Luther on Justification- "I myself, even though I teach it publicly have a great difficulty in believing it privately"

Recently, I was sent this obscure Luther quote:

“There is no religion in the whole world that teaches this doctrine of justification. I myself, even though I teach it publicly, have a great difficulty in believing it privately” (Werke, 25, p. 330, in Franca., p. 158).

If you search out this quote you'll come across a few pages of similar content. For instance this web page is entitled: Luther Thought He Was Divine! The quote is one of a handful of out-of-context quotes painting Luther as a gross antinomian. This quote is used to prove  justification by faith alone is a "doctrine ... so bizarre that even Luther himself could scarcely manage to believe in it." Luther didn't even believe what he taught?

Polemical Source
The quote was admittedly taken from a Roman Catholic secondary source: Fr. Leonel Franca, S.J., A Igreja, a Reforma, e a Civilização [The Church, the Reformation, and Civilization] (Rio de Janeiro, 1934). "Fr. Leonel Edgar da Silveira Franca, S.J., one of the founders of the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and its first Rector (1941 -1948)." The quote can be found on page 151 of his book:

escreve o próprio LUTERO: "Nenhuma religião há, em toda a terra que ensine esta doutrina da justificação: Eu mesmo, ainda que a ensine publicamente, com grande dificuldade a creio em particular". Weimar, XXV, 330.

Primary Source
Whoever pulled this quote from Franca's The Church, the Reformation, and Civilization had to translate it into English, so it's twice removed from the original Latin. However, the reference was helpful: WA 25, 330 (cf. Exegetica opera Latina, Volume 23, 140).

Est autem nulla religio iu orbe terrarum, quae hanc sententiam de iustificatione admittat, et nos ipsi privatim aegre eam credimus, quanquam publice eam doceamus. Ideo quoque diligentius hic locus cognosci debet, quod sit ceu fundamentum, quo Novum testamentum seu Euangelion nititur, qui solus nos et religionem nostram ab omnibus aliis religionibus distinguit. Soli enim Christiani hunc locum credunt et sunt iusti, non quia ipsi operantur, sed quia alterius opera apprehendunt, nempe passionem Christi. Qui igitur hunc articulum credit, ille tutus est ab omnibus erroribus et necessario ei aderit Spiritus sanctus. Neque enim sine Spiritu sancto doceri aut cognosci potest. Qui autem ab hoc articulo exciderunt, illi expositi sunt omni vento falsae doctrinae.

This quote is from Luther's material on Isaiah 53. Some of the material is found in WA 31(2), some of it is found in WA 25 (pp. 79-401). The material in WA 31 comprises of lectures transcribed and recorded by those who heard Luther give these lectures. The material in WA 25 comprises of scholia. Therefore, taken together, Luther's notes and lectures comprise his material on the book of Isaiah. LW chose to translate the material from WA 31 with clarification from Luther's scholia ("... there is neither need nor even justification for relying on the scholia, and we have decided to translate the version closest to Luther himself").

Context
If one compares the scholia and the lectures on Isaiah 53 there is indeed harmony in thought.

The quote above roughly translates: 

But there is no religion in the entire world which admits this teaching of justification, and we ourselves believe it in private with difficulty, though we publicly teach it. Therefore this doctrine must carefully be known, as being the foundation, which the gospel and New Testament is based. It alone  distinguishes us from all other religions. Christians believe they are justified, not because they themselves work, but because they receive another's works, namely, Christ's work. Therefore he who believes this article is safe from all errors and necessarily will be with the Holy Spirit. For without the Holy Spirit it cannot be taught or known. But he that falls from this article are exposed to every wind of false doctrine.

This scholia would fit into this section 5 of Luther's lecture on Isaiah 53:

4. Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.
This states the purpose of Christ’s suffering. It was not for Himself and His own sins, but for our sins and griefs. He bore what we should have suffered. Here you see the fountain from which St. Paul draws countless streams of the suffering and merits of Christ, and he condemns all religions, merits, and endeavors in the whole world through which men seek salvation. Note the countless sects who to this day are toiling to obtain salvation. But here the prophet says, “He for us.” It is difficult for the flesh to repudiate all its resources, to turn away from self, and to be carried over to Christ. It is for us who have merited nothing not to have regard for our merits but simply to cling to the Word between heaven and earth, even though we do not feel it. Unless we have been instructed by God, we will not understand this. Therefore I delight in this text as if it were a text of the New Testament. This new teaching which demolishes the righteousness of the Law clearly appeared absurd to the Jews. For that reason the apostles needed Scripture, Surely He has borne our griefs. His suffering was nothing else than our sin. These words, OUR, US, FOR US, must be written in letters of gold. He who does not believe this is not a Christian. Yet we esteemed Him. We thought that He was suffering because of His own sin, as it were. In the eyes of the world and of the flesh Christ does not suffer for us, since He seemed to have deserved it Himself. This is what the prophet says here too, that He was judged guilty in the eyes of the world. It is therefore difficult to believe that such a one suffered for us. The Law is that everybody dies for his own sins. Natural reason, and divine as well, argues that everybody must bear his own sin. Yet He is struck down contrary to all law and custom. Hence reason infers that He was smitten by God for His own sake. Therefore the prophet leads us so earnestly beyond all righteousness and our rational capacity and confronts us with the suffering of Christ to impress upon us that all that Christ has is mine. This is the preaching of the whole Gospel, to show us that Christ suffered for our sake contrary to law, right, and custom. He expounds more fully what His suffering for us means.

5. He was wounded.
 The prophet is eloquent in describing the suffering of Christ. Word by word he expounds it in opposition to the hardened Jews. Do you want to know what it is to bear our sins, that is, what it means that He was wounded? Here you have Christ delineated perfectly and absolutely, since this chapter speaks of Him. Christ is a man, a servant of the Word, who by means of suffering bore our sins. What will the unrestrained Jew answer in opposition to this delineation? From this you must infer how far apart are the teachings of Paul and the pope. Paul clings to Christ alone as the sin bearer. By means of this one word, “Lamb of God” (John 1:29), John the Baptist understands this Levitical sacrifice, that He suffered for the sins of all. It follows, then, that the Law and merits do not justify. Away with the Antichrist pope with his traditions, since Christ has borne all these things! I marvel that this text was so greatly obscured in the church. They note the concern of Scripture that faith without works is dead, and we say the same thing. In public argument, however, we say that works are indeed necessary, but not as justifying elements. Thus anyone may privately come to the conclusion, “It is all the same whether I have sinned or whether I have done well.” This is hard for the conscience to believe, that it is the same and in fact something angelic and divine. Therefore this text draws the following conclusion: “Christ alone bears our sins. Our works are not Christ. Therefore there is no righteousness of works.” Surely none of the papists can escape this fact when he sees Scripture as a whole, that Christ has accomplished all things for justification and therefore we have not done it. Appeal to works, rewards, and merits and make much of them in the realm of outward recompense. Only do not make them responsible for justification and the forgiveness of sins. We can preach and uphold this passage in public, but we can only believe it with difficulty in private. If we preserve this article, “Jesus Christ is the Savior,” all other articles concerning the Holy Spirit and of the church and of Scripture are safe. Thus Satan attacks no article so much as this one. He alone is a Christian who believes that Christ labors for us and that He is the Lamb of God slain for our sins. While this article stands, all the monasteries of righteousness, etc., are struck down by lightning. In the light of this text read all the epistles of Paul with regard to redemption, salvation, and liberation, because they are all drawn from this fountain. A blind papacy read and chanted these and similar words as in a dream, and no one really considered them. If they had, they would have cast off all righteousness from themselves. Hence it is not enough to know and accept the fact. One must also accept the function and the power of the fact. If we have this, we stand unconquered on the royal road, and the Holy Spirit is present in the face of all sects and deceptions. When this doctrine is safe, we firmly stand up to all people, but where this article is lost, we proceed from one error to the next, as we observe in the babbling Enthusiasts and in Erasmus. Our nature is opposed to the function and power of Christ’s Passion. As far as the fact itself is concerned, both the pope and the Turk believe it and proclaim it, but they do not accept its function. As for you, lift up this article and extol it above every law and righteousness and let it be to you a measureless sea over against a little spark. The sea is Christ who has suffered. Your works and your righteousness are the little spark. Therefore beware, as you place your sins on your conscience, that you do not panic, but freely place them on Christ, as this text says, “He has borne our iniquities.” We must clearly transfer our sins from ourselves to Christ. If you want to regard your sin as resting on you, such a thought in your heart is not of God but of Satan himself, contrary to Scripture, which by God’s will places your sin on Christ. Hence you must say: “I see my sin in Christ, therefore my sin is not mine but another’s. I see it in Christ.” It is a great thing to say confidently: “My sin is not mine.” However, it is a supreme conflict with a most powerful beast, which here becomes most powerful: “I behold sins heaped on Christ.” Thus a certain hermit who was extremely harassed by Satan could not evade him, but said: “I have not sinned. Everybody must look upon his conscience as free.” He did not answer well because he did have sin. This is what he should have said: “My sins have been transferred to Christ; He has them.” This is the grafting of the wild olive into the olive tree. It is not without purpose that the prophet uses so many words in this article, since it is necessary for a Christian to know that these are his own sins, whatever they are, and that they have been borne by Christ, by whom we have been redeemed and saved. This is the Savior, etc., from eternal damnation, from death, and from sin. So by this thunderbolt the Law and its righteousness are struck down, as you see Paul treat this matter in detail.


Something further must be noted, lest those who do not feel this despair. There Satan can turn the antidote into poison and the hope into despair. For when a Christian hears these supreme consolations and then sees how weak he is with regard to his faith in them, he soon thinks that they do not apply to him. In this way Satan can turn consolation into distress. But as for you, however weak you are, know that you are a Christian, whether you believe perfectly or imperfectly, even while weakness and a feeling of death and sin remain with you. To such a person we must say: “Brother, your situation is not desperate, but pray together with the apostles for the perfection of your faith.” Paul also struggled with this problem and was deeply disturbed. A Christian is not yet perfect, but he is a Christian who has, that is, who begins to have, the righteousness of God. I say this for the sake of the weak, so that they will not despair when they feel the bite of sin within themselves. They should not yet be masters and doctors but disciples of Christ, people who learn Christ, not perfect teachers. Let it suffice for us to remain with that Word as learners. Therefore, however perfect and absolute the teaching of Christ is that affirms that all our sins belong to Christ, it is not perfect in our life. It is enough for us to have begun and to be in the state of reaching after what is before us. Hence a Christian man must be especially vexed in his conscience and heart by Satan, and yet he must remain in the Word and not seek peace anywhere else than in Christ. We must not make a log or a rock out of the Christian as one who does not feel sin in himself. This is the claim of the exceedingly spiritual Enthusiasts.[LW 17:221-225]

Conclusion
"This doctrine is so bizarre that even Luther himself could scarcely manage to believe in it" hardly follows from Luther's lecture. In context that which was beyond belief was "Christ alone bears our sins. Our works are not Christ. Therefore there is no righteousness of works."

Seventy Percent of Roman Catholics Do Not Understand The Eucharist

Originally posted on the aomin blog, 04/15/2009

Seventy percent of Roman Catholics do not understand the Eucharist? There's that anti-catholic James Swan again, making stuff up about the one true church. Everyone knows, those who are members of the one true church have the benefit of the infallible magisterium. The papacy has God-given authority keeping Catholics unified!

Actually, what most who may think this about me don't realize is I probably read more Roman Catholic books at this point than Protestant books. I certainly listen to more Catholic broadcasts than Protestant. This particular fact was not something I made up. It comes from the April 6, 2009 broadcast of Catholic Answers Live. Catholic apologist Jim Burnham devoted an hour on "How to Defend and Explain the Eucharist." You can listen to Jim's statistics in this short clip. Jim says in part,

"Poll after poll in recent years has confirmed that more and more Catholics are mistaken... they have misguided views about the Eucharist. it used to be everybody understood that the Eucharist was Jesus. it was the true flesh and blood... the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus under the appearance of bread and wine. And now more recent polls suggest that sometimes up to fifty percent depending on how the question is phrased, sometimes as many as seventy percent of Catholics can't identify that core Catholic belief..."

So, if I were to ask seven out of ten Catholics to explain the Eucharist, according to Burnham, I'd probably get a few different answers, or maybe even seven different answers. Here again we find a simple truth, typically ignored by Catholic apologists. Catholic apologists will repeatedly claim a Christian relying on the Bible as his sole infallible authority will produce confusion. They claim one must have another infallible authority, the Papacy. Yet, here is one of their key doctrines, what Burnham calls, "the crown jewel" of the Catholic faith, the Eucharist, and seven out of ten Catholics are confused on it.

In this period of economic crisis, many companies are evaluating their work plan, trying to find ways in which their company is failing and losing money. I submit, If your alleged infallible teaching magisterium is working as Burnham describes, you may want to evaluate the effectiveness of upper management at this point.

Can God Become a Man? Debate between Dr. James White and Abdullah Kunde

1. The audio of the debate: “Can God become a man?” James White vs. Abdullah Kunde

I look forward to getting the video/DVD of this debate later, if there are plans for that (probably at www.aomin.org) but the audio has been available here.

http://neutralbayanglican.org.au/?p=1508

2. Abdullah Kunde, at his blog, answers some of my questions regarding the collection and history of the Hadiths. http://ideologiaeislam.wordpress.com/2011/10/26/debate-audio-can-god-become-a-man/

I learned a lot here from Abdullah about other collections of Hadiths حدیث (Ahadith – احادیث plural in Arabic) that I had not known about before. I had heard of Imam Malik before and even seen the Al Muwatta mentioned in Muslim writings; however, I did not know exactly what this book was and when it was written and that it is also considered an orthodox collection of Hadith. It also has jurisprudence (laws and rulings = Fiq = فقه) in it.

He mentions several earlier (than Al Bukhari and Al Muslim) collections of Hadith that are shorter.

1. Imam Ibn Shihab az Zuhri

2. Abu Hanifah Kitab Athar

3. Imam Malik Al Muwatta

See Abdullah’s explanation in the combox as to why we don’t hear about these Hadith collections more often.

It is very interesting to me that most or all of the latter six official collections of Sunni Hadith were done by ethnic Persians ( Iranians). Look them up and google them for details. (see also at the end of this article)

Abdullah shows that Muslims also disagree with each other on the dates of when things were written down and compiled. The dating seems to disagree with the source that I cited there.

3. Abdullah Kunde responds to the issue of “Category Mistakes”

http://ideologiaeislam.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/category-of-mistakes/

See my initial response at the com-box. I have made some changes, additions, corrections, clarifications here.

Thanks for this fleshing out of the issues of categories and category errors.

Abdullah wrote:

1) Perfect, in the absolute sense. This can only be applied to God, for the reasons I suggested, primarily His being Self-Subsistent (without need).

My response: It seems to me that you and all Muslims demand that the incarnation has to mean that the human nature of Jesus has to be perfect in the sense of category # 1, that is “unlimited, eternal, independent, self-existent; omnipotent, omniscient”; but that is not what Christians believe, – except that Jesus in His perfect human was without sin. (John 8:46; Hebrews 4:15; 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Peter 2:22) Even the Qur’an speaks of Jesus Al Massih as a “sinless or faultless son” – Surah Maryam 19:19-21. زکیا

(I made a misprint in the combox, but corrected here.) Surah Maryam 19:19 below.

"He said, No; I am only a messenger from Your Lord, that I may bestow on you a faultless son." Surah Maryam 19:19. You can see the last word in Arabic, زکیا , (zakiyyan) which is translated "fault-less", "pure", "most holy", "righteous".

The human nature of Jesus is now glorified after the resurrection; but it came into being at the conception in the womb of Mary – Luke 1:34-35, and so the human nature of Jesus is not eternal into the past.

Jesus is clearly sinless; yet Muhammad asked for forgiveness 3 times in the Qur’an. 47:19; 40:55; 48:2

Since Jesus did have a perfect human nature with respect to other humans and also never sinned, it seems that you have made a category error, because we don’t demand nor teach that Jesus’ human nature is in category # 1. (eternal, self-existent, unlimited, etc.)

Abdullah wrote: 2) Perfect with respect to a genus. I said that ‘perfect’ could be applied to created things, but only within their own context. I said that a car may be called perfect if it is considered to be superior to all other cars. I agreed that a human could be called perfect with respect to other humans, however I affirmed that perfect with respect to a genus is not the same as absolutely perfect, because it can only ever be applied within the category it is referring to (not in an absolute or even comparative sense).

My response: This is the sense that Jesus’ human nature was; and also without sin. That is why He as one person in the incarnation was limited temporarily to time and space while on earth for 33 years and did not know the day of the second coming ( Matthew 24:36) But now in His glorified resurrected body, He surely knows the day of His second coming. The divine nature did not change, rather, as Dr. White was basically seeking to explain, and as all Christians have believed and taught, Jesus the eternal Son, the eternal Word of God (John 1:1-5), voluntarily “emptied Himself” or "did not use His divine privileges", by becoming a man. Philippians 2:5-8. (also John 1:14; Hebrews 10:5; Luke 1:34-35) (see Addendum for more articles on Philippians 2:5-8)

On the Six Official Sunni Hadith Collections:

Granted, this following information is gathered from Wikipedia, but it is convenient and seems true to what I have read. If anyone sees any factual errors, feel free to comment.

1. Sahih Al Bukhari - (810 - 870 AD / 196 - 256 AH = After Hejira (622 AD)) صحیح البخاری - born in Bukhara, - at the time, was part of the Persian Empire, and is ethnically Persian or Tajik, but was later gained by the Russians and is in today southern Uzbekistan. They Tajiks of Bukhara and Samarkand are more related to the Tajiks of Tajikistan, but the Soviet Union divided Uzbekistan and Tajikistan up the way they did so they could “control the minority peoples" within the Soviet Union.

2. Sahih Muslim - lived around 206–261 AH / 821-875 AD - صحیح مسلم - he was also born in the Khorrasan area of Iran, in the city of Nishapour. (Today in Northeast Iran, near Turkmenistan.) Some sources claim he is ethnically Arab.

3. Sunan Abu Dawood - Abu Dawood Sulayman ibn Ash`ath Azdi Sijistani (died, 889 AD)

ابو داود سليمان بن اشعث السجستاني

(commonly known as Abu Dawud, was a noted Persian collector of Hadith. .

He was born in Sistan in east of Iran, (then Persia) and died in 889 AD in Basra.

4. Jami’ Al Tirmidhī (Persian: ترمذی), also transliterated as Tirmizi, full name Abū ‛Īsá Muḥammad ibn ‛Īsá ibn Sawrah ibn Mūsá ibn al Ḍaḥḥāk al-Sulamī al-Sulamī al-Tirmidhī (824–892, i.e. 209 AH – 13 Rajab 279 AH) or 8 October 892 CE was a Persian collector of hadith (sayings of the Prophet Muhammad) The city of Termez was also part of Khorrasan, Persia, but now is in Uzbekistan.

5. as-Sunan as-Sughra (Arabic: السنن الصغرى‎), also known as Sunan an-Nasa'i (Arabic: سنن النسائي) is one of the Sunni Six Major Hadith collections, and was collected by Al-Nasa'i. Al-Nasā'ī (214 – 303 AH/ ca. 829 – 915 AD/CE), The city of Nasa was also in the area of Khorrasan, Persia, but today it is in Turkmenistan, just north of Iran.

6. Sunan Ibn Majah (Arabic: سُنن ابن ماجه) is one of the Sunni Six Major Hadith collections, collected by Ibn Majah. He was also from a Persian area, the city of Qazvin, which is near Tehran in Iran today.

What is really strange about the fact that most of Sunni Hadith collections were done by ethnic Persians; is that today, Iran is officially and mostly Shiite, and the Shiite’s don’t accept the Sunni Hadith collections. Iran became Shiite during the Safavid Dynasty (1502-1732), by the decree of a king of Iran, Shah Ismail I, 1502-1524 AD. Interesting that it is around the same time as the Protestant Reformation in Europe. In becoming Shiite, it seems that the Persians were reacting to the Arab Sunni masters and the Ottoman Sunnis (The Turks). They wanted to assert their Persian identity; and it is very common for Persians today to let westerners know up front that they are not “Arabs”; nor “Turks”. Iranians are still pretty angry at Umar for attacking Iran/Persia in unjust Islamic Jihad and killing millions of people and forcing them to become Muslims. See also about the Shu'ubiyyat movement in Persia/Iran; and here.

Addendum:

A good and thorough article on Philippians 2:5-8, "The Carmen Christi".

The Carmen Christi and the Greek word, "Harpagmos" , by Dr. White.

The CRI Journal article on Philippians 2:5-8 by Dr. White.

Ear Candy: Kate Bush, '50 Words For Snow'

Here's a rare instance in which Luther, the Reformation, Roman Catholicism, etc. won't be the topic.

My favorite musical artist is Kate Bush. It's been that way since I first heard her album, The Dreaming way back in the early 1980's, which is my favorite recording of all time. I can't say I've enjoyed everything she's put out over the years, but her new album, '50 Words For Snow' will be released in a few days. I'm actually sitting here listening to it at the moment: First Listen: Kate Bush, '50 Words For Snow'. I'm thoroughly enjoying the melancholic ambiance.  NPR has posted the entire album to listen to.

The Storm of War and the Battle for Truth

Highlights from Al Mohler’s “Thinking in Public” Podcast.

Audio: This is well worth your listen, and I emailed Al Mohler and I hope it will be reprinted and published widely. (After typos and omissions are corrected in the transcript.)

http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/09/07/the-storm-of-war-and-the-battle-for-truth-a-conversation-with-historian-andrew-roberts/

“The Storm of war and the Battle for Truth” – Al Mohler interviews historian Andrew Roberts.

Andrew Roberts is the author of The Storm of War: A New History of the Second World War. (And other books also, but this one is the focus of this interview.)

Several things about this interview really struck me.

1. The combination of events and issues that led to the rise of Hitler and World War 2. And, especially noteworthy, is the comparison of the economic troubles of right now with the economic troubles of Germany before World War 2.

2. The statement “a feeling of hatred toward capitalism” - by the Germans in between World War I and World War II. (This is a solemn warning to leftists, marxists, socialists, anarchists, liberals, and the Occupy Wall street crowd.)

click on the picture in order to see all the text in it.
Note: I first saw this picture at Triablogue a few days ago. Brilliant!

3. The comparison between Hitler as a charismatic leader vs. Churchill as an inspiration leader, and that Churchill’s speeches are based on the power of argumentation and reason and truth, rather than Hitler’s emotion and oratory manipulation.

(This should be a solemn warning to people to not be fooled by someone who can sway crowds with oratory, like the Word of Faith heretics, etc. and politicians who are all packaging and externals but no substance.) See more on this issue of the greed and manipulation tactics of the Word of Faith heretics at the end of the article.

Kenneth Copeland, one of the worst heretics of the last 50 years.

4. The implications of the reality of our post 9-11-01 world in Islamic Fascism and Islamic terror; and I would add, the desire of many Muslims for the restoration of the Caliphate. The Caliphate was abolished in 1924 by Mustapha Kemal Ataturk, the secular founder of the modern state of Turkey, precisely because he saw that the unity of the religion of Islam with the political and military power was a dangerous thing, and proof of that is that the Ottoman Empire joined Germany in World War I and the Caliphate was in power in Sunni Islam at that time; and also the historical facts of the friendly ties of Hitler with Haj Al Amin Housseini, the Mufti if Jerusalem in their hatred of the Jews, during the time of the Holocaust in Germany and World War 2.

If the Islamic Caliphate is restored, then the moderate Muslims would be forced to stand behind any call for Jihad, for even the modern and moderate Muslims admit that a legitimate Caliph can call for Jihad against the west, etc.

Haj Muhammad Effendi Amin Al Hosseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem from 1921-1937, meeting with Adolf Hitler.

5. That we must know history well in order to fight revisionists from their propaganda, like Christopher Hitchens and others who have trashed Churchill, and like Pat Buchanan, who thinks that World War II was an un-necessary war for America to get involved in and that the Holocaust was not as bad as it is reported to be. Sounds dangerously close to sentiments expressed by Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, the President of Iran, and other Muslims associated with Hamas and Al Qaedah and Hezbollah types.

6. Understanding why most of Europe looks at World World II with a very negative feeling; even given the fact that the Allies won; it is still negative to the European psyche because of the sheer number and percentage of loss and carnage; whereas Americans look on it in a very positive light, the classic story of good winning over evil; and that the Allies did it by coming from behind and being the "underdogs". The contribution of the Soviet Union to the defeat of Hitler must not be underestimated.

7. The theme of knowing the difference between right and wrong, good and evil, and understanding history from a Christian Worldview and truth is very important. A mind saturated and trained in the truth of the Scriptures will help us battle evil.

Here are some excerpts that really struck me. There are some typos in the written transcript, which I have emailed Al Mohler about; the worst is that the transcriber left out the word “not” in the following:

Al Mohler: Well, as we’ve said, you’ve now made the point once again that it did not have to happen this way; that there could have been incredible alternatives. What could have happened between the wars in Germany, in particular to have prevented this? And in other words, what could have prevented the rise of Nazism? Or to the contrary, why did it happen?

Andrew Roberts: Well, of course actually if one is to look at the true reason for the rise of Nazism you have to look here in New York, where I am at the moment, and Wall Street and the great Wall Street crash, and The Great Depression, and the inflation that hit Germany even harder than it hit your country. And that of course was the dynamic by which Hitler, who until 1923 was really only winning about 2.3% of the German popular vote, but by 1932 he was in a position to grant power, which of course he did, when he became Chancellor in January 1933. So it is very deeply concerned with the unemployment problem, and lots of economic factors, which are pretty rarely and properly, given their due. Many people talk about anti-Semitism, quite rightly of course. Many people talk about the Versailles Treaty, but one has to remember that on their own these would not have brought the Fuhrer to power, really also took this after sense of utter desperation, a feeling of hatred towards capitalism and of course also Bolshevikism in Russia, was much more reason, to make ordinary Germans feel that this fanatic Adolf Hitler was their savior.
. . .
“The moral perspective of history is absolutely indispensable.”
. . .

The embolding in the following was not left out, but I am just emphasizing it here:
Mohler makes some very insightful closing comments:

“I am very thankful for the view of leadership that is illustrated by the men Churchill and Hitler considered by Andrew Roberts in one of his previous works, it is really important to understand that distinction between charismatic leadership and inspirational leadership. A charismatic leader who can evince a personality and use all kinds of manipulative means in order to sculpt a public image and a brand or a persona, that could be lead to manipulate millions of people, versus an inspirational leader who does have undeniable rhetorical talents, as did Winston Churchill and an inflexible and indomitable will. But also the force of argument, and I appreciate what Andrew Roberts makes clear and that is it had to be won on the force of argument. Churchill’s point had to be not only more convincing, it had to be true. And it was upon the truth of that understanding of that world, and that understanding of Hitler, and that understanding of right and wrong, that there were those who were willing to fight a war, and to endure all of its carnage and all of its hardship and all of its terrors in order to defeat something that was even worse than the reality of war.
When we look at the study of history it is very important that we understand that it is not merely an academic discipline, though it is a very important academic discipline. It is an essential mechanism for understanding who we are. We have no idea who we are; we have no idea how to understand ourselves without putting ourselves in an historical context. Thus it is a matter of our very important intellectual stewardship as Christians that we intentionally do our very best to frame an historical understanding that is true and that is meaningful through the lenses of the Christian worldview. We look back at history not only as an event, lest we look back at it not only as a chronicle. We look back at it not only for crying out loud like did Henry Ford as one event after another. We look back in order to say, it could’ve been different. It did happen this way. Moral actors are responsible. Individually and collectively, history has its victors and its victims; and sometimes they are the right victors and sometimes they are the wrong victors. And it really does matter, it is very important that history is not just one thing after another, it is a moral test of human beings. It is indeed a diorama of Genesis 3 in fallen humanity. In reading a book like The Storm of War, and I very much hope that you will read it, will for Christians remind us that when we look at history and we consider the present, with the eyes of the gospel, we are to yearn for the kingdom yet to come. Human history underline as does perhaps no other knowledge the reality of the need for redemption.”

Another major typo:
Also, should have been - "It was not until 1941 that Hitler started believing Goebbels", not "stopped believing Goebbels", etc.

"Only in 1941 did he stop [sic] believing Joseph Goebbels, his propaganda minister’s statements that he was the greatest warlord of all time, and all of these victories came as a result of his willpower, as you mentioned."

Roberts actually said "started", not "stopped".

What is that famous phrase that many of us have learned? “Those who don’t learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them”

Note:
By having pictures of Kenneth Copeland and Joel Osteen, I am not equating them with the evils of Hitler, but they have the emotional and oratory trickery of manipulating many people by mixing in some Scripture verses here and there, and promising people wealth and health (if they just give their money to them); and so the only parallel is the skill in manipulating crowds. It is obvious by the large crowds that Copeland, Benny Hinn, Creflo Dollar, Joel Osteen, and other Word of Faith teachers generate, that, 1. these people are desperate and will 'accumulate to themselves teachers according to their own desires" ( 2 Timothy 4:3-4) and 2. These people do not read the Bible verses in their context, paragraphs, chapters, and the specific book that the verse is in in order to understand the author's intended meaning. They don't do good hermeneutics.

This makes these false teachers all the more dangerous for the "regular people" who are struggling in life; the masses and crowds who are desperate for jobs and money and healing.

Luther: "It makes no difference whether you leave your wife, flee from your lord, or are unfaithful to every obligation"

Recently, I was sent this obscure Luther quote:

“God only obliges you to believe and to confess (the faith). In all other things He leaves you free, lord and master to do whatever you will without any danger to your conscience; on the contrary, it is certain that, as far as He is concerned, it makes no difference whether you leave your wife, flee from your lord, or are unfaithful to every obligation. What is it to Him if you do or do not do such things?”  Werke, Weimar ed., XII, pp. 131 ff.;  Franca, p. 446

If you search out this quote you'll come across a few pages of similar content. For instance this web page is entitled: Luther Thought He Was Divine! The quote is one of a handful of out-of-context quotes painting Luther as a gross antinomian. With this quote, the "shock" is the notion "it makes no difference whether you leave your wife, flee from your lord, or are unfaithful to every obligation." The argument is thus: if all that is needed is faith, then it makes no difference how one lives.

Polemical Source
The quote was admittedly taken from a Roman Catholic secondary source: Fr. Leonel Franca, S.J., A Igreja, a Reforma, e a Civilização [The Church, the Reformation, and Civilization] (Rio de Janeiro, 1934). "Fr. Leonel Edgar da Silveira Franca, S.J., one of the founders of the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and its first Rector (1941 -1948)." The quote can be found on page 396 of his book:

I. RIVIUS escreve em 1547: "Se és adúltero ou libertino, dizem os pregadores, crê simplesmente e serás santo. Nem temas a lei, porquanto Cristo a cumpriu e satisfez pelo homem... Semelhantes discursos levam à vida ímpia". 52 Em 1525 JORGE, duque de Saxônia, escrevia ao corifeu reformador: "Quando se viu maior número de adultérios como depois que escreveste: se uma mulher é estéril, una-se a outro e os filhos sejam alimentados pelo primeiro marido. E outro tanto façam os homens?" 53 E como não haveria de ser assim quando se ouvia LUTERO ensinando de 1523: "Deus só te obriga a crer ea confessar. Em todas as outras coisas te deixa livre e senhor de fazer o que quiseres, sem perigo algum de consciência; antes é certo que, de si, ele não se importa, ainda mesmo se deixasses tua mulher, fugisses do teu senhor e não fosses fiel a vínculo algum. E que se lhe dá, se fazes ou deixas de fazer semelhantes coisas?" 54

54. Weimar, XII, 131 ss; Cabe aqui a observação que em 1565 fazia JOANNES JACOBUS na obra sobre a sua conversão: "entre os católicos os pecados atribuem-se às pessoas, entre o luteranos às doutrinas e às pessoas". RÄSS, Die Convertiten seit der Reformation, Freiburg . B., 1866, I. 522.

Primary Source
Whoever pulled this quote from Franca's The Church, the Reformation, and Civilization had to translate it into English, so it's twice removed from the original German or Latin. However, the reference was helpful: "Werke, Weimar ed., XII, pp. 131 ff." Here is WA 12, 131 (I've actually addressed this reference before). However, the "ff" typically may mean the quote spans multiple pages. In this instance though, the quote is found in one section.

WA 12, 131 is a page from Luther's commentary on 1 Corinthians 7. The English translation is found in LW 28 (WA 12, 131 can be found here: LW 28:44-45).

Context
Commenting on 1 Cor. 7:18-19,, Luther holds "everyone should lead the life to which God has called him "(LW 28:40). One can be circumcised or uncircumcised married or single."...[I]f you are a heathen, uncircumcised and outside the Jewish law, you should not think that this is wrong and that you must be circumcised; this is optional. Faith alone justifies you, and it alone fulfills the commandment of God" (LW 28:40-41). "...[N]either Jewish nor heathen birth or customs can of themselves hinder or advance us in God’s sight, but only faith" (LW 28:41).

"In the same way one should also say to our people: Marriage is nothing, and celibacy is also nothing. To have a heathen spouse is nothing, and to have a Christian spouse is also nothing. Those who are married should stay married. Those who are unmarried should not marry—that is, they should not be disturbed in their consciences as to whether they should marry or not. Here is another example. To be a monk is nothing, and to be a layman is also nothing; to be a priest is nothing, and to be a nun is also nothing. The layman should not become a monk, and the monk should not become a layman; all of which is to say that it should not be a matter of necessity or conscience whether one is a monk or a layman. Rather each should remain as he is, provided that faith is pure and unshaken. For where faith cannot be maintained, there the monk should abandon his order just as a married person should leave an unchristian spouse who drives or keeps him away from the Christian faith" [LW 28:41]

Commenting on verse 23 (You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men), Luther then states:

That this is his true meaning is demonstrated in his words: “You were bought with a price.” By this he means Christ, who with His own blood bought us and set us free from all sin and law, as we see in Gal. 5:1. But this purchase does not work itself out according to the way of the world and does not affect the relations men have with one another, such as that of a servant toward his master or that of a wife toward her husband. These relationships are all left intact, and God wants them maintained. The effect of this purchase is spiritual and takes place in our conscience. Therefore before God no law any longer binds or imprisons us. We are all free from all things. Before we were bound in sin, but now we are rid of all sin. Whatever outwardly remains of relationship or freedom is neither sin nor virtue but only outward tranquillity or trouble, joy or suffering, as is all other bodily good and ill, in both of which we can live free and without sin [LW 28:44-45].

The obscure quote the follows in Luther's Comment on 1 Corinthians 7:24 (So, brethren, in whatever state each was called, there let him remain with God). Luther states:

Here Paul repeats this conclusion concerning Christian freedom for the third time: that all outward things are optional or free before God and that a Christian may make use of them as he will; he may accept them or let them go. But here the apostle adds the words “with God.” This means, to the extent that it is of importance between you and God. For you are doing no service for God if you marry, remain unmarried, whether you are in bondage or free, become this or that, eat this or that; on the other hand, you do not displease Him or sin if you put off or reject one or the other. Finally, you owe God nothing but to believe and confess; He releases you from all other things so that you can do as you please without endangering your conscience. This is so thoroughly true that He does not inquire on His own behalf whether you have let your wife go, have run away from your master, or have not kept your agreement, for what does He profit whether you do these things or don’t do them? [LW 28:45]

Now before one thinks Luther is teaching blatant antinomianism, he then immediately states:

But because in this relationship you are bound up with your neighbor and have become his servant, it is God’s will that no one be deprived of what is his by means of His freedom but rather that those things of your neighbor be protected. For although God pays no attention to these things on His own account, He pays attention to them on account of your neighbor. This is what he means with the words “with God,” as though He were admonishing us: “I did not make you free among men or with your neighbor, for I do not wish that which is his taken from him until he gives you permission. But you are entirely free with Me and cannot ruin yourself in My sight by keeping to or refraining from outward things.” Therefore notice this and differentiate between the freedom existing in your relation to God and the freedom existing in your relation to your neighbor. In the former this freedom is present, in the latter it is not, and for this reason: God gives you this freedom only in the things that are yours, not in what is your neighbor’s. There differentiate between what is yours and what is your neighbors. That is why no man can leave his wife, for his body is not his own but his wife’s, and vice versa. Likewise the servant and his body do not belong to him himself but to his master. It would be of no importance to God if the husband were to leave his wife, for the body is not bound to God but made free by Him for all outward things and is only God’s by virtue of inward faith. But among men these promises are to be kept. In sum: We owe nobody anything but to love (Rom. 13:8) and to serve our neighbor through love. Where love is present, there it is accomplished that no eating, drinking, clothing, or living in a particular way endangers the conscience or is a sin before God, except when it is detrimental to one’s neighbor. In such things one cannot sin against God but only against one’s neighbor.
And it should be emphasized that this little word “call” does not in this context mean the social status to which one is called, as when one says, “Your status is ‘married,’ ” or, “His status is ‘priest,’ ” and so on, as everyone has his calling from God. Here St. Paul is not speaking of this calling. He speaks instead of the evangelical call, which is as much as to say: “Remain in that calling to which you were called, that is, where you receive the Gospel; and remain as you were when you were called. If the call comes to you in the married state, then remain in that wherein you were found. If you are called in slavery, then remain in the slavery in which you were called.”
But what if the Gospel calls me in a state of sin, should I remain in that? Answer: If you have entered into faith and love, that is, if you are in the call of the Gospel, then sin as much as you please. But how can you sin if you have faith and love? Since God is satisfied with your faith and your neighbor with your love, it is impossible that you should be called and still remain in a state of sin. If, however, you remain in that state, then either you were not called as yet, or you did not comprehend the call. For this call brings you from the state of sin to a state of virtue, making you unable to sin as long as you are in that state. All things are free to you with God through faith; but with men you are the servant of everyman through love.
From this you will see that monasticizing and making of spiritual regulations is all wrong in our time. For these people bind themselves before God to outward things from which God has made them free, thus working against the freedom of faith and God’s order. On the other hand, where these people should be bound, namely, in their relations with other men and in serving everyman in love, there they make themselves free, serving no one and being of no use to anyone but themselves, thus working against love. Therefore they are a perverse people, perverting all the laws of God. They want to be free where they are bound and bound where they are free, and yet they hope to be seated much higher in heaven than ordinary Christian people. But they who make such a hellish prison out of heavenly freedom and such a hostile freedom out of loving service shall sit in the deepest hell [LW 28:45-47].

Finger of God: How to Respond?

Ken's recent blog entry has prompted me to post a video series that a good Pentecostal friend recently attempted to indoctrinate me with: Finger of God. My friend was quite smitten by the entire thing. After we watched most of it, we had a lengthy (and at times intense) discussion. In my opinion, it is a detailed theology of glory.

I post this for my Reformed brothers and sisters. Watch a little of it, and let me know in a paragraph what you think the basic flaw is.





This is part one. The rest can be found here:

Part Two

Part Three

Part Four

Part Five

Part Six

Part Seven

Part Eight

Part Nine

Part Ten

The Disturbing Greed of the Health and Wealth Heresy

Todd Friel of Wretched TV and Radio is right, this is probably one of the most disturbing things yet from the heretical and greedy Health and Wealth Teachers,(also known as "The Word of Faith Movement", the "Prosperity Gospel", "Name it Claim it' or "positive confession" teaching) In this video, false teachers Leroy Thompson and Creflo Dollar walk and run over the money that people put on the altar and think they can anoint the money with their feet! This video does not show how Leroy Thompson manipulated the people into giving and putting the money on the steps - I saw it months ago, but that video has been removed from You Tube. It seems they are embarrassed by it. It showed Leroy Thompson leading the audience in a claiming exercise by saying (shouting) several times that "money is coming to me" and pulling their greedy hands and arms into themselves, (how selfish! James 4:3-4 condemns this) - by giving to the heretics' "ministry", or tithing to this so called "church", these preachers manipulate people to give by promising them that God will give them 100 fold in return. Later, when it doesn't happen, and people question them, they say, "you don't' have enough faith". They learned the false teaching and manipulation tactics from other false teachers like Kenneth Copeland, the late Kenneth Hagin, and the late Oral Roberts. Other false teachers in this movement are Benny Hinn, Paula White, Joyce Meyer, Joel Osteen, Jesse Duplantis, Eddie Long, T. D. Jakes, Paul and Jan Crouch of TBN, and many others.

Not only was that the goofiest, weirdest, nuttiest thing I have ever seen; it just oozes with greed and pride, which is part of what 2 Peter warns about in chapter 2.

"But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep." (2 Peter 2:1-3 NASB)


". . . Daring, self-willed, they do not tremble when they revile angelic majesties, whereas angels who are greater in might and power do not bring a reviling judgment against them before the Lord. But these, like unreasoning animals, born as creatures of instinct to be captured and killed, reviling where they have no knowledge, will in the destruction of those creatures also be destroyed, suffering wrong as the wages of doing wrong. They count it a pleasure to revel in the daytime. They are stains and blemishes, reveling in their deceptions, as they carouse with you, having eyes full of adultery that never cease from sin, enticing unstable souls, having a heart trained in greed, accursed children; forsaking the right way, they have gone astray, having followed the way of Balaam, the son of Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; but he received a rebuke for his own transgression, for a mute donkey, speaking with a voice of a man, restrained the madness of the prophet." (2 Peter 2:10-16)

New Volume of Luther's Works: Volume 60 (Prefaces II / 1532 - 1545)

Each year Concordia Publishing releases a new volume of Luther's writings in English. The next volume will be Volume 60 (Prefaces II / 1532 - 1545). It's due out December 1. Information on ordering can be found here.

On Concordia's main page, there isn't any advertisement yet on this upcoming book (at least none that I could find!). Nor is this new volume featured prominently on their Luther page (yet). As a subscriber, I'm set up for automatic delivery which saves 30% off the price.

However, they do offer a lengthy pdf sample from this new volume that I came across quite by accident.

About this Volume:
This volume contains Luther’s prefaces to the works of others from 1532 to 1545. Amid the outpouring of print in the wake of the Reformation, Luther—especially in the prefaces to his own works—sometimes expressed the wish that his own books might disappear and give place to the Bible alone. In his prefaces to the works of others, however, Luther developed the opposite rhetorical strategy, hailing their books as faithful guides to the Scriptures or as edifices that, because of their confession of Christ, would “surely stand secure on the Rock upon which they are built.” Although he complained of the many “useless, harmful books” with which the Gospel’s opponents flooded the world, the multiplication of “good books” in print—of which there could never be too many—was a sign of God’s present blessing on the church in restoring the light of the Gospel, and Luther was pleased to encourage the works of faithful colleagues and friends. Many of the works for which he wrote prefaces he declared superior to his own for their insights, style, and more refined approach. Luther was grateful for help in the shared work of Evangelical literary production in all its genres, in constructive work as well as in polemics, and his prefaces give a broad survey of the Reformation’s literature.

Luther Thought he was Divine?

Recently, I was sent this obscure Luther quote:

"Does this Luther not appear to you to be eccentric? As far as I am concerned, I think he is God. Otherwise, how could his writings or his name have the power to transform beggars into lords, asses into doctors (of learning), falsifiers into saints, slime into pearls!” Werke, Ed. Wittenberg, 1551, IV, pp. 378; Franca, p. 190

If you search out this quote you'll come across a few pages of similar content. For instance this web page is entitled: Luther Thought He Was Divine! After providing a handful of out-of-context quotes painting Luther as a gross antinomian, this web page states,

All these insanities explain how Luther reached the frenzy of satanic pride, saying of himself: “Does this Luther seem to you an extravagant man? As for me, I think that he is God. Otherwise, how could his writings or his name have the power to transform beggars into lords, asses into doctors, swindlers into saints, and slime into pearls?” (Ed. Wittenberg, 1551, vol. 4, p. 378, in ibid., p. 190).

Polemical Source
The quote was admittedly taken from a Roman Catholic secondary source: Fr. Leonel Franca, S.J., A Igreja, a Reforma, e a Civilização [The Church, the Reformation, and Civilization] (Rio de Janeiro, 1934). "Fr. Leonel Edgar da Silveira Franca, S.J., one of the founders of the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and its first Rector (1941 -1948)." The quote can be found on page 180 of his book:

Este LUTERO não vos parece uma homem extravagante? Quanto a mim, penso que ele é Deus. Senão, como teriam os seus escritos eo seu nome a potência de transformar mendigos em senhores, asnos em doutores, falsários em santos, lodo em perolas!" Orgia do orgulho satânico ou caso de patologia mental? (Ed Wittemb.1551, t. IV, p. 378)

Primary Source
A quote like this presents a few difficulties. First whoever pulled it from Franca's The Church, the Reformation, and Civilization had to translate it into English, so it's twice removed from the original German or Latin. Second, the reference given is to the earliest collected edition of Luther's Works: The Wittenberg Edition. Third, if you search out some of the key phrases from the quote, you'll quickly discover that it is truly an obscure quote. It took me quite a while to figure out where it came from.

The first helpful clue came from Audin's History of the Life, Writings, and Doctrines of Luther, Volume 2. On page 331, Audin mentions (Roman Catholic) John Faber's work against Luther, and Luther's reaction:

Faber's work had caused amusement. But Luther was angry. "I shall not reply," he said, "either to Cochlaeus or Faber: there is not an ass that does not obtain the degree of doctor as soon as he attacks Luther. Luther is a god who makes beggars lords, asses doctors, scoundrels saints, and changes dirt into precious stones: it was I who raised Adrian to the tiara, and you shall see that I will make Faber a cardinal." 

Audin provides the following documentation: "Adversus iteratum Edictum Episcopi Misnensis pro Communione sub una Specie: a pamphlet which Sockendorf calls 'vehemens et aculeatum.' " This roughly translates to Against the bishop of Meissen repeated edict for Communion under one species.

The second clue came from W.H.T. Dau's Luther Examined and Reexamined. On page 239 - 240 Dau states:

Luther was aware that he was probably the worst-hated man of his times. He declares his belief that in the last hundred years there has not lived a man to whom the world was more hostile than to himself. (22,1660.) Persons praising him, he says, are regarded as having committed a more grievous sin than any idolater, blasphemer, perjurer, fornicator, adulterer, murderer, or thief. (9, 553.) Anything that Luther has said, he observes, is denounced as corning from the devil; what Duke George (one of his fiercest enemies), Faber, or Bucer say or do is highly approved. (4, 1606.) Like Elijah, he was charged with having disturbed Israel: before he began preaching there was peace and quiet, now all is confusion. (9, 587.) He is held responsible for the Peasants' Revolt and the rise of the Sacramentarian sects. (22, 1602.) A laborer whom his wife had hired became drunk and committed murder; at once the rumor was spread that Luther kept a murderer as his servant. (21 b, 2225.) What he writes is represented as having been inspired by envy, pride, bitterness, yea, by Satan himself; those, however, who write against him are regarded as being inspired by the Holy Ghost. (18, 2005.) He observes that beggars become rich, obtain favors from princes and kings, remunerative positions, honors, and bishoprics by turning against him. (18, 2005.) Some attribute the election of Adrian VI as Pope to Luther (this Pope was believed to favor reforms: he did not last long); and Luther expects that he is helping Dr. Schmid to become a cardinal because he is opposing him. (19, 1347.) Dunces become doctors, knaves become saints, and the most besotted characters are glorified when they try their vile mouths and pens against Luther. (19, 1347.) The easiest way for any man to become a canonized saint even during his lifetime, though he were a person of the stripe of a Nero or Caligula, is by hating Luther. (18, 2005.)

The references are to the old St. Louis edition of Luther's works. The relevant citation is 19,1347, which can be found here. This page is part of the treatise Bericht an einen guten Freund , von beider Gestalt des Sacraments, auf Bischofs zu Meissen Mandat. 1528. This appears to be the German version of the same Latin treatise Audin quoted. It roughly translates to Advice to a Dear Friend on Both Forms of the Sacrament in reply to the Mandate of the Bishop of Meissen, 1528 (found in WA 36:560, Erl. 30:373, but not found in LW).

Context
In this treatise Luther argued against an edict from the bishop of Meissen  that reaffirmed the Roman church's distribution of the sacrament in only the form of bread to the laity. The obscure quote in question comes early in the treatise.




Conclusion
As Dau and Audin infer above, the quote isn't a claim to divinity, but is rather a sarcastic comment. Luther saw that those who opposed him sometimes gained from such an endeavour: "The easiest way for any man to become a canonized saint even during his lifetime, though he were a person of the stripe of a Nero or Caligula, is by hating Luther."

This wasn't an isolated statement from Luther either. A few years later he made a similar comment:

Before my time, it required a great to-do, and an enormous expense, to canonize a dead monk. But now, there is no easier way for canonizing even living Neroes and Caligulas, than the declaration of hatred against Luther. Only let a man hate and bravely curse Luther, and that, immediately, makes him a saint, equal almost to our holy Lord, the servant of the servants of God. But who could ever believe that hatred against Luther would be attended with so much power and advantage? It fills the coffers of very beggars; nay, it introduces obscure moles and bats to the favour of princes and of kings; it procures prebendaries and dignities; it procures bishoprics; it procures the reputation of wisdom and of learning to the most consummate asses; it procures to petty teachers of grammar, the authority of writing books; nay, it procures the crown of victory and of glory, eternal in the heavens! Nay, happy are all who hate Luther, for they obtain, by that one vile and easy service, those great and mighty things, which none of the most excellent of men could ever obtain with all their wisdom and their virtues; no, not even Christ himself, with all his own miracles, and the miracles of his apostles and all his saints!

The source of this other quote can be found here. It's from a letter found at the end of an old English translation of The Bondage of the Will (To Amsdorf March 11, 1534 WA Br 7:27-40, no. 2093). I mention this because it appears this is the only English translation of this lengthy letter that Luther wrote about Erasmus. It's very interesting Reformation reading.