. Christ was only the executioner, while the saints were our mediators." [ix]

He also recollected, “Christ in His mercy was hidden from my eyes. I wanted to become justified before God through the merits of the saints. This gave rise to the petition for the intercession of the saints. On a portrait St. Bernard, too, is portrayed adoring the Virgin Mary as she directs her Son, Christ, to the breasts that suckled Oh, how many kisses we bestowed on Mary”![x] Luther concluded though, that even in St Bernard’s incessant praise of Mary as she directs the sinner toward Christ, Bernard left out Christ completely: “Bernard filled a whole sermon with praise of the Virgin Mary and in so doing forgot to mention what happened [the incarnation of Christ]; so highly did he… esteem Mary.” [xi] Thus, young Luther partook in Mariolatry, but the mature Luther looking back saw only the excesses of medieval devotion and teaching on Mary. He saw that she had been adorned with attributes that only belonged to Christ.

[i] Martin Luther, D. Martin Luthers Tischreden 1531 – 1546, IV No.4422, quoted in Robert Herndon Fife. The Revolt of Martin Luther (New York: Columbia University Press, 1957), 122.

[ii] Martin Luther, “Sermon of December 22, 1532,” WA XXXVI, 388, quoted in Robert Herndon Fife. The Revolt of Martin Luther, 122.

[iii] Martin Luther, D.Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe, Abteilung Werke, I, 415, quoted in Robert Herndon Fife. The Revolt of Martin Luther, 13-14.

[iv] Joseph Lortz, The Reformation in Germany, trans. Ronald Walls (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1968), 1:112.

[v] Robert Herndon Fife. The Revolt of Martin Luther (New York: Columbia University Press, 1957), 13-14.

[vi] Martin Luther, Luther's works, vol. 54, ed. J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999), 14.

[vii] Robert Herndon Fife, The Revolt of Martin Luther (New York: Columbia University Press, 1957), 123. Luther’s quote is from, Martin Luther, “Sermon of May 21, 1537,” WA XLV, 86 quoted in Robert Herndon Fife, The Revolt of Martin Luther, 123.

[viii] Jaroslav Pelikan, Mary Through The Ages (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996), 144.

[ix] Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, 22: 377.

[x]Ibid., 22: 145.

[xi] Ibid., 54: 84.

“I believe in Christianity because it’s absurd!” The Hidden God vs. The Revealed God

“I believe in Christianity because it’s absurd!” Would you ever say such a thing to a non-believer? I doubt it. Most of us would be asking God’s forgiveness for even thinking it. The early church father Tertullian is said to have expressed his belief in Christ’s crucifixion with these words: “...it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd.” He also said, “And He [Christ] was buried, and rose again, the fact is certain, because it is impossible”.* These statements sound preposterous. But Tertullian had something deeper in mind than nonsense. These assertions are more profound than the first glance reveals.

Look out your window. It may be a bright sunny day, with birds chirping and flowers blossoming. If it’s nighttime, perhaps you can look up into the sky and see the stars shining like diamonds against black velvet in a jeweler’s case. As Christians, we see the divine artist and His brilliant handiwork: “The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork” (Psalm 19:1).

But non-Christians also look out their windows. Scripture tells us they know God exists (Romans 1:18-23). They see the same profound beauty and wonder you do. But rather than praising the true God of the Bible, they create god as they imagine him to be. Seeing a sunny day, a man may realize he enjoys life. His god is probably the grandfatherly image of the ‘good guy’ with a long beard who sees that the good in his life outweighs the bad (or so he thinks). Through the window though he may see a torrential storm, thus his god may be powerful and angry. When things go wrong in his life, he wonders exactly what he did to deserve his fate from the hands of angered providence.

Because human creatures want to make it on our own, because we ultimately want to feel responsible for our ultimate well being, the gods we fashion demand performance and accomplishment. The fallen creature cannot even imagine what God is really like, so his god is largely a reflection of his feelings, failings, and fears. This is the god that makes ‘sense’ to fallen humanity. Martin Luther called this humanly fashioned deity the “hidden god.” This is the god that sinners can’t see; yet they know he’s there. It’s easy for them to believe in this god, in fact it’s ‘logical’.

Tertullian’s words should be coming a little more into focus. If one were to ask you what is the best description of God you could come up with, what would it be? How has God most clearly revealed Himself? The answer should be obvious: God has revealed Himself to us most clearly in Jesus Christ. But think about the “revealed God” for a moment. How was he first revealed? He came to us as a baby in a manger. God almighty, creator of the universe revealed Himself as a weak, fragile infant. Then the infant grew, and took on a vocation: carpentry. God almighty, creator of the universe revealed Himself as a hard working “blue collar” guy, a man without the financial strength and greatness of kingly riches. Where do we find God a few years later? We find him beaten and bruised, dying in weakness on a cross, abandoned by friends and followers: a succinct picture of helplessness.

Paul brings Tertullian’s words sharply into focus. In 1 Corinthians 1:18-2:9. Paul says, “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.’” Indeed, the Gospel message must seem utter foolishness to non-believers. In Christ’s weakness on the cross, one actually finds the God of the universe. And how is it that mankind can know God almighty? “For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.” The “foolishness” of preaching becomes the highest wisdom!

Paul expresses these paradoxes succinctly: “For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.” And whom does God choose to enjoy the riches of His wisdom and strength? Paul explains: “Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.” God primarily chose fishermen and tentmakers to spread His Gospel. Likewise, you Christian, feeling insignificant and inconsequential by the world’s standards, bear the power of God contained in the Gospel. However weak you may feel, our Lord states in 2 Corinthians 12:9 that His “strength is made perfect in weakness.”

You will probably never explain to a non-Christian that you believe in Jesus because it’s absurd. But maybe you’ve been embarrassed or ashamed in front of the world because of your Christianity, and haven’t been able to understand why. The reason is quite simple. You have probably been evaluating the Gospel with the wrong worldview. Maybe, like all of us, remnants of the hidden god (the god that makes “sense”) clouds your understanding of the revealed God. Paul explains that in weakness, he was strong (2 Cor. 12:10). It is only by embracing God as he has most clearly revealed Himself: “in the crib” and “on the cross”, will you be strong, in actuality. Don’t be afraid of your weakness, boast in it, that the power of Christ may rest upon you (2 Cor.12:9).

*Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ, 5 as cited in Geisler, N. L. (1999). Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics. Baker reference library (Page 721). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books. Geisler points out that Tertullian probably used the word "foolish" rather than "absurd."