Advice from Family Radio on the End of the World

Even though Harold Camping isn't actively speaking on Family Radio since his illness, his followers are still busy. On Family Radio's website the most recent recording appears to be from Tom Evans (Evans is on the board of Family Radio, and claims to have known Mr. Camping for thirty years). They are promoting his "Latest Study (Oct 16,2011)" (mp3).  It's an extremely fascinating listen.  At around eleven minutes in he says,

"2011 has become a very real year. It has become a very important year. So now, here we are now. The ten thousand pound elephant sitting right in the room. In less than five days from today, we'll know whether we were right or wrong, whether we understood the scriptures correctly, whether the Spirit of God directed us, or whether we were deceived. That's a big question."

At around sixteen minutes in Tom says,

"Has the Spirit of God guided us to this point? I say yes. I'm not ashamed of the Gospel. I'm not ashamed of all the verses."

This link also covers this audio presentation from Family Radio:  Harold Camping Oct. 21 Rapture: Family Radio Seeks to Comfort Believers Ahead of 'Rapture'.

And by the way, free materials from Family Radio are no longer available till October 24. They are now available to October 27.

Catholic Answers Christmas Catalog for 2011

I recently received the Catholic Answers Christmas catalog for 2011. Here was an interesting tidbit:

"When you want 'Catholic,' you think Catholic Answers. When you want apologetics you think Catholic Answers. When you want the truth about the faith, you think Catholic Answers" (p. 50).

Actually, I'm not sure why Catholic Answers would want anyone to think "Catholic Answers" when one thinks "Catholic." Shouldn't they want you to think of something other than their organization... say maybe the official pronouncements from Rome? I've jokingly said for quite awhile now that Catholic Answers is the official interpreter of the infallible interpreter. Now perhaps that needs to be revised to the infallible interpreter of the infallible interpreter.

Blog Changes

Every so often I change this blog around. This time, I've been playing around with the sidebar. I've noticed that over the years some of you have linked to this blog, and I'd like to reciprocate by linking over to your blog / website.  Kindly either leave me a comment with your blog / website URL, or send me an email.  

James

CTC on Luther and Original Sin, Windsor on Exsurge Domine

Here's two things I simply don't have time for this week.

For anyone trying to work through this CTC post, I wrote a little about this subject a while back: In Catholic theological anthropology, human nature is not selfish or sinful; human nature is good. What I find interesting is that the Luther quotes CTC is using are the very same quotes from my earlier blog entry. What an odd coincidence. I found this particular line from the CTC entry most interesting in evaluating Luther's text: "This argument is not sound, because the first premise is false. The greatest gift Adam and Eve lost through their sin was the supernatural gift of sanctifying grace, which is restored to us through Christ." Well, one can say that the first premise is false. It's quite another thing to Biblically prove what CTC says was the greatest gift lost in the fall.

On another front, Scott Windsor (who says the links to his blog disappear from this blog) has written, Why Was Luther Wrong? Part One (there's your link Scott!). I tried leaving a link comment on Windsor's article, but blogger kept cutting it off, so I gave up. Scott begins by evaluating Exsurge Domine. I've done a few entries on that as well:

Exsurge Domine: An Exercise in Ambiguity From Jimmy Akin


How Accurate was Exsurge Domine in Refuting Martin Luther?

Here's the link I tried to leave for Scott:

Hans Hillerbrand: "Martin Luther and the Bull Exsurge Domine" (Theological Studies 30:108-112).

It's the End of the World... Again (10/21/11)

Just a quick reminder that the world is ending again on October 21, 2011.

Oddly, Family Radio has free materials they're giving away until October 24, 2011.

I listened to Family Radio a bit today. Chris McCann was doing their Bible study, and yes, he was explaining October 21.  You can hear some of his Q & A on his own web page about October 21.

And lest we forget May 21, 2011, here's a little reminder.

"Mary teaches us how to be happy" Pope tells Germans

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/mary-teaches-us-how-to-be-happy-pope-tells-germans

"'Understand,' she seems to say to us, that God, who is the source of all that is good and who never desires anything other than your true happiness, has the right to demand of you a life that yields unreservedly and joyfully to his will, striving at the same time that others may do likewise,” he said."

DISCLAIMER: Certain people reading this blog can't figure out that if I link to something the Pope states without blasting him, that doesn't mean I endorse it or think it to be some sort of correct ecumenical outreach. So from now on I guess I'll have to add this little nuisance disclaimer so as to not be nitpicked every time I link to a current news article. By the way, on that score, I linked to an article on Franky Schaeffer the other day in which he derided Christianity as “Stupid”. The same thing applies. I didn't comment or blast Franky Schaeffer, but that doesn't mean I endorse what he stated.

Francis Beckwith: ETS Shows Sympathies for the Catholic Canon

Originally posted on the aomin blog 06/07/10

I've been fascinated by the selective use of history by those who convert to the Roman Catholic Church. Sometimes it can be attributed to ignorance. I don't expect each person making a worldview shift to have the academic abilities to weigh certain levels of complex information. On the other hand, when a PhD from Fordham University, a man who's authored numerous theological books, and taught philosophy and church-state studies appears ill-informed on basic issues of church history, I'm left with far more questions than answers about the legitimacy of that conversion story.

Francis Beckwith: ETS Shows Sympathies for the Catholic Canon
Consider the following from mega-revert Francis Beckwith's book, Return to Rome (Michigan: Brazos Press, 2009). While he served as president of the Evangelical Theological Society in 2006 the membership passed a resolution stating: "For the purpose of advising members regarding the intent and meaning of the reference to biblical inerrancy in the ETS Doctrinal Basis, the Society refers members to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978)." Beckwith says, "But the Chicago Statement not only does not provide a list of canonical books, it states that 'it appears that the Old Testament canon had been fixed by the time of Jesus. The New Testament canon is likewise now closed, inasmuch as no new apostolic witness to the historical Christ can now be borne.' " The Chicago Statement is indeed accurate. The Old Testament canon was fixed during the ministry of Christ and the apostles.

This statement though from ETS provoked Beckwith to conclude, "This, ironically, means that the ETS is implicitly showing sympathies for the Catholic canon" (p.123). Rather, the irony is Beckwith's statement. Most Roman Catholics I've squabbled with over the Old Testament canon want to argue that it was still in flux during the apostolic era. The argument is presented that the Hebrew canon wasn't actually closed until very late, perhaps as late as A.D. 90-100. They argue this in order to legitimize the apocrypha. Previous to A.D. 90-100, the Greek Septuagint (the very Bible used by Christ and the Apostles) appears to have included the apocrypha.

For Beckwith, if ETS wants to affirm a closed Old Testament canon during apostolic times, they are admitting to the legitimacy of the apocrypha. Beckwith doesn't apear to be concerned with typical Roman Catholic polemic concerning an open Old Testament canon.

J.N.D Kelly: The Bulkier Old Testament Canon Included The Apocrypha
To seal the deal of this argument, Dr. Beckwith offers the following quote from Protestant scholar J.N.D. Kelly:

It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than... the Hebrew Bible of Palestinian Judaism... It always included, though varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocryphal or deutero-canonical books. The reason for this is that the Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hands of Christians was not the original Hebrew version, but the Greek translation known as the Septuagint... In the first centuries at any rate the Church seems to have accepted all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and treated them without question as Scripture.

If you Google search this quote, it proves itself to be a Roman Catholic favorite. I recall the first time I heard it being used was by Gerry Matatics against Dr. White (here's a short mp3 clip from Matatics from this debate). In response, Dr. White pointed out that current research into the Old Testament canon had reached much different conclusions than that put forth by J.N.D. Kelly.

If you actually read this section from Kelly from which Beckwith took the quote, he readily admits the Palestinian canon was "rigidly fixed". This of course, was left out by Dr. Beckwith. Kelly does indicate (though with seeming hesitation) that the Hebrew canon was finally universally closed for Judaism in A.D. 90-100 at Jamnia. During this time period he says the Jews were actually uniting against the apocryphal books. They were in the process of finally being repudiated. Kelly goes on to say this was the reason certain Christians like Melito of Sardis eventually went to Palestine to get to the bottom of the confusion of the Jewish canon. By the fourth century, the more scholarly within the Alexandrian church likewise were against the apocrypha, in varying degrees. The Western church though was much more favorable toward the apocrypha. By common use it gained acceptance.

This extra information and context from Kelly shows at least Beckwith didn't read him carefully. Kelly argues for a fixed Palestinian canon during apostolic times, with the apocryphal books in the larger Greek canon being eventually repudiated by the Jews later in the first century. Kelly's quote does though still serve Romanist argumentation. If in fact no specific Hebrew canon was fixed for Judaism as a whole, how does one know that Jesus and the Apostles did not use and revere the apocrypha? If the Bible they used included it, and Christ deemed his church the only organization capable of infallible dogmatic proclamation, the fallible Jews late in the first century finalized a fallible collection of infallible books. They left out the apocrypha. Protestants therefore follow the fallible tradition of the Jews rather than the infallible Tradition of the Roman Catholic Church.

This Romanist methodology though is flawed in a number of ways.

What Books Were in the Septuagint?
Sometimes the error isn't what's said, it's what isn't said. Indeed, if one surveys the oldest extant copies and fragments of the Septuagint, one will find apocryphal books. That should settle it for the Roman Catholic side, shouldn't it? Hardly. William Webster explains:

One of the reasons Roman Catholics argue for a broader canon is that the oldest extant manuscripts of the Septuagint do contain a number of Apocryphal books. These manuscripts are: Vaticanus (early 4th century), Sinaiticus (early 4th century), and Alexandrinus (early 5th century). The Apocryphal books of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Judith and Tobit are included in all three, but there are also differences. Vaticanus does not include any of the Maccabean books, while Sinaiticus includes 1 and 4 Maccabees and Alexandrinus includes 1, 2, 3, and 4 Maccabees and a work known as the Psalms of Solomon. If inclusion of a book in the manuscript proves its canonicity, as Roman Catholics assert, then 3 and 4 Maccabees were canonical. However, we know with certainty that this was not the case. It is also true that the Septuagint included a number of appendices to the canonical Old Testament books such as Esther, 1 Esdras, the additions to Daniel (Song of the Three Children, Bel and the Dragon and Susanna), and the additions to Jeremiah (Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremy). But as Henry Swete points out, none of these books, or the rest of the Apocrypha, were part of the Hebrew canon:

The MSS. and many of the lists of the Greek Old Testament include certain books which find no place in the Hebrew Canon. The number of these books varies, but the fullest collections contain the following: I Esdras, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Judith, Tobit, Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah, i.-iv. Maccabees. We may add the Psalms of Solomon, a book which was sometimes included in MSS. of Salomonic books, or, in complete Bibles, at the end of the Canon.

The only Septuagint manuscript evidence we have now was created by the Christian church. Webster notes: "We do not know for certain that the Septuagint itself included the books of the Apocrypha as canonical Scripture. Secondly... there were books in these manuscripts that were never considered canonical by the Jews or the Church, in particular, 3 and 4 Maccabees. Therefore, just because a book was listed in the manuscripts did not mean it was canonical. It simply means that these books were read in the Church." Webster cites Lee McDonald who notes,

The biggest problem with the theory of the Alexandrian canon is that there are no lists or collections one can look to in order to see what books comprised it. Pfeiffer himself acknowledged that no one knows what the canon of the Alexandrian and other Diaspora Jews was before the LXX was condemned in Palestine, ca. 130 CE. Long ago E. Reuss concluded that we know nothing about the LXX before the time when the church made extensive use of it. That includes the condition of the text and its form as well as its extent. Another problem with the Alexandrian canon theory is that it has not been shown conclusively that the Alexandrian Jews or the other Jews of the Dispersion were any more likely to adopt other writings as sacred scriptures than were the Jews Palestine in the two centuries BCE and the first century CE. Further, there is no evidence as yet that shows the existence of a different canon of scriptures in Alexandria than in Palestine from the second century BCE to the second century CE. Since the communications between Jerusalem and Alexandria were considered quite good during the first century BCE and CE, it is not certain that either the notion or extent of divine scripture would be strikingly different between the two locations during the period before 70 CE. Although the Jews of the Dispersion were more affected by Hellenism than were the Jews of Palestine, there is little evidence to show that this influence also affected their notion of scripture or the boundaries of their scriptures.

When Dr. Beckwith assumes the Septuagint used during the Apostolic era included the apocrypha, that's indeed what it is, an assumption. There isn't historical evidence to verify the claim.

Dr. Beckwith, Meet R.T. Beckwith
Francis Beckwith probably should know the closed Hebrew canon was divided into three major categories: Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa. He did approvingly cite J.N.D. Kelly, and Kelly argues for a fixed Hebrew canon. When Jesus and the apostles appealed to Scripture, they had a specific set of books in view. Biblical and historical testimony affirm this. This threefold specific set of books did not contain the apocrypha. Commenting on this, R.T. Beckwith describes the argument of those who disagree with these facts:

Doubt has sometimes been cast, for inadequate reasons, on the antiquity of this way of [threefold] grouping the Old Testament books. More commonly, but with equally little real reason, it has been assumed that it reflects the gradual development of the Old Testament canon, the grouping having been a historical accident and the canon of the Prophets having been closed about the third century B.c., before a history like Chronicles and a prophecy like Daniel (which, it is alleged, naturally belong there) had been recognized as inspired or perhaps even written. The canon of the Hagiographa, according to this popular hypothesis, was not closed until the Jewish synod of Jamnia or Jabneh about A.D. 90, after an open Old Testament canon had already been taken over by the Christian church. Moreover, a broader canon, containing much of the Apocrypha, had been accepted by the Greek-speaking Jews of Alexandria, and was embodied in the Septuagint; and the Septuagint was the Old Testament of the early Christian church. These two facts, perhaps together with the Essene fondness for the pseudonymous apocalypses, are responsible for the fluidity of the Old Testament canon in patristic Christianity. Such is the theory.

Beckwith spends a considerable time demonstrating the historical evidence demonstrates the unity and closure of the threefold Old Testament canon, comprising a specific set of twenty-two books. He then describes the Septuagint and the broader canon:

How, then, has it come to be thought that the third section of the canon was not closed until the synod of Jamnia, some decades after the birth of the Christian church? The main reasons are that the rabbinical literature records disputes about five of the books, some of which were settled at the Jamnia discussion; that many of the Septuagint manuscripts mix apocryphal books among the canonical, thus prompting the theory of a wider Alexandrian canon; and that the Qumran discoveries show the apocalyptic pseudepigrapha to have been cherished, and perhaps reckoned canonical, by the Essenes. But the rabbinical literature records similar, though more readily answered, academic objections to many other canonical books, so it must have been a question of removing books from the list (had this been possible), not adding them. Moreover, one of the five disputed books (Ezekiel) belongs to the second section of the canon, which is admitted to have been closed long before the Christian era. As to the Alexandrian canon, Philo of Alexandria's writings show it to have been the same as the Palestinian. He refers to the three familiar sections, and he ascribes inspiration to many books in all three, but never to any of the Apocrypha. In the Septuagint manuscripts, the Prophets and Hagiographa have been rearranged by Christian hands in a non-Jewish manner, and the intermingling of Apocrypha there is a Christian phenomenon, not a Jewish one. At Qumran the pseudonymous apocalypses were more likely viewed as an Essene appendix to the standard Jewish canon than as an integral part of it. There are allusions to this appendix in Philo's account of the Therapeutae (De Vita Contemplativa 25) and in 2 Esdras 14:44-48. An equally significant fact discovered at Qumran is that the Essenes, though at rivalry with mainstream Judaism since the second century B.c., reckoned as canonical some of the Hagiographa and had presumably done so since before the rivalry began.

The Septuagint manuscripts are paralleled by the writings of the early Christian Fathers, who (at any rate outside Palestine and Syria) normally used the Septuagint or the derived Old Latin version. In their writings, there is both a wide and a narrow canon. The former comprises those books from before the time of Christ which were generally read and esteemed in the church (including the Apocrypha), but the latter is confined to the books of the Jewish Bible, which scholars like Melito, Origen, Epiphanius, and Jerome take the trouble to distinguish from the rest as alone inspired. The Apocrypha were known in the church from the start, but the further back one goes, the more rarely are they treated as inspired. In the New Testament itself, one finds Christ acknowledging the Jewish Scriptures, by various of their current titles, and accepting the three sections of the Jewish canon and the traditional order of its books; one finds most of the books being referred to individually as having divine authority- but not so for any of the Apocrypha. The only apparent exceptions are found in Jude: Jude 9 (citing the apocryphal work, The Assumption of Moses) and Jude 14, citing Enoch. Jude's citation of these works does not mean he believed they were divinely inspired, just as Paul's citation of various Greek poets (see Acts 17:28; 1 Cor. 15:33; Tit. 1:12) does not attribute divine inspiration to their poetry.

What evidently happened in the early centuries of Christianity was this: Christ passed on to his followers, as Holy Scriptures, the Bible which he had received, containing the same books as the Hebrew Bible today. The first Christians shared with their Jewish contemporaries a full knowledge of the identity of the canonical books. However, the Bible was not yet between two covers: it was a memorized list of scrolls. The breach with Jewish oral tradition (in some matters a very necessary breach), the alienation between Jew and Christian, and the general ignorance of Semitic languages in the church outside Palestine and Syria, led to increasing doubt concerning the canon among Christians, which was accentuated by the drawing up of new lists of the biblical books, arranged on other principles, and the introduction of new lectionaries. Such doubt about the canon could only be resolved today, in the way it was resolved at the Reformation- by returning to the teaching of the New Testament and the Jewish background against which it is to be understood [R.T. Beckwith, "The Canon of the Old Testament" in Phillip Comfort, The Origin of the Bible (Wheaton: Tyndale House, 2003) pp. 57-64].

Perhaps in Dr. Beckwith's zeal to convert, he didn't get a chance to read the materials put out by the other Dr. Beckwith. The other Dr. Beckwith's major work on the Old Testament canon is entitled, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985). While no longer in print, it is available in electronic form from Logos. I've only presented a sparse overview. The extent of the Old Testament canon is much more complicated than simply posting an edited snippet from J.N.D. Kelly. Perhaps if Francis Beckwith revises Return to Rome, we can look forward to sympathy for the actual Old Testament canon fixed by the time of Jesus and the apostles.

Tim LaHaye on the Reformation

The previous post documenting the Watchtower holding that Luther was one of the stars in Jesus' hand (Rev. 3:7) reminded me of a similar (yet very different!) interpretation of the Reformation. Below are some snippets from Tim LaHaye's Revelation Unveiled. Where the Watchtower saw Luther as a hero, Tim LaHaye comes to a much different conclusion.

Luther vs The Lutheran Study Bible

http://www.lutherquest.org/discus40/messages/13/97353.html?1318637353

Free Kindle books: The English Reformation

http://www.digitalbookindex.com/_search/search010hstenglandreformationa.asp

Luther from a Jehovah's Witnesses Perspective

Here's a fascinating tidbit from the CARM boards:

Speaking of Luther, there were some very strong statements about him in the book, The Finished Mystery p.48 (published in 1917 by the WTS), saying he was one of the stars in Jesus' hand (Rev. 3:7) the Messenger to the Church at Philadelphia.

Here's the book in question (published by the Watchtower): The Finshed Mystery (pdf). Check this out:

And the seven stars.—
How each of the Lord's messengers was kept! St. Paul had (supposedly) eight years of liberty after his first imprisonment, planted the Gospel in Spain and revisited the scenes of earlier labors; St. John is said to have been thrown into a caldron of boiling oil, but escaped unharmed and died of old age; Arius died a natural death; as did Peter Waldo, John Wycliffe, Martin Luther and Charles T. Russell, although all had reason to expect martyrdom at the hands of ecclesiasticism.

Here are the comments on Revelation 3-4.

And [to] BY the angel.—
The next messenger to the Church was Martin Luther. "There is considerable similarity between the work begun on Pentecost and that of Luther. The Reformation was, in a sense, the beginning of a new era, a dawning of light where all had been darkness, a new start in the way of Truth."—Z.'16-347. (page 48)

Also:

Write.— Luther wrote the first translation of the Bible into German.

These things saith He that is [holy] TRUE.—
The direct reference is to Christ (1 John 5:20);but characteristic of Luther was his great love of truth. When the Papal legate came demanding that he recant, he replied, "I stand by the truth. I will not take it back"

He that is [true] HOLY.— See Mark 1:24.
Luther's special message was "Justification by faith"— real holiness. One of the theses on the door was, "Those who truly repent of their sins have a full remission of guilt and penalty."

He that hath the key of David.—
"All power in Heaven and earth." (Matt. 28:18; Luke 1:32.)Luther's theses were antagonistic to the system actually ruling all over the world. When a representative came warning that his death would surely follow failure to recant, and asking him where he could go when all had orders not to harbor him, he replied, "I will abide under the cope of heaven."

And shutteth and no man [openeth] SHALL OPEN.—
The door of opportunity for the Roman Catholic Church to repent swung shut the day Luther was excommunicated. (Rev.2:21.) "Luther was not in the least disconcerted by this sentence, which he had for some time expected.He renewed his appeal to the general council; declared the pope to be that Antichrist, or Man of Sin whose appearance is foretold in the New Testament; declaimed against his tyranny with greater vehemence than ever; and at last, having assembled the University he cast the canon law,together with the bull of excommunication, into the flames."— Buck.

Revelation 3:8
I know thy works.—
A striking feature of Luther's character was his promptness to do whatever he saw to be the Lord's will. When the great test came, Luther said to Erasmus: "You desire to walk upon eggs without crushing them." Erasmus replied: "I will not be unfaithful to the cause of Christ, at least so far as the Age will permit me." "I will go to Worms," shouted Luther, "though the devils were combined against me as thick as tiles upon the housetops!"

Behold I have set before thee an open door.—
See 1 Cor. 16:9; Acts 14:27.

[And] WHICH no man can shut [it].—
"While the Roman pontiff thought everything safe and settled, and all pious and good men were nearly in despair of the religious reformation, so earnestly desired, a certain obscure and inconsiderable monk in Saxony, a province of Germany, suddenly opposed himself singlehanded with incredible resolution to the power of Rome. This was Martin Luther."—Mosheim.

For thou hast a little strength.—
"Compared with the mighty hosts of their enemies, the little band of Reformers had but ‘a little strength;' but they knew that they had the Truth, and they fully trusted the Giver,"—Z. ‘16-847.

Ten Martin Luther Myths

Originally posted on the aomin blog, 06/30/07

I regularly get e-mail from people I don't know asking questions about Martin Luther. I've even had people contact me in the hopes I will help write their research papers for school (I will not!). Recently, I was sent a few Luther questions, and I was amazed certain myths still circulate. Despite the explosion of cyber-information, here are ten that somehow still survive.

1. Luther Threw an Inkwell at Satan
Recently I found a Jehovah's Witness attempting to prove Luther was a psychopath. He brought up the story in which Luther hurled an inkwell at Satan. The story is not true. It first appeared towards the end of the sixteenth century, and is said to have been told by a former Wittenberg student. In this early version, the Devil in the guise of a monk threw an inkwell at Luther while he was secluded in the Wartburg. By 1650, the story shifted to Luther throwing the inkwell at Satan. Like any bizarre legend, the story morphed, and houses where Luther stayed had spots on the walls, and these were also said to be inkwells that Luther threw at the Devil.

2. Luther's Evangelical Breakthrough Occurred in the Bathroom
This same Jehovah's Witness denigrated Luther by repeating a newer myth, that Luther's understanding of Romans 1:17-18 came to him while in the bathroom in the tower of the Augustinian cloister. In the twentieth century, many approached Luther by applying psychoanalysis to his writings. Psychologist Eric Erikson took a German phrase uttered by Luther and interpreted it literally to mean Luther was in the bathroom when he had his evangelical breakthrough. Erikson concluded, from a Freudian perspective, Luther's spiritual issues were tied up with biological functions. But, there was not a bathroom in the tower. The phrase Erikson interpreted literally in German was simply conventional speech. Luther really was saying that his breakthrough came during a time when he was depressed, or in a state of melancholy.

3. Luther Repented and Re-entered the Church on his Deathbed
I've come across this one on popular Catholic discussion boards. No, it is not true. One of Luther's early opponents popularized the account that Luther was a child of the Devil, and was taken directly to Hell when he died. Now though, more ecumenically minded Catholics hope for the ultimate in conversion stories. Luther died around 3:00 AM on February 18, 1546. His last words and actions were recorded by his friend Justus Jonas. Luther was asked, "Reverend father, will you die steadfast in Christ and the doctrines you have preached?" Luther responded affirmatively. Luther also quoted John 3:16 and Psalm 31:5. In his last prayer he said to God, "Yet I know as a certainty that I shall live with you eternally and that no one shall be able to pluck me out of your hands." These are hardly the words of a Roman Catholic waiting to enter purgatory.

4. Luther's Hymns Were Originally Tavern Songs
Some involved in Contemporary Christian Music use this argument to validate contemporary styles of music being used in church: if even the great Martin Luther found value in contemporary music being used in Church, shouldn't we likewise do the same? In actuality, Luther used only one popular folk tune, I Came From An Alien Country, changed the words, and named the hymn, From Heaven On High, I Come to You. Four years after he did this, he changed the music to an original composition.

5. Luther Spoke in Tongues
Charismatic cyber-apologists have put this one out. They refer to an old quote from a German historian who stated, "Luther was easily the greatest evangelical man after the apostles, full of inner love to the Lord like John, hasty in deed like Peter, deep in thinking like Paul, cunning and powerful in speech like Elijah, uncompromising against God's enemies like David; PROPHET and evangelist, speaker-in-tongues and interpreter in one person, equipped with all the gifts of grace, a light and pillar of the church..." Luther though held, "Tongues are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers. But later on, when the church had been gathered and confirmed by these signs, it was not necessary for this visible sending forth of the Holy Spirit to continue."

6. Luther Added The Word Alone To Romans 3:28
This is frequently brought up by the zealous defenders of Rome. Luther is said to have been so careless and outrageous with his translation of the Bible, he simply added words to make the Bible say what he wanted it to. Luther gave a detailed explanation of why the passage has the meaning of alone,and this explanation has been available online for years. This charge also shows an ignorance of church history. Roman Catholic writer Joseph A. Fitzmyer points out, "...[T]wo of the points that Luther made in his defense of the added adverb were that it was demanded by the context and that sola was used in the theological tradition before him." Fitzmyer lists the following: Origen, Hillary, Basil, Ambrosiaster, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Bernard, Theophylact, Theodoret, Thomas Aquinas, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Marius Victorinus, and Augustine [Joseph A. Fitzmyer Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993) 360-361].

7. Luther Was an Antinomian and Hated the Law of God
Recently a friend wrote me and said charges about Luther being an antinomian were circulating in his church. 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 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. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Luther knows how important Moses and the law was in his theology. In Luther's Small Catechism the Ten Commandments were placed first because he wanted people to understand that God is wrathful against sin. The negative prohibitions in the Ten Commandments clearly showed our need for a savior. Also in his Small Catechism, Luther suggests a daily regiment of prayer and includes a verbal reading of the Ten Commandments.

8. Luther Acted Like a Protestant Pope
Catholic apologists perpetuate this one. They tend to reduce everything to a need for an infallible interpreter. They use highly rhetorical or polemical comments from Luther out of context, rather than those statements when Luther evaluates his value and his work. Toward the end of his life, Luther reviewed his work and stated, "My consolation is that, in time, my books will lie forgotten in the dust anyhow, especially if I (by Gods grace) have written anything good." And also, "I would have been quite content to see my books, one and all, remain in obscurity and go by the board" [LW 34: 283-284].

9. Luther Was a Drunk
The historical record nowhere documents Luther ever being drunk. It does provide evidence that he did drink alcohol, and that he enjoyed drinking. One needs only to survey the massive output of work that Luther produced to settle the matter that he was not an alcoholic, nor did he have a drinking problem. Luther preached and wrote against drunkenness throughout his entire life with vigor and force.

10. Luther Said Imputed Righteousness is Like Snow Covered Dung
I saved this one for last, simply because I'm not sure if it's a myth or not. It does seem to me like something Luther would've said: "Therefore let us embrace Christ, who was delivered for us, and His righteousness; but let us regard our righteousness as dung, so that we, having died to sins, may live to God alone" [LW 30:294]. "Explanation of Martin Luther: I said before that our righteousness is dung in the sight of God. Now if God chooses to adorn dung, he can do so. It does not hurt the sun, because it sends its rays into the sewer" [LW 34: 184].

My mission

I am currently raising support for the purpose of moving to France on a career basis, though my departure date is currently unknown.

The mission and goal that God has put on my heart is to share the good news of Jesus and the gift of eternal life with the many North African Muslims that live in France. They come from countries where less than 1% of the population loves Jesus, and they have come into a country where less than 2% of the population loves Jesus. Who will reach out to these precious people, Algerian and Moroccan Arabs, Kabyle and Shawiya Berbers?

My wife and I speak French fluently already, so there is no need for language training beforehand. We plan to do a mixture of the following activities as far as outreach:
-Evangelism through tract and booklet distribution
--on the street
--at seaports
--perhaps door to door

-Evangelism through open-air preaching
--I love Ray Comfort's preaching (though his apologetics, not quite as much)

-Seeking extended conversation and relationship, flowing out of these activities
--When we actually live there, we can arrange to meet people later and indeed will seek to do so, often
--We seek not to win debates, but to win people

-Pursuing relationship with the people we meet
--Meeting people and asking them to meet later over coffee/tea/meals
--Getting our families together
--Holidays like Christmas and Easter, and like iftar meals during Ramadan

-Offering free English and French classes
--Many N Africans, especially women, do not even speak French
--We have ESL teaching experience

-Discipling new believers in Jesus and planting churches
--The goal is to get them started and stable, then get out of the way

We are part of a missions agency that has been evangelising Europe for almost 60 years. We have already been appointed by them and our church's elders are 100% behind our going out, though we will of course remain under their leadership, authority, and accountability, even when on the foreign field.

I post this here to ask that any reader prayerfully consider supporting my family and me as we build up our team of partners. As you support us, you yourself join in the effort to share the Gospel with people who desperately need to hear the truth, and you sow blessing (2 Corinthians 8-9, Philippians 4:14-19). May the Lord richly bless all who read and all who are led to give.

Feel free to ask for clarification via email.
Thank you.

You can donate at my mission agency's website.
DONATE HERE

At the This box is for additional detail regarding the designation of your gift. (Name of Project or ministry you would like to support. box, please input "Rhology". That will be directed into my missions account.

Thank you, and may the Lord bless you.

-Rhology

Is There a Professional Roman Catholic Apologist in the House?

Over on Dr. Gene Veith's blog I was politely challenged on my assumptions about the Assumption. Since I'm not a professional Roman Catholic apologist, I'm not able to interpret Romanism infallibly. Perhaps though, some of you can. Here's an edited version of how it went down. If you know the answer to this riddle, please help me out:

Shelly:
Catholics do believe Mary could and did die, then she was taken up bodily into Heaven. (“…she was not subject to the law of remaining in the corruption of the grave, and she did not have to wait until the end of time for the redemption of her body.”

Swan:
As I’ve understood Romnism, it isn’t determined one way or the other that Mary died. A Roman Catholic is free to believe either. This is some of what Roman Catholics are required to believe about Mary’s assumption:

“…We pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

Hence, if anyone, which God forbid, should dare wilfully to deny or call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic faith…It is forbidden to any man to change this, Our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.” [decree Munificentissimus Deus by pope Pius XII]

It seems to me that early church history didn’t know what to do about the death of Mary. For instance, the words of Epiphanius contradict the idea of a long held belief in the Assumption. Epiphanius notes another “tradition” that no one knows what happened to Mary. His is the earliest non-heretical voice that comments on the subject of Mary’s bodily assumption, around 377:

“But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary’s death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried … Scripture is absolutely silent (on the end of Mary) … For my own part, I do not dare to speak, but I keep my own thoughts and I practice silence … The fact is, Scripture has outstripped the human mind and left uncertain … Did she die, we do not know … Either the holy Virgin died and was buried … Or she was killed … Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and He can do whatever He desires; for her end no-one knows.’” (Epiphanius, Panarion, Haer. 78.10-11, 23. Cited by juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), pp. 139-40).”

Giovanni Miegge, The Virgin Mary (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1955), 85 states:

“Actually the good Epiphanius made a superfluous display of hypotheses. If in his time no tradition existed about the end of Mary’s life, that is simply due to the fact that her death happened in a time when the practice of venerating the memory of martyrs or of persons eminent in the Church had not yet arisen, and it passed unobserved.” (page 85)

On first glance, I thought Miegge’s point was silly. People are so prone to worship the creation rather than the creator- could there possibly have been a time when Christians did not violate the first two commandments? Miegge also notes that “The growth of the cult of Mary was not rapid, not as rapid, at least, as appeared possible, in view of the very great possibilities of development in the title theotokos.” (p.83)

But yet, as I read through the earliest speculations about Mary’s end- including the apocryphal literature, I grant he may have point. On the other hand, if pressed- I would be forced to conclude there is no “one” tradition of the assumption- there doesn’t appear to be any one unified theme or tradition. The only certain thing that tradition appears to point to in this matter, is that no one knows what happened to Mary.

Second, Mary’s role in the New Testament diminishes- what I mean is this- The gospel accounts contain material about Mary- Acts and the rest of the New Testament do not record her “doings” in the early church. In other words, in the Bible she fades from the scene, as well as in history. God is in providential control of both, and I find their unity in this matter to be something to consider.

Shelly:
Actually, it is an obligation for Catholics to believe that Mary died, then was assumed into Heaven. A Catholic blogger (source below) nicely puts it that “… it is at least a sententia certa (a certain teaching) that our Lady died before being raised and assumed into heaven. This is the clear and explicit tradition of the West and is maintained in a slightly less-clear (and more metaphorical) manner also in the East.”

“Sententia certa” means that the particular teaching being declared is a high-level-of-certitude teaching upon which the Catholic is obliged to accept and believe.

This certitude that Mary in fact died and was believed by the Roman Catholic Church to have died before her bodily assumption is nicely addressed by Pope Pius XII when he states in section 17 of Munificantissimu Deus (MD–see link in my original posting above) in quoting an historical source that
“…Adrian I, our predecessor of immortal memory, sent to the Emperor Charlemagne. These words are found in this volume: “Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of death, who has begotten your Son our Lord incarnate from herself.”

The requirements of Catholics to be obliged to believe the content stated within MD, including that Mary died (“…the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death…” before being taken up into Heaven is stated in various places by Pius XII within MD. Source (Catholic blogger):

Swan:
Well, we’ll have to let a professional Roman Catholic apologist solve this riddle. I’ve read quite a number of sources (Protestant and Roman Catholic) saying that it is not essential for a Roman Catholic to believe Mary died. Here are a few sources:

James White, Mary Another Redeemer? (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1998) p. 52.

Patrick Madrid, Where is That in the Bible? (Indiana: Our Sunday Visitor Publishing, 2001), pp. 71-72.

Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Fransisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), pp. 272-273.

Stanley Stuber, Primer on Roman Catholicism for Protestants (New York: Association Press, 1953), p. 100.

The New Catholic Answer Bible (insert F2) “If indeed she was free from sin, then it follows that she would not have to undergo the decay of death, which was the penalty for sin.”

I could multiply these sources as well. These were only a few. Whatever the answer, this very issue demonstrates a fatal flaw in Romanism: even their alleged infallible dogmatic pronouncements are open to interpretation.

"Luther’s virulent railing against the Jews seems to reflect an aspect of his character"

There's a guy over on the CARM boards that's fond of my blog:

"The following quotes would NEVER be found in a James Swan blog “article”, unless they would be surrounded by a lot of the kind of “spin” necessary to “explain them away”, so that the reader would conclude that Luther’s extremely odd behavior was something completely unconnected with Protestant theology. Of course this is a completely anti-intellectual approach to Luther, but then, Swan’s target audience is apparently not comprised of those who think for themselves (or so Swan hopes)."

Now that sort of sentiment gets my eyes get all teared up when such feelings are shared.  You're special to me to!

Here's another choice tidbit from the same person:

Richard Marius, probably the best Protestant biographer of Luther of the last 100 years must be admired for the following:

-snip-

“Luther’s virulent railing against the Jews seems to reflect an aspect of his character.” I agree with Marius completely. However, the “Defenders” would prefer that we see his “treatment” of the Jews and those 14 Other Issues as anomalies, things not really representative of his “Christianity”. In fact they DO represent EXACTLY what kind of a Christian he was. They also represent how “good” an Exegete he was. Of course, NO Lutheran will go that far because they have SO MUCH “invested” in Luther’s “discovery” of Salvation by Faith Alone, supposedly in Scripture. The fact of the matter is that it was from the same mind and level of Christian character that both those “recommendations” on the Jews and Salvation by Faith Alone originated. As we continue to discover on that other thread, the inside of Luther’s head was not a pretty place by any set of standards.

This though is what Marius actually said:

"Luther's virulent railing against the Jews seems to reflect an aspect of his character. As a man capable of giving complete devotion to the task at hand, all the power of his amazing personality was directed at whatever object was in front of it. Something about him calls to mind a high-pressure fire hose with a reservoir of enormous volume and force behind it, directed by the small focus of the nozzle and so delivered with shattering intensity. He could rage against the Jews or the pope or rulers who displeased him or his foes on every hand so that one might suppose that these antagonists commanded his life and all his energy. But then his attention could shift, and away from his pulpit or his writing desk he could turn the same intensity toward good humored conversation at table or the delights of his garden or the pleasure he took later on in his much beloved wife. Luther never organized any campaign against the Jews, and, as Heiko Oberman has said, despite the ferocity of his tirades against them he never truly renounced the notion of coexistence between Jews and Christians. But the fact that Luther's hostility to Jews was not the same as modern anti-Semitism does not excuse it. It was as bad as Luther could make it, and that was bad enough to leave a legacy that had hateful consequences for centuries."

Richard Marius, Martin Luther, The Christian Between God and Death, pp. 379-380.

As to the claim that "Richard Marius, probably the best Protestant biographer of Luther of the last 100 years", Marius was such a great "Protestant" that he says his underlying presuppositions to his study on Luther is “essentially non-religious.” From this perspective, he begins with the notion that “Luther represents a catastrophe in the history of Western civilization.” And, “…[W]hatever good Luther did is not matched by the calamities that came because of him” (p. xii) (Marius also lays part of the blame on the Catholic Church as well). Because the Reformation led to wars between Catholics and Protestants, the loss of life was a grave calamity of the Reformation. Humanists are always concerned with preserving humanity, for humanity’s sake. Try applying Marius’s reasoning to Moses: The Jews would have been better off if they stayed in Egypt because they almost all died in the desert wilderness. The Jews that went into the Promised Land exterminated a large number of people. Moses should have been like Erasmus and sought to negotiate more conservatively with Pharaoh. Hence, whatever good Moses did is not matched by the calamities that came because of him… Or consider the early church: instead of giving their lives for their beliefs, they should have negotiated with the Roman government. They should have said, “we’ll bow to Caesar as god, but we don’t really mean it.” Countless lives could have been saved. Thus, whatever good the early church caused by not cooperating with the Roman government is not matched by the calamities they caused.

Franky Schaeffer Derides Christianity as “Stupid”

http://www.theird.org/page.aspx?pid=2086

Free Luther, Reformation, Church History Related Kindle Books

While looking for something on Amazon today I discovered they offer free Kindle books. Most of the titles are readily available already on the Internet, but if you're looking for some free things to download on to your Kindle, here are some free titles:

Martin Luther (and Related)

Works of Martin Luther With Introductions and Notes (Volume I)

Works of Martin Luther With Introductions and Notes (Volume II)

Martin Luther's Small Catechism, translated by R. Smith

Epistle Sermons, Vol. II Epiphany, Easter and Pentecost

Commentary on Genesis, Vol. II Luther on Sin and the Flood

The Smalcald Articles

The Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude Preached and Explained

Epistle Sermons, Vol. III Trinity Sunday to Advent

Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians

The Hymns of Martin Luther Set to their original melodies; with an English version

Concerning Christian Liberty

A Treatise on Good Works

Selections from the Table Talk of Martin Luther

An Open Letter on Translating

Life of Luther by Julius Koestlin

Luther and the Reformation: The Life-Springs of Our Liberties by Joseph A. Seiss

Der Große Katechismus (German Edition)

Von weltlicher Obrigkeit (German Edition) 

Von der Freiheit eines Christenmenschen (German Edition)

Verschieden Schriften (German Edition) 

Predigten durch ein Jahr (German Edition)

Von der Babylonischen Gefangenschaft der Kirche (German Edition) 

Kirchenlieder (German Edition)

Geistliche Lieder (German Edition) 

The Way of Salvation in the Lutheran Church by G. H. (George Henry) Gerberding

The Organization of the Congregation in the Early Lutheran Churches in America

Historical Introductions to the Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church by F. (Friedrich) Bente

American Lutheranism Volume 2: The United Lutheran Church (General Synod, General Council, United Synod in the South)

Other

A Treatise on Relics by John Calvin

The Life and Times of Ulric Zwingli by Johann Jakob Hottinger 

The Augsburg Confession The confession of faith, which was submitted to His Imperial Majesty 
Charles V at the diet of Augsburg in the year 1530 by Philip Melanchthon 

Apology of the Augsburg Confession by Philipp Melanchthon

Die Augsburgische Konfession (German Edition) by Philipp Melanchthon

John Knox and the Reformation by Andrew Lang   

The Scottish Reformation Its Epochs, Episodes, Leaders, and Distinctive Characteristics by Alexander F. Mitchell

Sketches of Church History From A.D. 33 to the Reformation by James Craigie Robertson

Breaking with the Past Catholic Principles Abandoned at the Reformation by Francis Aidan Gasquet and John M. (John Murphy) Farley

Beacon Lights of History, Volume 06 Renaissance and Reformation by John Lord

Count Ulrich of Lindburg A Tale of the Reformation in Germany by William Henry Giles Kingston

  

The Covenants And The Covenanters Covenants, Sermons, and Documents of the Covenanted Reformation by Various

The Pulpit Of The Reformation, Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. by Hugh Latimer, John Knox and John Welch

Erasmus and the Age of Reformation by Johan Huizinga and G. N. (George Norman) Clark

Selected Sermons of Jonathan Edwards by Jonathan Edwards and H. Norman Gardiner

Summa Theologica, Part I-II (Pars Prima Secundae) From the Complete American Edition

Summa Theologica, Part I (Prima Pars) From the Complete American Edition by Saint Thomas Aquinas

On Prayer and The Contemplative Life by Saint Thomas Aquinas

Orthodoxy by G. K. (Gilbert Keith) Chesterton 

Summa Theologica, Part III (Tertia Pars) From the Complete American Edition by Saint Thomas Aquinas 

Works of John Bunyan - Volume 02 by John Bunyan

Works of John Bunyan - Volume 03 by John Bunyan

A History of the Moravian Church by Joseph Edmund Hutton

The Book of Common Prayer and The Scottish Liturgy by Episcopal Church in Scotland

Saint Augustin by Louis Bertrand
 

A Short History of the Book of Common Prayer by William Reed Huntington

 

  

Luther: Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God (Part Two)

Earlier I posted this entry which shed some light on an obscure Luther quote that's been circulating around cyber-space for quite a few years:

One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God’s grace . . . Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ . . . Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God.

What appears to have happened is this quote was put together in an edited form by using William Cole's article “Was Luther a Devotee of Mary?” (Marian Studies Volume XXI, 1970, pages 132-133). It was sent off into cyber-space incorrectly documented as "Explanation of the Magnificat, 1521." Was the quoted checked against Luther's Magnificat for accuracy? It appears not. Sure, it may have been many years ago that this quote was taken from Cole's article, but even way back when, Luther's treatise on the Magnifcat shouldn't have been too hard to track down, especially if one were going to put such a quote either in a published article or book. Without the Internet, all it would have taken, all those years ago...  was a good college library.   

Cyber-space as it is, this bogus Luther quote traveled along, being cited here and there. It even got itself published.  It's not so much that Luther didn't say what's purported in the quote, it's that he said what he said in multiple places, in different contexts, not in this one quote. You see, William Cole's quote is actually a rather "loose" compilation of a few Luther quotes, from different treatises, with an emphasis on Luther's exposition of the Magnificat. If you count it all up, Cole provides around 20 references for 7 lines from Luther. 20 references? Something, obviously, doesn't add up. William Cole's documentation is somewhat free-style (for lack of a better phrase). His citation and documentation reads as follows:

Five years later, likewise preaching for the Feast of Visitation, he marvels at Mary's humility in the face of Elizabeth's great praise, which he makes equivalent to "No woman is like you. You are more than Eve or Sara, blessed above nobility, wisdom, and sanctity."

We cannot dispute the fact that Luther honored Mary wished her to be honored. As Preuss has observed,

Mary is and remains for Luther worthy of honor or veneration. He always maintains this although he changed the reason for it. For him the main reason is not that she has given us Christ, but that she is a model for our acceptance of Him.

There remains the question how. Luther himself responds in the Magnificat and many other places:

One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God's grace. God has given Mary the honor to be the Mother of God and this honor we all wish to give her, to praise her highly, and to hold her in respect. But we must thereby straightway enter the right path, and this way is Christ, for Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ and she bore Christ for me, not herself.144

Putting it negatively,

One must not attach himself to the mother of God and depend upon her, but through her he must press on to God. Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God.145

144 WA 1,60; cf. 7, 193, 553, 560, 565, 568, 575; 11, 60; 15, 477, 480; 17 (2), 320; 32, 265; 34 (2), 496.

145 WA 7, 564, 567, 568, 569, 574; 10 (3), 316; but especially 10 (2), 407.

What I did was attempt to work through the documentation to see exactly what Cole put together. I was able to track down the contexts for almost the entirety of his references with the exception of one (#8). For reference #8, I actually did a blog article on the treatise in question, and I'm working on getting it translated. This work is open to correction as well. Synching up Latin and German pages to English translations can be a bit tricky, but not impossible. Special thanks to Brigitte for help with #2, #9, #10.

1. WA 1, 60
This is reference to a Latin sermon from August 15, 1516. It's rather short (it ends on page 61). One would assume this reference would be to the first line of Cole's Luther citation. It isn't. In fact, I don't believe any of Cole's Luther citation comes from WA 1:60. Why then was this reference given? From the context, it appears Cole included it for in this early sermon Mary is put forth as "the most pure worshipper" of God who magnifies God in all things.  Cole makes a number of references to WA 1, 60, at one point even translating a section from it, but then connecting it to another sermon  from the same volume where Luther states Mary "boasts of nothing herself, nothing of merit, no work; she is, by her own admission, purely passive and a receiver, not a doer of good works." This basic thought will be the basis Cole builds on: Luther held Mary does nothing, Christ does it all.

2.  WA 7, 193
This is a reference to  the last section of a sermon from December 25, 1520. Nothing from this page appears to be part of Cole's quote. Why did Cole included it? Perhaps because Luther says that Mary abstained from praise, nor did she desire any praise. It would thus be a support reference for Cole's "The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God's grace." Luther states:

...although she was a virgin she had to forgo all honor and praise, which she might have received from this (virginity and miraculous conception), but had to let it go. Similarly, even though by birth she was from the most noble and kingly tribe, she was still held to be nothing and did not receive praise. If she had wanted to received praise, she would have never come to the child (as Savior). But now her praise is preached in all the world and no one can praise her sufficiently. ( But) this is the entire good news, that we receive the child alone.

3. WA 7, 553
This is a reference to Luther's exposition of the Magnificat, 1521.  Here may be some of Cole's Luther quote. The German reads,

The bolded section below would be Cole's "One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds." LW translates:

Let this suffice in explanation of these two words, soul and spirit; they occur very frequently in the Scriptures. We come to the “magnifies,” which means to make great, to exalt, to esteem one highly, as having the power, the knowledge, and the desire to perform many great and good things, such as those that follow in this canticle. Just as a book title indicates what is the contents of the book, so this word “magnifies” is used by Mary to indicate what her hymn of praise is to be about, namely, the great works and deeds of God, for the strengthening of our faith, for the comforting of all those of low degree, and for the terrifying of all the mighty ones of earth. We are to let the hymn serve this threefold purpose; for she sang it not for herself alone but for us all, to sing it after her. Now, these great works of God will neither terrify nor comfort anyone unless he believes that God has not only the power and the knowledge but also the willingness and hearty desire to do such great things. In fact, it is not even enough to believe that He is willing to do them for others but not for you. This would be to put yourself beyond the pale of these works of God, as is done by those who, because of their strength, do not fear Him, and by those of little faith who, because of their tribulations, fall into despair. [LW 21:306]

4. WA 7, 560
This is a reference to Luther's exposition of the Magnificat, 1521. The page from WA 7 can be cross-referenced to LW 21:313.  There doesn't seem to be anything similar to Cole's quote. However, on page WA 561 (LW 21:314), there is a thought Cole has been highlighitng, that it's not Mary's work to be praised, but God's work:

This, therefore, is what Mary means: “God has regarded me, a poor, despised, and lowly maiden, though He might have found a rich, renowned, noble, and mighty queen, the daughter of princes and great lords. He might have found the daughter of Annas or of Caiaphas, who held the highest position in the land. But He let His pure and gracious eyes light on me and used so poor and despised a maiden, in order that no one might glory in His presence, as though he were worthy of this, and that I must acknowledge it all to be pure grace and goodness and not at all my merit or worthiness.”

5. WA 7, 565
This is a reference to Luther's exposition of the Magnificat, 1521. The page from WA 7 can be cross-referenced to LW 21:319. Here Luther discusses praising the work of God's grace in others. This section doesn't appear to contain any of the text Cole alludes to.

6. WA 7, 568
This is a reference to Luther's exposition of the Magnificat, 1521. This appears to be Cole's "How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God's grace." The page from WA 7 can be cross-referenced to LW 21:321-322. There Luther states,

From this we may learn how to show her the honor and devotion that are her due. How ought one to address her? Keep these words in mind, and they will teach you to say: “O Blessed Virgin, Mother of God, you were nothing and all despised; yet God in His grace regarded you and worked such great things in you. You were worthy of none of them, but the rich and abundant grace of God was upon you, far above any merit of yours. Hail to you! Blessed are you, from thenceforth and forever, in finding such a God.” Nor need you fear that she will take it amiss if we call her unworthy of such grace. For, of a truth, she did not lie when she herself acknowledged her unworthiness and nothingness, which God regarded, not because of any merit in her, but solely by reason of His grace.

7. WA 7, 575
This is a reference to Luther's exposition of the Magnificat, 1521. The page from WA 7 can be cross-referenced to LW 21:329. Luther states,

Therefore she adds, “And holy is His name.” That is to say: “As I lay no claim to the work, neither do I to the name and fame. For the name and fame belong to Him alone who does the work. It is not proper that one should do the work and another have the fame and take the glory. I am but the workshop in which He performs His work; I had nothing to do with the work itself. No one should praise me or give me the glory for becoming the Mother of God, but God alone and His work are to be honored and praised in me. It is enough to congratulate me and call me blessed, because God used me and did His works in me.”

Perhaps the bolded section is Cole's "God has given Mary the honor to be the Mother of God and this honor we all wish to give her, to praise her highly, and to hold her in respect." Or perhaps it's "The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God's grace."

8. WA 11, 60
This a reference to sermon from March 11, 1523.

9. WA 15, 477
This appears to be another possible source for Cole's "God has given Mary the honor to be the Mother of God and this honor we all wish to give her, to praise her highly, and to hold her in respect."

(Study) regarding the mother Mary, 2.) and the Son. Our salvation does not reside in the virginity of the mother, but in the Son, and for that reason this portion is more seen by us, which speaks of the Son, because thus far we have brought all glory to the mother and have been forgetful of the son. Certainly it is a great honor, that she is a virgin, more than a mother, but it is beneficial to her, not to me, save only that I demonstrate in her the mercy and glory of God, wherefore she is thus reverent, lest we make her an idol.

10. WA 15, 480

11. WA 17 (2), 320
This is a page from Luther's Kirchenpostille. The most relevant Marian section begins on the bottom of page 319, and continues to the top of 320. This appears to be a possible source for Cole's "Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ" :

This text reads:

Because of this you see that the dear Apostle Paul, John, Peter and Christ Himself use absolutely no words about His mother or the virgin Mary. For the greatest power does not rest upon her being a virgin, but rather everything depends on something else. So also everything else that happens, how this child is there for our sake, that for us He walked and stood, depends upon His being our LORD and God who wants to preserve and defend us. Before all things one should cry out and lift this up else if one only praises this mother and is silent about the rest, that must be judged as pure blasphemy. She is not there for her own sake, but for my sake, that she serve me and give me this child. She is surely worthy of all honor. Yet let her be the treasure chest without confusing her over and against this treasure. [Festival Sermons of Martin Luther, The Church Postils (Michigan: Mark V Publications, 2005), p. 139].

12. WA 32, 265
This a reference to a sermon preached December, 25, 1530. It can be cross-referenced to LW 51:213-214. Here appears to be Cole's "Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, she bore Christ for me, not herself." Luther states: 

When I die I shall see nothing but black darkness, and yet that light, “To you is born this day the Savior” [Luke 2:11], remains in my eyes and fills all heaven and earth. The Savior will help me when all have forsaken me. And when the heavens and the stars and all creatures stare at me with horrible mien, I see nothing in heaven and earth but this child. So great should that light which declares that he is my Savior become in my eyes that I can say: Mary, you did not bear this child for yourself alone. The child is not yours; you did not bring him forth for yourself, but for me, even though you are his mother, even though you held him in your arms and wrapped him in swaddling clothes and picked him up and laid him down. But I have a greater honor than your honor as his mother. For your honor pertains to your motherhood of the body of the child, but my honor is this, that you have my treasure, so that I know none, neither men nor angels, who can help me except this child whom you, O Mary, hold in your arms. If a man could put out of his mind all that he is and has except this child, and if for him everything—money, goods, power, or honor—fades into darkness and he despises everything on earth compared with this child, so that heaven with its stars and earth with all its power and all its treasures becomes as nothing to him, that man would have the true gain and fruit of this message of the angel. And for us the time must come when suddenly all will be darkness and we shall know nothing but this message of the angel: “I bring to you good news of great joy; for to you is born this day the Savior” [Luke 2:10–11].

13. WA 34 (2), 496.
This is a reference to a sermon on the Festival of Christ's Nativity (December 24, 1532). This also appears to be Cole's source for "Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, she bore Christ for me, not herself."   The relevant section Cole appears to be citing is the following:

The first thing to learn in this prophecy of Isaiah is that a child is born to you and is your child, just as we sing, "A child so praiseworthy is born to us today." We must accentuate the word "us" and write it large. That is, when you hear, A child has been born to us, make the two letters US as large as heaven and earth and say, The child is born, it is true; but for whom is he born? Unto US, for us he is born, says the prophet. He was not born solely to his mother, the Virgin Mary, nor solely for his compatriots, his brethren and kinfolk, the Jews. Much less was he born to God in heaven, who was in no need of the birth of this child; but he was born unto us humans on earth. Thus the prophet wants to say to you and to me, to all of us in general, and to each and every one in particular, Listen, brother, I want to sing a joyous song to you and proclaim the joyous news to you. There, in the manger at Bethlehem, lies a young child, a fine little boy; this little child is yours, he is granted and given to you.

Ah, Lord God, everyone ought open his hands here, take hold of and joyfully receive this child, whom this mother, the Virgin Mary, bears, suckles, cares for, and tends. Now, indeed, I have become lord and master and the noble mother, who was born of royal lineage, becomes my maid and servant. Ah! for shame, that I do not exult and glory in this, that the prophet says, This child is mine, it was for my sake and for the sake of us all that he has been born, to be my Saviour and the Saviour of us all! That is the way in which this mother serves me and us all with her own body. Really we all ought to be ashamed with all our hearts. For what are all the maids, servants, masters, mistresses, princes, kings, and monarchs on earth compared with the Virgin Mary, who was born of royal lineage, and withal became the mother of God, the noblest woman on earth? After Christ, she is the most precious jewel in all Christendom. And this noblest woman on earth is to serve me and us all by bearing this child and giving him to be our own! [Sermons of Martin Luther Vol. 7(Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000) pp. 215-216]

14. WA 7, 564
This is a reference to Luther's exposition of the Magnificat, 1521. The page from WA 7 can be cross-referenced to LW 21:317-318. The section Cole appears to be referencing is the following in which Luther exhorts his readers not to look to Mary, but rather to use them as a vehicle to cling to Christ alone. This may be Cole's "One must not attach himself to the mother of God and depend upon her, but through her he must press on to God":

As Jeremiah says (Jer. 9:23, 24): “Let no one glory in his might, riches, or wisdom; but if anyone wants to glory, let him glory in this,that he understands and knows Me.” And St. Paul teaches (2 Cor. 10:17): “Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord.” Now, after lauding her God and Savior with pure and single spirit, and after truly singing the praises of His goodness by not boasting of His gifts, the Mother of God addresses herself in the next place to the praise also of His works and gifts. For, as we have seen, we must not fall upon the good gifts of God or boast of them, but make our way through them and ascend to Him, cling to Him alone, and highly esteem His goodness. Thereupon we should praise Him also in His works, in which He showed forth that goodness of His for our love, trust, and praise. Thus His works are simply that many incentives to love and praise His bare goodness that rules over us.

15. WA 7, 567- 568 - 569
This is a reference to Luther's exposition of the Magnificat, 1521. These pages from WA 7 can be cross-referenced to LW 21: 320-323. For Cole, these three pages of text are meant to refer to two sentences: "One must not attach himself to the mother of God and depend upon her, but through her he must press on to God. Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God." It appears though to be only the exact reference for "Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God.":

all those who heap such great praise and honor upon her head are not far from making an idol of her, as though she were concerned that men should honor her and look to her for good things, when in truth she thrusts this from her and would have us honor God in her and come through her to a good confidence in His grace.

Whoever, therefore, would show her the proper honor must not regard her alone and by herself, but set her in the presence of God and far beneath Him, must there strip her of all honor, and regard her low estate, as she says; he should then marvel at the exceedingly abundant grace of God, who regards, embraces, and blesses so poor and despised a mortal. Thus regarding her, you will be moved to love and praise God for His grace, and drawn to look for all good things to Him, who does not reject but graciously regards poor and despised and lowly mortals. Thus your heart will be strengthened in faith and love and hope. What do you suppose would please her more than to have you come through her to God this way, and learn from her to put your hope and trust in Him, notwithstanding your despised and lowly estate, in life as well as in death? She does not want you to come to her, but through her to God.

16. WA 7, 574
This is a reference to Luther's exposition of the Magnificat, 1521. The page from WA 7 can be cross-referenced to LW 21:328. Luther states,

This, then, is the meaning of these words of the Mother of God: “In all those great and good things there is nothing of mine, but He who alone does all things, and whose power works in all, has done such great things for me.” For the word “mighty” does not denote a quiescent power, as one says of a temporal king that he is mighty, even though he may be sitting still and doing nothing. But it denotes an energetic power, a continuous activity, that works and operates without ceasing. For God does not rest, but works without ceasing, as Christ says in John 5:17: “My Father is working still, and I am working.” In the same sense St. Paul says in Ephesians 3:20: “He is able to do more than all that we ask”; that is, He always does more than we ask; that is His way, and thus His power works. That is why I said Mary does not desire to be an idol; she does nothing, God does all. We ought to call upon her, that for her sake God may grant and do what we request. Thus also all other saints are to be invoked, so that the work may be every way God’s alone.

17. WA 10 (3), 316
This is a reference to a page from Luther's sermon, The Day of the Nativity of Mary (September 8, 1522). This appears to be the source for Cole's "One must not attach himself to the mother of God and depend upon her, but through her he must press on to God."  Luther states,

Her being given great grace is not done so that we should venerate her, but out of God's mercy for her. For we could not all be God's mother, but apart from that she is just like us and must also come to grace through the blood of Christ as we do. So you now personally receive the same grace for which we must honor the saints. By acknowledging this we keep ourselves from detracting from Christ. We are Christ-centered when we receive His blood and suffering and set our heart only upon that and on no saint beside. So honor the mother of God so far that you do not dwell on her, but rather press through to God and set your heart on Him and never take Christ out of the center. For we are altogether brothers and sisters since He Himself says He is our brother.[Festival Sermons of Martin Luther, The Church Postils (Michigan: Mark V Publications, 2005), p. 158-159].

18. but especially WA 10 (2), 407
This is the first page of Luther's explanation on the "Hail Mary." It can be cross-referenced to LW 43:39. Luther states,

Take note of this: no one should put his trust or confidence in the Mother of God or in her merits, for such trust is worthy of God alone and is the lofty service due only to him. Rather praise and thank God through Mary and the grace given her. Laud and love her simply as the one who, without merit, obtained such blessings from God, sheerly out of his mercy, as she herself testifies in the Magnificat [Luke 1:46–55].