my recent post on Leibniz & Luther is down for revision. I found some other information I need to sift through.

Luther's Preface To The Swabian Syngramma

And now for probably the first time in cyber space, here is Luther's Preface To The Swabian Syngramma (1526). I've pointed out that there are really only three main writings from Luther directed toward Zwingli, and this is the first. This has interest to me as verification that the Luther quote I've been looking at is from That These Words of Christ, “This Is My Body,” Still Stand Firm Against The Fanatics (1527). The below translation is from Ian Siggins, Luther (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1972) pp.111-114.

German text here, introduction begins on page 447, the text itself on page 457.

The deepest dissension in infant Protestantism was that between the Lutherans and the Swiss over the eucharist. Luther and Zwingli did not clash directly until 1527, but in 1526 Luther had reviewed the dispute in his preface to Johann Brenz's Swabian Syngramma. (Latin text in WA 19, 457-461.)



Martin Luther to all dear friends in Christ.

Grace and peace in Christ, our Lord and Saviour. This is a Latin booklet called Syngramma, published by the preacher in Swabia against the new rabble who are introducing novel dreams about the sacraments and disrupting the world. I find the book so pleasing that I was prepared to translate it into German, since, with many other things to write and do taking precedence, I have not been able to write a special treatment quickly. But now that my translation in turn has been delayed, a German version has been produced by my good friend. Master Johann Agricola, teacher at Eisleben, and I have been spared the trouble. Even when I wrote against the heavenly prophets and attacked Carlstadt's 'touto', I anticipated that others in succession (especially educated men) would follow with 'est' and 'significat'; yet this is really such a childish, incompetent argument. There is no example of it in Scripture, and even if there were examples, it could not thereby be proved that the words, 'This is my body', should and must be so taken. They will never prove it—that I know for sure. For it is a completely different thing to say: 'It may mean this' and to say: 'It must mean this and cannot mean anything else.' The conscience cannot rely on the first version, but it can rely on the second. I thought, and I still think, that in my book against Caristadt I had established this point sufficiently well that no one could refute it; and I still do not see that the principle I stated there has been genuinely assailed or shaken. But what I wrote is so despised by these exalted spirits that they do not even look at it, and after a mere glance in its direction conclude that it is all worthless, and that I must offer something quite different. Well, then, since I did not have time to write against this spirit in particular, I will bear witness to my faith with this foreword, and sincerely counsel those who will let themselves be warned to beware of these false prophets who call our God a 'baked God', a 'breaden God'; they call us 'God's flesh-eaters', 'God's blood-drinkers', and I know not how many other horribly blasphemous names, and yet they stay amongst patient, meek people who suffer great persecution and confess Christ aright. But the devil rules the patient and meek who overthrow the faith! I hope that such horrible blaspheming will come to a swift end, and he along with it. Even so, we have really deserved such pitiful beings and sects through our own ingratitude and persecution of the gospel, and through our wickedness we deserve still more the even greater distress to come.



First, this sect is so prolific that it has grown five or six heads withina single year.[3] The first was Dr Caristadt with his 'touto'. The second was Ulrich Zwingli with his 'significat'. The third is Johann Oecolampadius with his 'figure of the body'. The fourth is transposing the word-order of the text. A fifth is on the way, which rearranges the words. A sixth is now being born, who tosses the words like dice. Perhaps a seventh will show up as well and shuffle cards! Each individual wants to come out on top here. Look, has God's Spirit not forewarned us enough about such sects which divide up like this from the start?Where else does this portrait belong but with the beasts of the Apocalypse, where there are also beasts with one body and many heads [Revelation 13] ? These sects hold precisely the same thing in the long run, like one body, but in motives and basis each individual gang has proclaimed its own head and its own style, even though they are all set up to blaspheme one and the same Christian truth. Anyone who by now is not repelled or forewarned by such a horrible picture and God's admonition deserves to have to believe not only that there is mere bread and wine in the sacrament, but that it is mere mushroom or morel!



Secondly, the true Spirit not only takes care to avoid rebellious arguments and to present always a single ground of belief to all the world throughout his preaching (for he is not a God of duplicity, but of simplicity); no, he presents unwavering arguments, so that the longer one resists them, the stronger they become and grow. But with this beast it is quite different. Its first head, Carlstadt's 'touto', is drooping already and has not been able to sustain a single blow; so even they have to admit themselves that he was wrong, and the Spirit could not have dwelt there. The excuse that holy people sometimes stumble in faith and life does not help here, even though it is true. No, the Spirit has never let his own teachers err in promulgating the fundamentals of doctrine, especially when new ones are springing up as they are now. Certainly,he lets the arguments be weak, but he does not let them fail or be overthrown. Rather (as I said) he makes them grow and prevail—not like Carlstadt's 'touto', lying prostrate. The same thing is true of Zwingli's 'significat'; its head, too, has drooped and faded right away. For there is no single instance in Scripture where 'signifies' can be derived from 'is'; and if, after all, some instance were produced (which it cannot be), they will still never be able to derive 'signifies' from 'is' in the Supper. So here, too, his spirit has erred and fallen. That makes two major cautions and warnings from God to all who fear him and wish to believe truly. In fact, there is no surer way to recognise the devil than by lying and duplicity in the faith, and there is no better way to recognise the Spirit of God than by the truth. But this does not help: the world must and will be seduced, just as in Arius's day, when the same sorts of lies should also have served as warnings but did not help.


Thirdly, this spirit is above all a fickle, volatile spirit which does not stand still on any issue, as I have proved both orally and in writing. If one demands of them that they demonstrate that the saying, 'This is my body' or its parallels, used to be understood in their sense, and otherwise than the plain, common, natural words indicate, they take up another little tune—they are simply full of words and ideas! Here they explain from John 6 that there are two kinds of eating, spiritual and physical, as if no one knew that before; or sometimes they praise themselves for being so pious and enduring so much; or they deny that there is any need to insist that Christ's body and blood are present; or else they snatch at something to the effect that 'they do not have to stick to the words anyway'—otherwise they would be caught! In this way they fill up pages and ears with fruitless words, so that one cannot fail to see how Satan twists and changes himself into every shape to avoid being ensnared in his own lie. I say, then, that such falderols and flights of fancy have nothing to do with the case; I say they should stick to the words and demonstrate their understanding from the self-same passage of the text—oh yes, now they take me back to John 6 or to the monkey's tail, and in the meantime the issue is lost in the babble and still nothing is settled. It is the true mark of Satan's skill to nicker in this way, like night fires in the fields at evening.



I therefore state my judgement; however intensely it displeases them, I am nevertheless sure that it is true, for in this case I am thoroughly conversant both with the faith and with the devil. Their error rests on two grounds; first, it seems such an ungainly idea by rational standards, and secondly, it seems unnecessary, that Christ's body and blood should be in the bread and wine—that would be absurdity, not necessity. They have clung to these two points, and through Satan's temptation it has so penetrated into them—'as oil soaks into bone' (Ps. 109) [: 18; Vulg.108 : 18]—that they cannot get rid of it. Accordingly, now they wear such distorting glasses before their eyes that they come toddling to Scripture to see how can they drag their own opinion in and force the Scripture to their interpretation. In this way the Word may not be understood to mean what it says; you have to mould it and produce here a 'touto', there a 'significaf, here a 'figura', now transpose the words, now rearrange the text, now shuffle the text like a pack of cards. See, this is where the sects come from; but if they stuck to the words as they stood, or demonstrated from the text and sequence, or on other good grounds, that the words were to be understood differently from what they say, they would not give rise to any such factions.


If, now, they want to establish their interpretation, they will really have to take a different sword in hand; the treatises they have submitted, if they are like the Subsidium or the Antisyngramma,[4] will not do it; they can lead many astray, but they can settle nothing fundamentally. Hereby I also wish to warn all pious Christians to be prepared for these sects, and to abide by the pure, unalloyed words of Christ; indeed, we have the advantage that we dare not twist or bend the words as they do. I also ask that you will read this booklet diligently. If God gives me time, I will write specifically on this subject, but meanwhile I thank my God that he does not let the devil produce more potent lies than these are. God's grace be with us all.



FOOTNOTES



3 The 'six heads' are the following new interpretations of 'This is my body which is given for you': 1. Andreas Caristadt: When Christ said 'This (touto) is my body', he was pointing to his own body, not the bread. 2. Ulrich Zwingli: 'This is my body' meant 'This signifies my body' (est = significat). 3. Johann Oecolampadius: 'This is a figure of my body (figura corporis), a logical refinement of Zwingli's position. 4. A view, attributed in a letter of Luther's only to 'C——': 'That which is given for you is my body.' 5. Caspar Schwenkfeld and Valentin Krautwold: 'My body, which is given for you, is this (namely, spiritual food).' 6. Melanchthon had heard by letter of yet another arrangement, attributed to a citizen of Cologne, but Luther had no specific information.



4 Ulrich Zwingli, Subsidium sive coronis de eucharistia, August 1525, JohannOecolampadius, Antisyngramma, February 1526, a reply to the Latin first editionofBrenz's Svnsramma.

Prayers Needed: The Katrina Aftermath

johnMark

My very good friend Russ has asked for prayers in his Rebuilding Lakeshore post. The damage in this area is more than many of us realize. I guess if it doesn't serve the political interest of certain groups nor sell articles and papers then those whose lives were drastically affected aren't so important anymore.

I have friends that have spent much time there since Katrina hit. Sadly, I've not had the opportunity to get over there and help. Yes, shame on me. If anyone wants to help in any way that you I'm sure you can just get in touch with someone through a link on Russ' blog above.

Appreciating the prayers,

Mark

Spy vs. Spy...Continued.

I’ve been trying to sift through DA’s blog entries on the “Luther quote” that I recently provided both a reference and a context for (two things usually missing from Catholic citations of it). I do have some time this week to take a look at some of the concerns raised by DA.

I usually have to cut away 90% of his words that don’t really matter anyway. For instance, there has been an excessive amount of hostility and slander directed towards me. There really isn’t much need to counter-respond to it, as his words speak more about him than I. I’m going to begin with this entry (posted January 4, 2008), in whatever form it is now. If he changes it, I can’t be responsible to keep up with his constant editing.

In the past few weeks, I have sought, as much as possible, to avoid commenting on Steve Ray’s involvement while commenting on DA’s continued assaults. I’ve had a cordial dialog with Steve behind the scenes, and I would speculate, had DA not gotten involved, this would have been a much easier, and less hostile discussion. It could’ve been an intelligent and respectable discussion between two people with two very different perspectives. I think it could’ve edified both Protestants and Catholics. My opinion is that DA tainted the entire issue. If things have gotten progressively ugly, one has to ask, “If Ray and Swan are cordially dialoging about this, what in the world is wrong with DA?”

On the other hand, from what I’ve gathered from the entry, DA more-a-less stated he entered into this discussion by an invite from Steve Ray: “Steve himself wrote to me and asked my opinion on a particular matter, related to what has become a huge controversy, on 11-28-07. I got more and more involved, with Steve's complete agreement.” I still consider my dispute to be with Steve and not DA, but if indeed DA is involved by request, then I guess, in a way, I am still in dispute with Mr. Ray. The “professional” thing to do (or what DA probably should have done), if he was indeed invited, would have been to work behind the scenes to help Mr. Ray compose the best possible response to my assertions he could. But, the professional course was not taken, so I guess I’m expected to respond to both of these gentlemen.

DA states he’s not only working together with Mr. Ray, but also a man named Paul Hoffer, whom I believe is a lawyer (though I may be mistaken on this). DA states, “Since mid-December, we have all worked together extensively, doing research, trying to get to the bottom of this. It has been a lot of fun, and a most welcome challenge. Steve thanked me publicly for my assistance, on 12-13-07.” Mr. Hoffer has offered his comments and “research” over on DA’s blog, so I have also a third person to contend with if I so choose. For those of you keeping score, that’s three against one. I admit, I do get a bit of a chuckle out of it taking three men working together to “refute” my work. It’s funny, because DA has taken so many shots at me, stating both explicitly and implicitly things like, I’m a “lightweight in the anti-Catholic apologetic world”- one really does wonder why it would take three of them in this matter.

DA thinks his ability to discern the translation from a German treatise to a Latin treatise was information I snatched from his blog. DA should know by now, I do not use his blog for Luther research. I do not approve of either his methods or abilities, so it would be inconsistent for me to speak negatively about his work, while using his work. I have a large collection of books on the Reformation, so I don’t need his insights or work.

DA states, “Swan mentioned Latin in his earlier salvoes, but he did not come up with the theory of discrepancies being explained by Latin vs. German versions. That came from our end. Time will tell if this is important in what we eventually find. But Swan would like his readers to vainly imagine that he came up with this ingenious analysis and is doing our work for us. Nice try.”DA fails to realize, but should know by now, I primarily use Luther’s Works (and not the “Google” version, like he does). That is, in my initial investigations into this quote, the introductory comments from LW 37 specifically point out the treatise was written in German. When I reviewed Mr. Ray’s book and Balmes, I saw the Latin translation. Obviously, anyone should be able to put 2 + 2 together at this point.

What DA might not realize, is that in some instances Luther wrote the same thing in both German and Latin. While Luther’s Works did not mention a Latin original, it did not deny it either. Thus, out of caution, I did not immediately state my suspicions on this. While doing research, I found no mention of Luther composing the same text in Latin. I’m not sure if DA is even aware of such issues like this. Either way, it’s not a far stretch of logic to read the LW 37 introductory comments stating they translated the treatise from German, and then see that Balmes provided a Latin quotation. Obviously, if the treatise was originally in German, and one finds a Latin quotation from it, well, as DA himself has said, “It ain’t rocket science.” If DA thinks it takes his superior depth of wisdom to note 2 + 2= 4, well, fine. DA you win: you arrived at 2 + 2=4.

On this same topic, I wrote to Steve Ray earlier and mentioned another theory I have had for quite a while now, and since DA is so keen on being thanked for his own 2 +2 = 4 insights, I guess I should post it now, noting that DA is welcome to claim it as his own (we’ll call it, 3 + 3 =6). Consider it a gift. Besides, I’ve already found the title of the treatise in both German and Latin, and produced a context. Any other “discovery” after this is trivial in comparison. I mentioned to Steve,

“In regard to the Luther quote, there is a possibility, and a strong possibility, that if you do recover a Latin version, the quotes still will not match up. That is, it is quite possible the Latin version that has circulated throughout history is rather the result of a paraphrase from an earlier secondary source like Cochlaeus. I've checked my copies of Eck and Cochlaeus, and haven't found anything. You can tell DA this possibility.”

In other words, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to discover that the Latin quote was a paraphrase from a secondary source- that is, someone writing about Luther, say a Cochlaeus or a John Eck. If DA is looking for an avenue of research, I would suggest he think of checking the earliest of secondary sources. He doesn’t need to check the recent Cochlaeus book Luther’s Lives. I’ve done that for him. Also, I’ve checked Eck’s Enchiridion, and it’s not there either. I’ve worked on this theory now, since before I even posted my initial review of Mr. Ray. It would account for the looseness of the translation, and also accounts for the context that precedes the quote (recall, that would be the context from the treatise I was correct about all along).

It would also account for someone, (say...maybe a 16th Century Catholic apologist?), conflating the quote while writing against Luther, and completely butchering the context- particularly leaving off "Their success will be the same as it was in the past," and ignoring that which is before and after the quote. This to me seems very plausible.

Doctrine Divides Staff at Young Life?

johnMark

There has been an internal disagreement that has caused all 10 staffers of Young Life at the Chapel Hill, NC office to leave voluntarily or otherwise. It seems that more than disagreements were heating up as the article on CT Gospel Talk was having a server overload earlier. You may also read an article about this subject over at The Christian Century just in case CT goes down again.

The dust up is over six non-negotiables on the manner the Gospel is presented put out by the Young Life leadership. Their is a link to the Non-Negotiables of Young Life's Gospel Proclamation or go directly to their .pdf file where the positions are more fully explained.

A summary of the six non-negotiables are as follows with pithy comments by me.

1) We proclaim the Person of Jesus Christ in every message.

Sounds good.

2) We proclaim the reality of sin and its consequences - that apart from divine grace, we are estranged from God by our disobedience and incapable of a right relationship with God.

This is the point that it seems caused the most trouble. My summary of their summary. Salvation is by grace through faith, all have sinned, the wages of sin is death and this also escapes pelagianism by declaring the necessity of God's grace. IMO, the objections probably come from today's graceless, hyper-freewill Gospel.

3) We proclaim the crucifixion of Jesus Christ as the ultimate proof of God's love and the only solution to our problem of sin.

Even with today's Gospel presentation this should fit in perfectly since so many people seem to think the whole canon of Scripture starts with "For" and ends with "life". Anyone figure out this "canon"?

4) We proclaim the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Yep, no resurrection no life and we witness in vain.

5) We proclaim the risen Christ's offer of salvation by inviting our middle school,high school and college friends to confess Jesus as Lord and Savior.

This may be another point of contention because Jesus is proclaim as "Lord" and not only "Savior" since there are certainly those who believe Jesus being Lord comes later. I say this because the decentors don't seem to believe repentance and faith go hand in hand based on the above articles. They see repentance as a gift from God. Yes, but so is faith.

6) We proclaim God's call to discipleship by encouraging all who respond to grow in their faith.

Discipleship seems to be what is missing in many congregations across this country. Another good point.

An interesting point is that in the .pdf file the YL Leadership supported their position with quotes from their statement of faith. And if they've correctly applied the statement of faith to this position then why the objections?

This is not an endorsement of Young Life, but just some observations. I pray these actions will wake-up the young people and parents involved in this ministry and those like it to look more closely at doctrine. It doesn't have to be a negative thing. I actually wonder if the objectors will actually end up drawing negative attention rather than helping the situation.

I guess these non-negotiables were non-negotiable for either side so why all the uproar?

Mark

Karl Keating's Blueprint For Anarchy

I was digging through my library and a tiny Catholic Answers booklet stuck to a book fell on to the floor. I don't recall this booklet, I'm sure I must've picked it up somewhere, meant to get to it, and simply forgot about it. The booklet is called, "No Apology from the new apologists" by Karl Keating. I had a strong hunch the content of this booklet was on-line, and sure enough, I found it with ease.

It is an interesting read, particularly for those of you who find the current trend in Catholic apologetics fascinating. After seeing some recent comments from Rhology and others in a comment box, I recommend this booklet as insightful to the group-think of the current Catholic e-pologists. In fact, for those of you who are Protestant and spend time researching Roman Catholic issues [hint: Rhology, Carrie], this is a MUST read.

On the subject of Catholic unity (both the topic of a recent blog entry here, and over at aomin), Keating laments the disconnect between some Catholic scholarship and the "new apologists." Also implied in this is the disagreements between those within Catholic scholarship [Maybe I'll post these comments later].

Keating then states something very revealing:

"The process that brings Catholics out of the Church and into other religions almost always includes appeals to the intellect. Calls these appeals what you will—proselytism, proof texting, or just plain arguing—the appeals work, and they work because they are couched in terms of the duty of Catholics to apply reason to their faith. These Catholics, many of them habitual Mass-goers, have received little intellectual sustenance from their parishes. They are effectively uncatechized. In not a few cases they have been decatechized: Private doubts have been thrust upon them, and they quietly wonder why they should remain in a church whose leaders issue contradictory messages from the pulpit and in the confessional. "

Now, my booklet of the same content contains a footnote at this point from Keating, which isn't in the on-line version:

"Many Catholics are confused because some priests tell them contracepting is immoral, while others tell them the practice is morally neutral; some priests speak as though Mary had only one child, while others imply that she was the mother of the 'brethren of the Lord', some priests correctly explain the meaning of the Real Presence, while others refer to the Eucharist as only a symbol. Priests are authority figures, and lay people expect them to know and teach the faith accurately- not a safe assumption nowadays" [Footnote 5, page 6].

I had to read this twice, because I thought I was mis-reading it! Keating is really stating exactly what we've been saying all along about the Bible. A source itself can be sufficient, but it is not the fault of the source if it is misinterpreted. That is, Rome can claim to be the non-blueprint for anarchy, yet anarchy still exists within her walls (recall Dr. White's computer printer instruction book analogy). Similarly, Protestants can come to differing views on the Scripture, yet this doesn't make the Bible an insufficient sole rule of faith. Therefore, the argument against sola scriptura put forth by Roman Catholics that it is the blueprint for anarchy equally applies to the Roman Catholic. This means, if they use it, they are using an argument that equally refutes their own position.

A Mary Christmas

My friend shared a Christmas card she received from a Roman Catholic family member (inside of card shown):

Spy Vs Spy: The Evidence Is In

"What we do see for sure is a slowly changing perspective in [Swan's] posts. First he made a big deal out of Steve's use and source of the quotation. Then he stated that he was more interested in the context and various translations of the quote. Now I think he is (very subtly in public) preparing himself for the possibility of being decisively refuted and embarrassed by our findings, which will be published within a few days, if all goes well in obtaining what we are looking for. We've already found some information that is quite damning to what Swan has been chirping about for five weeks now, and that is only part of it. Stay tuned."- Catholic apologist


Well, wait no longer, the information that I've feared for weeks has been revealed. Turretinfan alerted me to a Catholic apologist's response to the "Luther Quote" saga. He also provided a brief overview on of this "research," found here:  Catholic Apologist Assists James Swan while insulting him.

I probably would not have seen this response. When I followed the link Turretinfan gave me, the Roman apologist back-dated his entry to December 15, 2007. Now there is another entry up, thanking me for my efforts in our co-research project.

Obviously, I'll have more to say on this. For now, I would simply like to post a few sentences from this Catholic Apologist's "research"-

"Swan is also correct that the citation in question is indeed from Luther's 1527 treatise: That These Word of Christ, "This Is My Body," etc., Still Stand Firm Against the Fanatics (found in LW, vol. 37)"

"In a source helpfully provided by our esteemed friend James Swan, it is noted that the Latin version was entitled contra Fanaticos Sacramentariorum spiritus. This would account for the widely differing source names, according to whether one was citing a Latin or German version. Of course, the main "fanatical Sacramentarians" Luther is responding to were Zwingli and Oecolampadius; thus in common usage we can see how it could become known as simply Contra Zwingli and Oecolampadius or variation thereof. Bellarmine above combines both things in his title."

For those of you who followed my entries on this, thank you for reading them, and thank you for hanging in there with me. There was never any question in my mind that I knew what I was talking about on this. Note how freely and frequently I was insulted and ridiculed, and made to feel as if I had the burden of proof, after I provided the actual context of the quote in my initial post on the aomin blog.

Unity Update On The Unified Church

I get mailings from Catholic apologist Gerry Matatics (He makes Catholic apologetics interesting!). I found a link that really shows what type of unity even those Catholics opposed to current Roman Catholicism have. Try reading through this link.

On a similar note, Catholic apologist Steve Ray had an interesting blog entry on the Jesuits. Ray quoted an article stating,

"The mission of the Jesuit order, as understood by most of its members, has changed radically in recent decades. As recently as the mid-20th century, the Jesuits were known as stalwart defenders of the Pope, who trained loyal young Catholics to defend Church doctrines. Today they are inveterate critics of the Vatican, who train young Catholics to question their faith. Is there any discussion among Jesuit leaders of a return to the defense of Catholic orthodoxy? Evidently not.

Perhaps not coincidentally, as the Jesuits have maneuvered to establish what amounts to a "loyal opposition" within the Catholic Church, the order has suffered heavily from defections and lost its ability to attract young recruits. In 1965 when Father Arrupe became superior general, there were about 36,000 Jesuits in the world. Today that figure has been cut nearly in half, with about 19,000 Jesuits remaining in a rapidly aging society. . . . "

And finally, contrast this to a recent statement made by another Catholic apologist:

"The same thing happens with Protestants, in their internal squabbles. This is one of the ongoing tragedies of Protestantism. Protestants can scream "sola Scriptura" and perspicuity (clearness) of Scripture till kingdom come, but they can't agree on its teaching, and so they need authoritative interpretation and a guide: the Church, tradition, councils, popes, and apostolic succession."

Mormons and Straight Answers

johnMark

Today many Mormons in the public eye answer theological questions using phrases that sound evangelical. Such as referring to Jesus using phrases like "personal Saviour" as Mormon presidential candidate Mitt Romney did in a recent press conference. This has caused at least one uninformed mega-church leader, Joel Osteen, to say he accepts Mormons as Christians. The scariest part about Osteen is the massive influence he has. Language used like this just seems to be a way of hiding one's true beliefs whether intentional or not.

When researching the faith of Mormons some common objections are their belief about who God is. Some of the most common questions are about who God (Father, Son & Holy Spirit) is and about Jesus and Lucifer being spirit brothers. IMO, we don't often get straight answers as seen with Romney and some of his defenders.

I came across a reply to Christian apologist Dr. Rob Bowman by a Mormon. BTW, Dr. Bowman has some great recent articles on Mormonism at the Reclaiming the Mind blog.

I found some straight answers from an LDS blog which I quote below.

We reject the Nicaean Creed and the non-biblical concept of the Trinity (non-biblical word) as a 4th-century fabrication. We do believe in the Bible's teaching of the God Head which is comprised of God the Father and The Son Jesus Christ; both with tangible, perfect, glorified, bodies of flesh and bone (no blood), parts, and righteous passions. The Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit whose image is in the likeness of a man which is in the express image and likeness of God. These 3 beings are 1 in purpose, but we only pray to and worship God the Father in the name of Jesus Christ. We do not pray to or worship Jesus and we do not pray to or worship the Holy Ghost. We interpret the "God is spirit" verse figuratively because the Bible speaks of God's corporeal nature in nearly every other instance.

We do not believe that God the Father and Satan are brothers. We believe that Jehovah (Jesus Christ, the Son of God) and Lucifer were spirit brothers. Lucifer (son of the morning) is our spirit brother who fell from heaven for rebellion at the grand heavenly council, where we were present and "shouted for joy" and overcame Satan by our love, faith, and testimony for Christ.

I really appreciate this type of straight forwardness. I understand it's not easy to be this bold. I do wish we all would be more bold, Mormons, Christians and religions in general. This would make interfaith apologetic dialogue much more fruitful.

Now if we could just get our politicians to follow suit.

Mark

Catholicism for Dummies

I checked out Catholicism for Dummies from my local library. I cannot remember how I first came across the book, but as it is written by two priests (both with doctorates) from EWTN and offers a simple look at the Catholic faith I thought it was worth a peek.

I realize there is only so much to be expected from a “for Dummies” book, but considering that there are 67 five-star ratings (out of 81 total) on Amazon as well as the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, I expected a good overview of the Catholic faith. I was particularly interested in how the authors would handle the Catholic views on salvation.

Chapter 1 is entitled “What It Means to Be Catholic” and has an interesting opening paragraph:

“Being Catholic means living a totally Christian life and having a Catholic perspective. To Catholics, all people are basically good, but sin is a spiritual disease that wounded humankind initially and can kill humankind spiritually if left unchecked. Divine grace is the only remedy for sin, and the best source of divine grace is from the sacraments, which are various rites that Catholics believe have been created by Jesus and entrusted by him to his Church.” (pg. 9)

All people are basically good? Have the authors not read the third chapter of Romans? A “basically good” humankind simply wounded by sin – sounds like all we need to pull ourselves up out of the muck is a little help. And that actually appears to be a correct assessment:

“Grace is a totally free, unmerited gift from God. Grace is a sharing in the divine; it’s God’s help– the inspiration that’s needed to do his will. …Like a spiritual megavitamin, grace inspires a person to selflessly conform to God’s will, and like the battery in the mechanical bunny rabbit, grace keeps the soul going, going, going, and going. Granted purely out of God’s love, grace is necessary for salvation. Catholicism says that grace is an undeserving and unmerited free gift from God that wasn’t owed to his people. As a gift, however, a person can accept or reject it. If accepted, it then must be cooperated with. Grace is given so that the will of God may be done. Grace must be put into action through those who receive it.” (pg 11, emphasis mine)

Note that the cooperation of man with grace isn't just about acceptance of grace (as I have heard asserted by some RCs), grace must be put into action by the recipient to accomplish its purpose. How is that salvation by grace alone??

From here the book moves into the basics of Catholicism and a “who is who” in the Church (priest, cardinal, etc.). Chapter 3 and 4 actually address “faith” and Christ, but I could not find a basic definition of the Catholic gospel. The closest things I could find were scattered across a couple of chapters:

“As Christ died, so, too, must mere mortals. As he rose, so shall human beings. Death is the only way to cross from this life into the next. At the very moment of death, private judgment occurs; Christ judges the soul. If a person was particularly holy and virtuous on earth, the soul goes directly to heaven. If an individual was evil and wicked and dies in a state of mortal sin, that soul is damned for eternity to hell.” (pg. 60, emphasis mine, discussion of The Apostle's Creed)

“In addition to getting rid of original sin, Baptism also imparts or infuses sanctifying grace, a special free gift from God. Sanctifying grace makes the new Christian a child of God and applies the merits of Jesus Christ, his suffering and death for sins, to the new Christian personally, because the person being baptized is mentioned by name. Catholicism believes that sanctifying grace allows human beings to enter heaven. It justifies them in the eyes of God by uniting then with the Savior and Redeemer, Jesus Christ…Normally you receive this special grace only through the sacraments, but God does provide some means to make sure all men and women have the potential and possibility of salvation.” (pg. 96-97, emphasis mine)

“The Catholic Church believes that the saints are ordinary and typical human beings…who made it to heaven not by being perfect but by persevering…Catholics believe this means that the saints were sinners who never gave up and never quit on God. They never stopped trying to do and be better.” (pg. 286)

“Heaven is so fantastic, wonderful, and desirable, that human beings should want to go there more than wanting anything else in the universe. Catholics believe that everybody should be willing to do anything to get there, which means that loving and obeying God is a must.” (pg. 287)

“St. Augustine taught that God offers everyone sufficient grace to be saved, but it only becomes efficacious (successful) for those who freely accept and cooperate with that grace. In other words, God gives every human being the chance and possibility of going to heaven. Whether they get beyond the pearly gates, however, depends on the individual person” (pg. 100, emphasis mine)

"Catholicism teaches that it's by grace alone that we are saved and that both faith and works are necessary for salvation" (pg. 371)

To that last quote I respond, "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace" (Romans 11:6).

To be fair, I did not read the whole book so perhaps further explanations of Catholic salvation were included in unexpected chapters. But what I did read showed the same inconsistencies in claiming salvation by grace alone but then negating it with an emphasis on the works of the recipient of that grace (a recipient who only needed a bit of help to overcome the "wounding" of sin). In the end I was reminded of what Gerstner said: “The Protestant trusts Christ to save him and the Catholic trusts Christ to help him save himself.”

In discussions with online Catholics I am often accused of not comprehending the depths and finer points of the Catholic soteriology, yet my viewpoints were entirely consistent with this book. Yes, this isn't an official source of church doctrine, but it is a contemporary, simplistic rendering of the Catholic faith by two well-educated Catholic priests (with an imprimatur). Certainly their interpretation of Catholic doctrine carries a bit more weight than the lay Catholic e-pologist.

Front cover of the book, the author’s credentials:

Rev. John Trigilio Jr., PhD, ThD – priest, pastor, EWTN co-host of Council of Faith, and President of the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy

Rev. Kenneth Brighenti, PhD - priest, pastor, EWTN co-host, and managing editor of Sapienta magazine

One Amazon reviewer said: "As a retired college professor and as a former Director of a Pontifical Center for Catechetical Studies, I fully endorse and highly recommend this book to both non-Catholic and Catholic alike. Long ago in the seminary, we referred to a few indispensable books as VADEMECUMS, from the Latin "vade" (to take) "cum" (with). In other words, a 'vademecum' was any book which you wanted and needed to "take with you" wherever you went since it was so helpful. "Catholicism for Dummies" can and will be a vademecum as many people who read this will hopefully dispel erroneous ideas, prejudices, false conclusions, myths, fears, lies, and misinformation on Catholicism yet prolific in our time." Rev. Robert J. Levis, PhD

An Ancient Voice For The Day #23

Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-466) commentary on 2 Timothy 3:15-4:2:

"And the fact that from a child you have known the sacred writings, which are capable of instructing you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus (v. 15). And since he had borne further witness to the extent of the power in the sacred writings, he emphasizes as well the benefit stemming from them. All Scripture is divinely-inspired and of benefit (v.16). Making a distinction, he sets the writings apart from the works of human wisdom, referring to the spiritual Scripture as divinely-inspired: the grace of the divine Spirit spoke through the inspired authors of Old and New Testaments. It follows that the Holy Spirit is God if the Spirit’s Scripture is, as the apostle says, divinely-inspired. He brings out the kinds of benefit. For teaching: what we did not know we learned from there. For censure: it censures our lawless life. For correction: it urges the backsliders to return to the straight and narrow. For training in righteousness: it drills us in the forms of virtue. So that whoever belongs to God may be well prepared, equipped for every good work (v.17). All these virtues bring about perfection and relate us to the God of all. Having thus brought out the benefit of the divinely-inspired Scripture, he bids him make it available to everyone, and instills dread by his adjuration. I adjure you, therefore, in the presence of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, who is due to judge living and dead: in view of his coming and kingdom, preach the word (4:1-2)."

Source: Robert Charles Hill, trans., Theodoret of Cyrus: Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul, Vol. 2 (Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001), pp. 245-246..

For an excellent compilation of quotes of the Church fathers teaching on the primacy, sufficiency and ultimate authority of Scripture, get a copy of Holy Scripture:The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol III- The Writings of the Church Fathers Affirming the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura.

Underwhelming Majority at Trent

Since James posted about Cardinal Seripando's opinion of the biblical canon at the Council of Trent (over at the Aomin blog), I thought I would add an old post from my blog related to the "holy-spirited-guided majority vote":

Here is something on the surface level that just doesn’t make sense.

“The Council of Trent on April 8, 1546, by vote (24 yea, 15 nay, 16 abstain) approved the present Roman Catholic Bible Canon including the Deuterocanonical Books.”
-Wiki, Metzger (pg. 246)

If the ratification of the biblical canon at Trent was just a formality, why such an underwhelming vote? If the Council of Trent was simply affirming the same canon that had been held by the Church since the 4th century, wouldn’t you expect a better consensus than 44% yea, 27% nay, and 29% abstaining?

From a strictly human perspective, a 44% majority is far from convincing me that the council members at Trent were sure of the historical witness to the exact nature of the canon. From a divine perspective, a 44% majority is a weak testament to a supposedly “holy-spirit-guided”, infallible council.


(for those unfamiliar with this topic, the typical RC argument is that the canon was conclusively decided by the Roman Catholic Church at the councils of Hippo/Carthage (4th century) and only officially "reaffirmed" at Trent. This argument is made to imply an "indebtness" of all Christians to Holy Mother Church, but in reality, the exact composition of the biblical canon was disputed up until the time of the Reformation and even at the Council of Trent as James' Aomin post has highlighted.)

"THE point that we have arrived at now, if you remember, is this—The Catholic Church, through her Popes and Councils, gathered together the separate books that Christians venerated which existed in different parts of the world; sifted the chaff from the wheat, the false from the genuine; decisively and finally formed a collection—i.e., drew up a list or catalogue of inspired and apostolic writings into which no other book should ever be admitted, and declared that these and these only, were the Sacred Scriptures of the New Testament. The authorities that were mainly responsible for thus settling and closing the 'Canon' of Holy Scripture were the Councils of Hippo and of Carthage in the fourth century, under the influence of St. Augustine (at the latter of which two Legatees were present from the Pope), and the Popes Innocent I in 405, and Gelasius, 494, both of whom issued lists of Sacred Scripture identical with that fixed by the Councils. From that date all through the centuries this was the Christian's Bible." Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church

(Update: Additional details regarding this vote at Trent have been presented. Please see this post and this post)

Overview Of Luther's Writings About Zwingli

Below is a summary of Luther's writings in regard to Zwingli. If you've stumbled upon this page, it was written in response to Roman apologist Steve Ray (and a few of his cyber-friends) who insisted in fabricating a bogus Luther quote in which Luther was said to have written a letter to Zwingli. (JS 10/19/2015)



"Nowhere did Luther's character shine forth more strikingly than in this controversy on the Lord's Supper. Never were more clearly displayed that firmness with which he clung to a conviction which he believed to be Christian, his faithfulness in seeking for no other foundation than Scripture, the sagacity of his defence, his animated eloquence, and often overwhelming powers of argumentation. But never also were more clearly shown the obstinacy with which he adhered to his own opinions, the little attention he paid to the reasons of his opponents, and the uncharitable haste with which he ascribed their errors to the wickedness of their hearts, or to the wiles of the devil. " One or other of us," said he to the Strasburg mediator, " must be ministers of Satan—the Swiss or ourselves." [source]

I pointed out earlier that there are really only three main writings from Luther directed toward Zwingli (I still haven't found any letters from Luther to Zwingli). That is, there are three specific documents in which Luther took the time to write directly and at length against Zwingli and the Swiss. There are though, a few lesser known documents as well. Here is an overview of Luther's writings against Zwingli, including some of these lesser known writings:


1. Letter to the Reutlingen Congregation "Luther’s first public utterance came in January 4, 1526, with the appearance of his letter to the Reutlingen congregation, admonishing them to resist Karlstadt’s and Zwingli’s views" (WA 19, 118 ff.; St. L. 17, 1539 ff.) [LW 37 Introduction, electronic edition]. On January 20, 1526, Luther mentions Zwingli, Carlstadt, and Oecolampadius in a letter saying, "God raises up the faithful remnant against the new heretics; we greatly hope that Christ will bless the undertaking. I would write against them if I had time, but first I wish to see what [Theobald] Billican does" [Preserved Smith, The Life and Letters of Martin Luther, 240].



2. Preface to the Swabian Syngramma
"In June, 1526, he published his Preface to the German edition of the Swabian Syngramma, in which he identified Karlstadt, Zwingli, and Oecolampadius as three heads of a new sect" (WA 19, 457 ff., St. L. 20, 577 ff. The Syngramma itself is printed in German translation in St. L. 20, 522 ff.). [LW 37 Introduction, electronic edition]. This is book is more directed towards the argumentation of Oecolampadius rather than Zwingli. LW 36 explains,

"Another minor encounter in 1526 was Luther’s Preface to the German translation of a Latin document composed by Brenz on behalf of a number of Swabian pastors to refute the position of Oecolampadius. The document is known as the Swabian Syngramma. It was published in January, 1526, and Luther was greatly pleased with it. The German translation by Agricola together with Luther’s preface appeared in June. The preface warned against the “new dreams about the sacrament” and again urged steadfastness in the words of Christ. A little later a second German translation of the Syngramma appeared, apparently with Luther’s encouragement, and it carried a second and more emphatic preface by Luther because by this time (September, 1526) the Swiss were claiming Luther’s assent to their views." [LW 36:331]





3. Sermon: Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ against the Fanatics
"His first independent treatise on the controversy, appearing in early autumn, 1526, The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ—Against the Fanatics, was simply a pastoral presentation of his views, edited by friends from three Easter sermons" [LW 37 Introduction, electronic edition].

"It is uncertain what part Luther himself had in the publication of this 'sermon.' Two copies of the three sermons he preached at Easter, 1526, are extant; apparently they were written down by his hearers. A comparison of these two copies with the text of the “sermon” published six months later indicates that a number of additions were made in preparing the materials for publication. These additions do not in all cases fit into the logic of the sermons themselves. This lack of continuity suggests that it was not Luther himself who prepared the sermons for publication. Certainly Luther could not have regarded them as a systematic polemic against the Swiss theologians. They were clearly intended as popular instruction for the laity and were adapted to the educational and doctrinal background of his Wittenberg congregation. It is therefore unlikely that Luther himself would have added to the title the phrase, 'Against the Fanatics.' Nor would he have chosen a title that covers only the first two of the sermons unless he had intended to omit the sermon about the confession of sins" [LW 36:332].

The complete sermon "Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ against the Fanatics" is available in LW 36.



4.That These Words of Christ, “This Is My Body,” Still Stand Firm Against The Fanatics
[March 1527] Available in LW 37. This treatise can be found under different titles, more-a-less saying the same thing in English. For instance, Preserved Smith refers to it as "That these Words of Christ, 'This is my Body,' still stand against the Ranting Spirits" [The Life and Letters of Martin Luther, p.241]. In Robert Kolb's book Martin Luther as Prophet, Teacher, and Hero, Kolb documents how regularly this treatise appeared in versions of Luther's collected writings, and also makes note of it being republished, sometimes only partially, sometimes edited for polemical purposes, manipulating Luther's words (for instance, The Wittenberg Edition deleted Luther's criticism of Bucer from this treatise [see Kolb, 146].

"The text of the treatise, both Luther’s manuscript and the printed edition with annotations, is found in WA 23, 64–283; in modernized German in Br A 4, 335–480, and in St. L. 20, 762–893 (printed version alone). [WA D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimar, 1883– ).Br A Luthers Werke für das christliche Haus, edited by Georg Buchwald et al., 4th edition (Leipzig, 1924). St. L. D. Martin Luthers sämmtliche Schriften, edited by Johann Georg Walch. Edited and published in modern German, 23 vols. in 25 (2nd ed., St. Louis, 1880–1910]" [LW 37:6].



5. Confession Concerning Christ's Supper
[1528] Available in LW 37. "This treatise was indeed his last published word on the controversy, until under provocation from Schwenkfeld he took up his pen once more in 1544, to indicate in his Brief Confession on the Holy Sacrament that he still maintained the same views. He paid no attention to the lengthy and bitter rebuttals by Oecolampadius and Zwingli, which, hastily written for the autumn fair and printed together in one volume, added nothing essentially new to the controversy: Concerning Dr. Martin Luther’s Book Entitled “Confession”: Two Answers, by John Oecolarnpadius and Ulrich Zwingli. Nor did he take notice of the host of lesser treatises that continued to appear against him"[LW 37: 157].



6. The Marburg Colloquy [1529] Various notes recorded the dialog between Luther, Zwingli, Melanchthon, and Oecolampadius. For the sake of documentation, here is one such account of the proceedings from Raget Christoffel, a biographer of Zwingli. Note how the perspective of dialog favors Zwingli (the dialog of Zwingli's is more full). Christoffel records that "there were no Papists at the Conference, as Luther and Melanchthon desired, to decide which party gained the victory..." I mention this, because I can see already that one dedicated to Roman Catholicism may wish to interpret this as Luther somehow recognizing the authority of Rome in this controversy. [Here is another, much longer version of the same event]

The Landgrave's Chancellor, Johu Feige, opencd the Disputation, in a speech, in which he exhorted the members that they should act, as had been done on like occasions, when learned men came together, who had previously written somewhat sharply against each other, that is, they should banish from their minds all ill-humour and bitterness of feeling.

"Whoever should do this would, at the same time, discharge his duty, and obtain glory and commendation. Others, however, who disregarded unity, and who obstinately persisted in some notion once adopted by them (the mother of all heresies), would thereby afford indubitable evidence against themselves that the Holy Spirit did not rule in their hearts."

The Landgrave, so simply attired that no one could have taken him for a prince, took his seat at the same table, at which Zwingli and OEcolampad, on the one side, Luther and Melanchthon on the other, sat to decide whether the Reformed Evangelical Church, resting on one basis of faith, was henceforth to remain united, or whether it was to be rent into two great parties. The poet Cordus, cried in name of the Church to its here assembled leaders: "Puissant princes of the Word, whom the august hero Philip has called to avert from us schism, and to shew us the way of truth; the imploring church falls at your feet, drowned in tears, and conjures you, in Christ's name, to set forward the good cause, that the world may recognise in your resolutions the work of the Holy Ghost himself."

Before the Conference began, Luther took up a piece of chalk, and, in large letters, he wrote upon the table the words, " This is my body," with the object, doubtless, that, when arguments failed, he might all the more firmly cling to the outward letter, since, verily, he was resolved not to yield a hairbreadth." The Conference began between Luther and OEcolampad, Luther defending himself, in a long speech, against the imputation that he, in any respect, agreed with the doctrine of the Supper held by his opponents; he was at variance with them here, and would be for ever so, Christ himself having said, with sufficient clearness, "Take, eat, this is my body." By the letter of these words he would abide. If his adversaries had anything to advocate against the truth he would hear it, and answer it.

OEcolampad replied, after calling upon God for illumination, "It is undeniable that, in the Word of God, figurative modes of expression occur; thus, for example, " John is Elias," " The rock was Christ," " I am the vine." A similar figure is contained in the words, " This is my body."

Luther grants there are tropes in the Bible, but the latter passage is not one of these. He inquires: Why should the spiritual partaking exclude the corporeal?

OEcolampad : Christ teaches, the Jews, John vi., who thought He exacted from them the eating of His real body, and the drinking of His real blood, that He was, in verity, eaten and drunk when He was believed upon, for that His flesh profited nothing ! Now, that which Christ rejected in John vi. He cannot well be supposed to have admitted, or commanded, in the words of the Holy Supper.

Luther: The Jews thought they were to eat Christ like a piece of "roasted pork." By the spiritual partaking, the corporeal is not annulled.

OEcolampad: To impute such a sense to the words of Scripture is to give them a sense somewhat gross. That Christ is in the bread is a notion, and no subject of faith; it is dangerous to ascribe so much to the outward thing.

Luther: If we, at God's command, raise a straw-halm, or a horse-shoe, from the ground, it is a spiritual act. We must regard Him who speaks, not that which is said. God speaks, and miserable man must listen. God commands, the world has to obey, and we all ought to kiss the Word, and not take upon ourselves to look for arguments.

OEcolampad: But of what use is the partaking by the mouth when we have that by the Spirit ?
Luther: I do not concern myself as to what we require, I look only at the words as they stand written: " This is my body." It is to be believed and done unconditionally. It must be done. If God were to command me to eat dung, I should do it, knowing well that it would be wholesome for me.

Zwingli now took part in the dialogue. He began by administering a sharp rebuke to Luther for his declaration at the very outset of the debate, that he was resolved not to depart from the opinion he had formed; for, in this manner, all farther instruction out of the Scriptures was rendered impossible. Scripture must always be interpreted by Scripture. Were we to adhere to the letter of the text we must conclude that Christ had full brothers. The sentences of Holy Scripture are not dark or enigmatical, like (he oracular responses of the demons, but they are clear and plain, if we only compare the one with the other. He then went into a more minute exposition of the section in John vi., and drew from it the conclusion: " If the Lord here expressly testifies that His flesh profiteth nothing in the corporeal partaking of it, He certainly would neither have enjoined upon His disciples, nor upon us, in the Supper, the doing of a profitless thing, that is, the corporeal eating of His body. To this He says : ' When ye shall see the Sou of man ascend to where he was before,' from which they might conclude that they are not to eat really, or corporeally, of His flesh."

Luther: In the gospel, "brother" signifies a cousin, or a relation. The words of institution cannot be so explained. Christ says, " This is my body," and it must be so. When Christ says, " the flesh profiteth nothing," He is not speaking of His own but of our flesh.

Zwingli: The soul is nourished by the Spirit, not by the flesh.

Luther: The body is eaten by the mouth, the soul does not partake of it corporeally.

Zwingli: It is then a food of the body and not of the soul.

Luther: I have said, and say it again, the body is not corporeally eaten into our body, and will reserve it, whether the soul also eats it.

Zwingli: You say this, however, without being able to prove it by Scripture. Besides, you first denied that the soul eats the body, and now you will have it reserved.

Luther: Your whole object is to catch me in my words.

Zwingli: No; but you speak of things that contradict each other, and it is necessary to point out the truth.

Luther: I abide by the words of Christ, "This is my body." They are the words of God. If the Lord were to set before me wooden apples, and command me to eat them, I should eat them, knowing they would be wholesome for me, and I dare not ask ; why?

Zwingli now proved, by various passages of Scripture, that the sign is often put for the thing signified, and that the words of the Sacrament especially are to be so explained. He censured Luther for employing so silly an example as that of the wooden apples. Such illustrations were not in place. We know that God neither commands us to eat wooden apples nor dung as His body. The Word of God reveals to us His holy will; it is light, not darkness. God sets before us nothing incomprehensible, if if we will but only rightly understand His Word. Hence, if one passage is not clear to us, we must compare it with others, and, in this manner, investigate into the sense. Thus the Virgin Mary asked, Luke i. 34, "How shall this be?" and the angel answered her question. In the same manner the disciples asked, John vi . 52, "How can this man give us His flesh to eat?" Why should not we also endeavour to discover, from Scripture, how the words of the Holy Supper are to be understood? They have, however, been interpreted by Christ himself, who shewed in what manner His flesh was to be eaten, and His blood drunk.

Luther: We are not to examine whether is may be taken for signifies, for so we fall into interpretising; but we are to take the words in their simple sense, " This is my body." From thence, pointing at the words written before him, the devil himself cannot pull me. When I enter into subtle inquiries about their meaning, I lose my faith and become a fool. Wherefore, give glory to God, and take and believe the simple plain letters as they stand.

Zwingli: I exhort you likewise to give God the glory, by departing from the false interpretation you have put upon the words of Scripture, by an assumption of the very thing to be proven, petitio principii. Where is your major proposition, (that the words bear this sense,) proved ? We shall not so readily let the passage in the sixth chapter of John slip out of our hands, as it throws a steady light upon the point in dispute, and shows us distinctly how in truth and verity we are to eat Christ's flesh and drink His blood. Come, doctor, you must sing us another song than this, for this won't do.

Luther: You are becoming personal.

Zwingli: I ask you, Doctor, if Christ did not mean here to correct the misunderstanding of the Jews, who fancied they were to eat His real flesh and drink His real blood ?

Luther: Mr Zwingli, you mean to take me by surprise; the passage has nothing to do here.

Zwingli: Certainly the passage has to do here, and breaks your neck, Doctor.

Luther: Not so boastful, remember you are not in Switzerland now, but in Hesse, where necks are not so easily broken.

Zwingli: In Switzerland there is law and justice, as well as elsewhere, and no man's neck is broken there for naught, I have only made use of a common phrase, when I employed this expression to the effect that your case was gone, that you could do nothing but submit, seeing that the words of Christ in the sixth chapter of John totally overthrow your doctrine.

The Landgrave here interfered, saying to Luther, " I hope my learned friend the Doctor will not take ill what has been said." If Luther had but reflected on his usual threat, " we shall bring the villain to the gallows," he would have perceived that he had no great reason to complain of Zwingli's expression.

It being now exactly noon, the Conference adjourned till after dinner. In the afternoon, Zwingli read the following extract from Luther's Sermon on the sixth chapter of the Gospel of John, " Christ himself says the flesh profiteth nothing, and again, my flesh gives life, how do we reconcile this? The Spirit reconciles it. Christ means that the corporeal eating of His flesh profits nothing, nothing profits but the faith that He has given His flesh for me, and shed his blood for me. If I believe that Christ is the true Son of God, that He hath descended from heaven, shed His blood for me, saved me, made me righteous and alive from the dead, I have enough." Melanchthon had explained this passage in a similar way.

Luther: I make no inquiry how Melanchthon and myself formerly explained this passage. Prove to me that when Christ says " This is my body," it is not his body. I take my stand and abide, and not without grounds, by the words " this is my body," but yet I do not the less acknowledge that Christ's body is in heaven, and also in the Sacrament. I am not concerned as to its being against reason and against nature, if it be not against faith.

Zwingli: This statement, however, undoubtedly contravenes the articles of faith, " He hath ascended to heaven," &c. &c. If Christ's body be in heaven, how can it at the same time be in the bread? God's word teaches us that Christ was in all points made like unto His brethren, Heb. ii. 17. His body then cannot at the same time be in different places, because this is contrary to the nature of a real body.

Luther: If He hath been in all respects like to us, then He has had a wife and black eyes. I have said it before, and say it again : I will have nothing to do with the Mathematica!

Zwingli: I am not speaking of the Mathematica, but of the Word of God. He then, in order to show that Christ, although of Divine nature, had taken upon Him the form of a servant, and been made like to us, cited in the Greek text the passage from Philip, ii. 7.

Luther: Let Greek alone, quote it in Latin or in German.

Zwingli: Excuse me; during the last twelve years, I have only made use of the Greek New Testament, If Christ then has been made like to us, this is to be understood of His human nature. Accordingly, His body, like every other human body, is finite.

Luther: I admit that Christ's body is finite.

Zwingli: If it is finite, it is also limited, and can only be at one and the same time in one place, that is in heaven, and not in the bread. But now you teach that the body of Christ is everywhere present,

Luther: You always seek to entrap me. If I speak of the body of Christ, I will not have it that one speak or think of a place I will not have it at all.

Zwingli: What sort of language is this? Are we only to have what you will, Doctor ?

Luther: The schoolmen have also maintained that a finite body can be in several places at once. The universe is a body, aud yet it cannot be said that it is in any definite place.

Zwingli: It ill becomes you, Doctor, to have recourse to the onions and flesh-pots of Egypt, to the Sophists ; I, for my part, pay no regard to the Sophists. If you say that the universe is nowhere, I beg all intelligent men to test the truth of this assertion ; you were, however, to make good that the body of Christ was at one and the same time in more than one place.

Luther: Christ says, "this is my body." Now the Sacrament is dispensed in many places at once, in which one partakes not only of bread, but of the true body of Christ, hence Christ's body is in many places at once.

Zwingli: This does not follow from the words of Christ, the sense of which we are here investigating. You ever assume that your understanding of these words, which we declare to be an erroneous and false one, is the right and infallible one, and proceeding from this false assumption, you avail yourself of the sophism of reasoning in a circle. Instead of which, your proper business is to prove and establish your understanding of these words to be the true and right one. That the body of Christ, however, is limited or circumscribed like our own, and consequently, can only be at one time in one place, is a doctrine taught us by the Fathers. Thus Fulgentius says: " The Son of (Joel has taken upon himself the quality of real humanity, and yet not less that of real divinity. Born of His mother in time He is yet from all eternity, in virtue of the Godhead which He bus from the Father. Born of man, He is man, and bound to a definite place ; as He emanates from the Father, He is God, and consequently omnipresent . In His human nature, He was when on earth absent from heaven, and He left the earth when He ascended to heaven : in His divine nature, He abode in heaven when He descended, nor did Heleavethe earth when He ascended." You, however, dear Doctor, have written ere now, " Every thing is full of the body of Christ," and "if Christ had not suffered in His divine nature, He were not my Redeemer."
Luther: Fulguntius is not here speaking of the Supper. Moreover he calls the Supper a sacrifice too, and yet it is none.

Zwingli: Fulgentius is here speaking of the qualities of Christ's humanity, and maintains that it necessarily follows that as man He can only be corporeally present in one place. If that is true in respect of Christ's humanity in general, it is likewise true of His presence in the Supper. When Fulgentius, however, terms the Supper a sacrifice, he does it in the same sense as Augustine, who calls it a sacrifice as he himself explains his meaning, because it is a commemoration of the once offered sacrifice of Christ.

Luther, after a few struggles, was obliged to admit this, but fell immediately into his old habit of reasoning in the circle, and drew the conclusion that Christ's body may be in many places at once, because He says, " this is my body," consequently He is now there in the bread.

Zwingli quickly rejoining: Is He there in the bread ? then there is surely in one place. Methinks, Doctor, I have you.

Luther: As God will, let Him be in one place or not, I leave that with God; to me it is enough, and I abide by it, that He says, " This is my body."

Zwingli: It is evident to every one that you argue from a false assumption, that you describe a reasoning in a circle, and that you thus, intrenched in your own opinion, obstinately close your eyes against all instruction from the Word of God. This is but a miserable spite on your part, Doctor. In like manner might some wilful disputant misinterpret the words of our Lord to his mother, " Woman, behold thy son," persist in repeating them, and, despite all remonstrances, never cease crying, No, no, you must take the words of Christ as they stand, and hold simply by them, " Woman, behold thy son." Would he achieve aught else here, but a miserable perversion of the words of Christ ? It is just what you are doing, Doctor. The holy Augustine writes : " We dare not believe that Christ in human form is everywhere present, we dare not, to establish His divinity, abstract the reality from His body. Christ as God is omnipresent, yet by reason of His true body He is in one place, in heaven."

Luther: Augustine is not here speaking of the Sacrament. The hotly of Christ in the Supper is not as in one place.

Zwingli declining to reason any farther with an opponent who withdrew himself from every species of close and consecutive argument, and who overleapt with such wonderful audacity the manifold contradictions into which he plunged, OEcolampad now took it upon him to answer Luther. In reply to Luther's last assertion, which had been already thoroughly disproved by Zwingli, and which was in direct contradiction to his own former admissions, OEcolampad observed : "If the body of Christ is not locally in the Supper, then it is not there as a real body, for, as is well known, it belongs to the essence of a body to be in one definite place. Let us examine, in all friendship, what kind of presence this is of the body of Christ."

Luther: You will not bring me a single step farther. If you have Fulgentius and Augustine on your side, we have the rest of the Fathers.

OEcolampad: Please name these Fathers, and quote the passages you refer to. We trust we shall be able to prove to you that they are of our opinion.

Luther: We decline naming them. Augustine wrote the passage you have quoted in his youth, it is moreover very unintelligible. Besides, I do not concern myself as to what the Fathers teach on this head, but I abide by the words of Christ, (Here he pointed again to the words written in chalk upon the table, " This is my body.") See, so they run. You have not driven us . out of this stronghold, as you proudly imagined you would do, and we concern ourselves no farther about proofs.

OEcolampad: If it be thus, the Conference had better be closed. We have appealed to the Fathers of the Church for the purpose of shewing that we have advanced no new doctrine. We do not build upon them, but upon the Word of God. Every one knows who Augustine was, and that when he expressed his sentiments, he not only delivered his own opinions, but those of the whole Church of his day.

Thus the Conference concluded. The Chancellor, Feige, who for his part adhered to the Zwinglian doctrine, was dismayed at the upshot. But, even yet, he exhorted both parties earnestly to cultivate peace, as he had done at the beginning, and entreated them to think of measures which might promote unity. Luther observed, " I know of no other measures but that they give glory to the Word of God, and believe what we believe."
The Swiss replied: " We cannot do so, for our conscience forbids it . We believe that Christ's body and blood are present in the Supper to the believing soul, but not in the bread and wine." Luther: "We have then done with you, and commend you to the just judgment of God: He will discover who is right."
Then OEcolampad said: "We do the same, and have done with you."

Zwingli, however, was so deeply moved by Luther's obduracy of temper, that he was unable to articulate a single word; his eyes, as every one saw, were swimming in tears.

On DA's Research

"If the world lasts for a long time, it will again be necessary, on account of the many interpretations which are now given to the Scriptures, to receive the decrees of councils, and take refuge in them, in order to preserve the unity of faith."

My little research project into this quote, which began with looking at citations of it from Catholic apologist Steve Ray, has shifted (not by my choice or any charges to "debate") to interaction with DA. I would have found it more interesting to dialog with Steve Ray, but DA has thrust himself into it, first by posting blog entries attacking me personally, and now by his attempts at research. DA, though vowing not to interact with me anymore, has continued reading this blog, and also now is claiming actual research. The "actual research" part does interest me, and I intend on evaluating it as he post it.

One of his fans asks the following question: "Could mr swan be using your comments section for his research?" DA answers, "Possibly, but if so, he'll spin it with him being the one to always find everything, and me lagging behind and learning from his pearls of great wisdom. He's done this for years. It is one of the things that makes him extremely obnoxious." I just wanted to state publicly, I have not used any of DA's blog entries or comments in researching this quote.

DA goes on to say,

"What we do see for sure is a slowly changing perspective in his posts. First he made a big deal out of Steve's use and source of the quotation. Then he stated that he was more interested in the context and various translations of the quote. Now I think he is (very subtly in public) preparing himself for the possibility of being decisively refuted and embarrassed by our findings, which will be published within a few days, if all goes well in obtaining what we are looking for. We've already found some information that is quite damning to what Swan has been chirping about for five weeks now, and that is only part of it. Stay tuned."

Indeed, there has been a change in the way I have been writing on this. One may notice, I have not written very much on Steve Ray lately. This for two reasons: first, I wrote a response to Steve's recent PDF article, so there isn't any point to write the same thing over and over. Second, Steve has mentioned he will be researching this further, so when he does, then we can have something to discuss. So, I've continued researching the quote. It is a normal progression! Why DA reads more into this is...well, I leave it to someone else to figure out.

DA caricatures my interest in this as something like first goes get Steve Ray, and then go get a context. This is simply untrue. My initial posting on this quote contained what I believed to be the context and source for this quote. I was interested in context from the beginning, and I've actually been interested in the context of this quote for a long time. I've mentioned it on my blog before, months ago. The quote actually entered back into my world when Carrie wrote me and asked me about this quote (simply visit her blog, you'll note I posted on it in a com-box, I think, last month or the month before). I reviewed my notes on it, and then started researching it again, and was reminded of Steve Ray's usage of it.

DA then states I am "(very subtly in public) preparing... for the possibility of being decisively refuted and embarrassed by our findings." Well, this is news to me. Sure, I guess if DA produces a letter from Luther to Zwingli with a context that says something like:

"Hey Zwingli, I just can't figure out which one of us is right on this Lord's Supper thing. You know what we need? We need a council of the Roman Catholic Church to decide on this for us. The Scriptures just aren't clear enough for either of us to figure out with any certainty. I hate the fact that we need this, but we'll never be able to sing 'kum Bay Ya' together without it. Sincerely, Martin Luther."

Let me state publicly, that if DA produces a letter from Luther to Zwingli stating that Sola Scriptura doesn't work and the Reformers would again have to take refuge in the Church councils in order to preserve the unity of faith on account of the many interpretations that were given to the Scriptures, I will apologize to Mr. Ray.

If DA produces evidence that the quote in question is not from That These Words Of Christ, “This Is My Body,” etc., Still Stand Firm Against The Fanatics (1527) [LW 37], I will be willing to state he's actually done some helpful research. If he produces an actual context from this mystery text, whatever it is, I will be willing to state he's actually done some helpful research. If this mystery text says the opposite of what Luther said in That These Words Of Christ, “This Is My Body,” etc., Still Stand Firm Against The Fanatics (as I've outlined above) I will again apologize to Steve Ray.

If DA "information that is quite damning" is simply noting that a Latin translation of a German text, then rendered into English produces the end result of the quote in question, well, this isn't the type of conclusion that should make make everyone jump up and down with glee. Of course this happens. I've been through enough of the different translations to grip this, as anyone with even a tiny interest in researching these type of quotes understands. In other words, DA would be simply proving something that is fairly obvious. This of course, does not alleviate the responsibility of those quoting Luther to actually read Luther first. If a Latin translation of That These Words Of Christ, “This Is My Body,” etc., Still Stand Firm Against The Fanatics is produced, it still comes with a context! Note particularly, Hartmann Grisar, a man who was not a research slouch, consulted the German source and still missed Luther's point (see my earlier blog entries on this).

Let me speculate on one other possible outcome to all this. It occurred to me, the English version translated from the German in LW 37 could be faulty. That is, the translator deliberately mis-translated Luther in order to make him say something he did not intend to say. If DA produces this evidence, well then, the editors of Luther's Works and Concordia have a big problem on their hands.

Anyway, I'm interested in DA;s findings, as he has promised it will be "quite damning." Sure, I'll be embarrassed if I'm completely wrong on this (as outlined above). But I hope DA actually does produce what he says he has. If he provides 10 to 20 pages (or more) of material proving a Latin translation of a German text produced a quote easily misconstrued, well... it won't be me who is embarrassed.