Luther on Women

I've been doing some reading on Luther's view of women, and I wanted to reference a source: Luther on Women: A Sourcebook. The book provides an anthology of Luther's main writings about women. Someone with Luther's Works has this material already, but having some of the most relevant documents in one collection is helpful.

The book provides a brief introduction outlining the contemporary debate on Luther's view. The entire introduction is available here.  Briefly, these are the two basic positions:

1. Luther rescued marriage and women from the medieval Roman Catholic church, improving the social status of women.

2. Rescuing marriage from the medieval Roman Catholic church is not equivalent to rescuing women. The social status of women was not improved, rather, women were relegated to the household.

In the introduction, the authors also make some other interesting conclusions about Luther's view:

1. Women "were less rational than males in a scheme within which rational equated with better" (p.10),

2. Women "were more inclined toward emotion" (p. 10).

3. Women "could be more easily led astray than men" (p. 10).

4. "Little girls did not require  and could hardly master higher learning" (p.10).

The unfortunate aspect of the introduction is that the assertions are not footnoted (and I'm too lazy at the moment to go searching for them). Certainly I would not expect a contemporary view of women from a 16th century man. It certainly is the case that women have been subjugated or treated as inferior by men throughout history, even important men with valuable historical and theological contributions.

Debate on the Doctrine of the Trinity: Adnan Rashid vs. James White, with quotes by Tertullian

https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2016/05/17/debate-on-the-trinity-james-white-vs-adnan-rashid/

The Bible is clear on the Deity of the Holy Spirit - Acts 5:3-5; and see the whole chapter that Dr. White wrote on this issue in his book, The Forgotten Trinity. And Dr. White made a great point about the Holy Spirit sovereignly willing which spiritual gifts to give to each believer, in 1 Corinthians 12:11, "just as He wills". This points to the Deity and personality of Holy Spirit. Excellent point! Adnan asked for a church father on the Deity of the Holy Spirit. See here at the link to apologetics and Agape, where I show 2 famous quotes from Tertullian on the Deity of the Holy Spirit and personhood of the Holy Spirit. Where Tertullian in 208 AD uses Trinitas (three-ness) and Unitas (One) substance/essence and persona for person and the 3 persons.

Luther vs. Atheism on Women Wearing Themselves Out in Childbirth

This past week I've received traffic from the Patheos blog Daylight Atheism, from their entry, How Catholic Hospitals Flout the Law.  Here's how they cited Beggars All (including comments):

Women who want to get their tubes tied can’t have that done at a Catholic hospital, even though doing it as part of giving birth or having a C-section is often the best and easiest way, meaning that they have to go through the time, expense and danger of scheduling a second, separate procedure at another hospital. Even when a woman’s doctor believes that another pregnancy would jeopardize her life, the ban has no exceptions. The bishops ironically are in agreement with Martin Luther, who said it doesn’t matter if women die in childbearing: “This is the purpose for which they exist.” 

Michael • a day ago
The source cited on the Luther quote argues it was different in the original and means something besides this.

• Adam Lee Mod  Michael • 15 hours ago
  
  

  I picked that article to link to because it had the best sourcing. Their apologetic interpretation of why the quote doesn't mean what it says, however, I considered too weak to be deserving of refutation.y
  • Michael  Adam Lee • 15 hours ago
    Okay, I see.

This atheist blogger links to my article, Luther: If women wear themselves out in childbearing, let them go on bearing children till they die. I do appreciate the blogger credited my entry for "best sourcing." Many of these Luther entries take time and $$ to put together. Other than this, I do not have any positive comments to offer in reply.

First, the blogger appears to think Luther's comment is in agreement with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The blogger does not cite from the Bishops to contrast with what Luther wrote centuries before; they simply offer the comparison, "Even when a woman’s doctor believes that another pregnancy would jeopardize her life, the ban has no exceptions." I don't claim any sort of expertise in exegeting and applying the actual Bishops document Daylight Atheism linked to, but the document does appear to state exceptions and to be saying something different than what Luther said. For instance,

"Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child."

"Direct sterilization of either men or women, whether permanent or temporary, is not permitted in a Catholic health care institution. Procedures that induce sterility are permitted when their direct effect is the cure or alleviation of a present and serious pathology and a simpler treatment is not available."

Second, Daylight Atheism says my evaluation of Luther's quote is "too weak to be deserving of refutation."Daylight Atheism appears to have overlooked that my entry was a response directed primarily to Roman Catholic historians Hartmann Grisar and Jacques Maritain, not modern-day atheists. Grisar said Luther's comment was "very angry" and directed to those  who "complain" about women suffering. Maritain intimates that Luther had "a base contempt for womanhood" in his "war against Christian virginity." These characterizations are not supported by Luther's context. That was the point of my original entry. 

Third, in my blog entry I did criticize Luther for his holding of an archaic medieval medical view. Luther's comment that it doesn't matter if women "grow weary and wear themselves out with child-bearing," and that "they should "go on bearing children till they die," is the direct result of this view and served as a polemical argument against the Roman church of his day. In his view, he believed that women who do not bear children become "unhealthy and sickly." Those who do bear children are "healthier, cleanlier, and happier." Luther states, "It is better to have a brief life with good health than a long life in ill health." This view was a direct argument against the practice of celibacy. When Daylight Atheism applies this Luther quote to a contemporary situation, the result is irresponsible anachronism.

Addendum

In an atheist worldview, why should I care what Luther's view was?  Why should I care if his view is similar or not to that put forth by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops?  In an atheist worldview, neither of these things has any true meaning. They are just random facts in a random universe. If Luther's view resurfaces or Rome's view becomes the dominant view, well that's how evolution works: the strongest view usurps the weaker views. In an atheist world, why should I even care if women die in childbirth or feel pain?  There is no ultimate standard delegating that women dying in painful childbirth is either wrong or bad. There is simply women dying in pain as another meaningless fact in a meaningless universe. Daylight Atheism may think it's wrong now for women to die in childbirth when they need not, but in an atheist universe, there may in fact come a time when a collective atheist society believes it's right for women to die in childbirth when they need not.  

In their entry,  Daylight Atheism used such words and phrases as "very bad news for everyone who values secularism" and that bishops are "completely shameless about placing their dogma above human lives," and that there are certain things that are "horrible to say" and there are "horror stories." In an atheist world, why should I accept their standards of bad, values, shame, horrible, and horror? Atheism results in absurdity: they use language of ultimate and accepted meaning, purpose, right, and wrong, but then argue for a world in which these words have temporary meaning based on how humanity understands them at any given period of time. Suppose in Luther's time the collective accepted medical view was indeed that those who are chaste are sickly, while those who are married and producing children are healthy. In an atheist worldview, the majority could easily find it acceptable for women to "go on bearing children till they die." There would not be anything ultimately wrong with Luther's view during his period in history. In an atheist universe, there's nothing necessarily certain that Luther's view would not one day resurface as the accepted view. Yes, that sounds absurd, but it only does so because we assume that things are now as they will be in the future. The atheist worldview has no guarantees for the future, or even the next moment.   

I mention these things not for the purpose of defending the Roman Catholic Church,  the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Martin Luther, women, or even children (born or unborn), but rather, to simply point out that if there is any worldview "too weak to be deserving of refutation," it is the worldview of atheism.

Update:
There were more comments from Daylight Atheism about their assertion that my article was "too weak to be deserving of refutation":

Dragoness Eclectic  Adam Lee • 4 hours ago

Really? The "apologetic interpretation" that you considered "too weak" was simply supplying the surrounding context for the quote. Actually reading the entire passage makes it clear that Luther had some archaic ideas about women's health, but shows no particular animus or contempt for women as such. 

• GCT  Dragoness Eclectic • 3 hours ago
  Believing that women are only there to be baby incubators and that their death is inconsequential is not showing animus or contempt? That's a strange concept.

Cajetan's Quote on the Apocrypha is Fraudulent?

Every few weeks over on a online discussion forum, the never-ending discussion about the Apocrypha (or inter-testamental books) rages on. Each time the battle is engaged, the same arguments are dragged out from both Rome's defenders and Protestant participants. In a recent discussion, someone brought up this famous quote from Cardinal Cajetan on these books:

"Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St. Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecciesiasticus, as is plain from the Protogus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage." (Cardinal Cajetan, "Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament," cited by William Whitaker in "A Disputation on Holy Scripture," Cambridge: Parker Society (1849), p. 424) http://www.justforcatholics.org/a108.htm

[Point of tedium: in the documentation of this quote above, there is a seeming error. The quote is not on page 424 of William Whitaker A Disputation on Holy Scripture,"Cambridge: Parker Society (1849), but on page 48].

Cardinal Cajetan is mostly remembered as the papal legate that officially questioned Martin Luther in Augsburg in 1518. Cajetan though is far more interesting for his representation what a leading, educated, sixteenth century Roman Catholic believed about the Apocrypha (the inter-testamental  / Deuterocanonical books). Cajetan's views on the canon and textual criticism have some similarities to Luther's, and this often confounds those who attack Luther to no end. How is it Luther was so evil about the canon of sacred scripture, yet a leading Roman Catholic contemporary isn't? Over the years, I've been given various answers from Rome's defenders about Cajetan. Recently though, I came across an explanation for the Cajetan quote above I've never heard before:

I've researched this to find that the original commentary by Cajetan does not contain this language. The source is erroneous... The burden is on the person claiming its existence. Precious cited a document which claimed to reference an original source. You can look for that source as readily as I can. The words which are claimed to exist, do not exist. I encourage you to research it and prove me wrong if you wish, but I've already done my own research and concluded that the secondary source is in error... The source you need is the original source = Cajetan's actual statement, not the reproduction and possible distortion of that statement by others..Because I looked for the original language that is purported to come from the Catholic Cardinal and could not find it. The lack of existence is enough for me. The source cited by Precious appears to be flawed. I cannot produce the absence of a document... I forgot that I actually did write down my research on this. Here it is: Look at Catholic Reform: From Cardinal Ximenes to the Council of Trent by John C. Olin (Fordham University Press, 1990). On page 61, you will find the Preface in which the supposed admonition is to be found. It is short and easy to read since it has been translated into English. As you read it, you will discover that the words Precious quoted are not there. William Webster also used the very same quote as the other non-Catholic sources that Precious has referenced. It seems that mere repetition has caused some to assume it is true. But since the original source is different than the proposed quote we can see Precious has been misled. 

So, the refutation of the Cajetan quote in question is that... it does not exist! Here's how to respond: first, if someone quotes something, it's up to the person quoting it to produce documentation and authenticity. That is, if someone were to claim a citation I was using did not exist, it would be my burden to demonstrate it does. Second, the quote from Cardinal Cajetan is authentic. It is from In omnes authenticos veteris Testamenti historiales libros Comentarii.  It can be towards the bottom of the page 397:

Et hoc in loco terminamus commentaria librorum historialium veteris Testamenti: nam reliqui (videlicet Judith, Tobiae, et Maccabaeorum libri) à divo Hieronymo extra canonicos libros supputantur, et inter apocrypha locantur, cum libro Sapientiae et Ecclesiastico: ut patet in prologo galeato.— Nec turberis novitie si alicubi repereris libros istos inter canonicos supputari, vel in sacris conciliis vel in sacris doctoribus. Nam ad Hieronymi limam reducenda sunt tam verba conciliorum quàm doctorum: et juxta illius sententiam ad Chromatium et Heliodorum episcopos, libri isti (et si qui alii sunt in canone Bibliae similes) non sunt canonici, hoc est non sunt regulares ad firmandum ea quae sunt fidei. possunt tamen dici canonici (hoc est regulares) ad edificationem fidelium: utpote in canone Bibliae ad hoc recepti et authorati. cum hac enim distinctione discernere poteris et dicta Augustini in secundo de doctrina Christiana, et scripta in concilio Florentino sub Eugenio quarto: scriptaque in provincialibus conciliis Carthaginensi et Laodicensi, et ab Innocentio ac Gelasio pontificibus. 

Addendum#1: Cajetan's Views on the Canon Attacked by his Roman Catholic Peers 

There was controversy over Cajetan's comments on the Bible. A previous Beggars All entry references Roman Catholic scholar Jared Wicks explaining:

Cajetan's biblical commentaries occasioned no little admiration. From Luther, there is a recorded remark, "Cajetan, in his later days, has become Lutheran." Considerable zeal was expended by Ambrosius Catharinus, O.P., against the exegetical work of his retired Master General. Catharinus submitted a denunciation before the still acerbic faculty in Paris and proceedings began that could have led to another book-burning Clement VII intervened in a letter to the Parisian professors in September, 1533, to protect the man who was by then the Pope's regular source of valued theological advice. Proceedings were halted at this time in Paris, but not before an open letter of the Parisian theologians had begun to circulate listing the censurable propositions excerpted from the commentaries. The Sorbonne masters charged Cajetan with imprudently taking these notions from Erasmus or even Luther. The letter ended with a stinging rebuke of Cajetan's rashness in abandoning the long approved Vulgate text to base his work on new versions in no way guaranteed for their exactness. In 1534 a Wittenberg printer, no doubt with considerable glee over this discomfiture of Luther's old adversary, brought out the open letter in pamphlet form. Catharinus published his criticisms of Cajetan's commentaries in 1535, revised and expanded them in 1542, and obtained a censure by the Paris faculty against Cajetan's biblical works in August, 1544.

The specific charges brought against Cajetan concerned the reservations and plain doubts he had expressed about the apostolic origin of the final eleven verses of Mark's gospel, the story of the adultress in John 8, and five whole epistles of the New Testament (Hebrews, James, Jude, and 1 and 2 John). These views were especially serious in Cajetan's case, since he had laid down the rule that apostolic authorship or direct approval by an apostle was normative for inclusion in the New Testament canon. Following Jerome, Cajetan also relegated the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament to a secondary place where they could serve piety but not the teaching of revealed doctrine (Jared Wicks tr., Cajetan Responds: A Reader in Reformation Controversy  pp.36-37).

 

Addendum #2: Sixteenth Century Roman Catholics Were Divided on the Canon  

Now before one thinks that it was Luther and Cajetan (and Desiderius Erasmus) against the world on downgrading the Apocrypha, these men were not a sixteenth century anomaly. Previous to the Council of Trent, there were Roman Catholic scholars that held a low view on the Apocrypha. At the Council of Trent, a group of scholars considered knowledgeable on this issue echoed Cajetan. One in particular was Cardinal Seripando. The Roman Catholic historian (and expert on Trent) Hubert Jedin explained “…[H]e was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship” at the Council of Trent. Jedin is worth quoting at length:

(Seripando was) Impressed by the doubts of St. Jerome, Rufinus, and St. John Damascene about the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, Seripando favored a distinction in the degrees of authority of the books of the Florentine canon. The highest authority among all the books of the Old Testament must be accorded those which Christ Himself and the apostles quoted in the New Testament, especially the Psalms. But the rule of citation in the New Testament does not indicate the difference of degree in the strict sense of the word, because certain Old Testament books not quoted in the New Testament are equal in authority to those quoted. St. Jerome gives an actual difference in degree of authority when he gives a higher place to those books which are adequate to prove a dogma than to those which are read merely for edification. The former, the protocanonical books, are "libri canonici et authentici"; Tobias, Judith, the Book of Wisdom, the books of Esdras, Ecclesiasticus, the books of the Maccabees, and Baruch are only "canonici et ecclesiastici" and make up the canon morum in contrast to the canon fidei. These, Seripando says in the words of St. Jerome, are suited for the edification of the people, but they are not authentic, that is, not sufficient to prove a dogma. Seripando emphasized that in spite of the Florentine canon the question of a twofold canon was still open and was treated as such by learned men in the Church. Without doubt he was thinking of Cardinal Cajetan, who in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews accepted St. Jerome's view which had had supporters throughout the Middle Ages (Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 270-271).

“For the last time [Seripando] expressed his doubts [to the Council of Trent] about accepting the deuterocanonical books into the canon of faith. Together with the apostolic traditions the so-called apostolic canons were being accepted, and the eighty-fifth canon listed the Book of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) as non-canonical. Now, he said, it would be contradictory to accept, on the one hand, the apostolic traditions as the foundation of faith and, on the other, to directly reject one of them” (Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate at the Council of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), p. 278).

Jedin also documents a group of excellent scholars that stood against tradition as being on the same level of authority as scripture:

In his opposition to accepting the Florentine canon and the equalization of traditions with Holy Scripture, Seripando did not stand alone. In the particular congregation of March 23, the learned Dominican Bishop Bertano of Fano had already expressed the view that Holy Scripture possessed greater authority than the traditions because the Scriptures were unchangeable; that only offenders against the biblical canon should come under the anathema, not those who deny the principle of tradition; that it would be unfortunate if the Council limited itself to the apostolic canons, because the Protestants would say that the abrogation of some of these traditions was arbitrary and represented an abuse… Another determined opponent of putting traditions on a par with Holy Scripture, as well as the anathema, was the Dominican Nacchianti. The Servite general defended the view that all the evangelical truths were contained in the Bible, and he subscribed to the canon of St. Jerome, as did also Madruzzo and Fonseca on April 1. While Seripando abandoned his view as a lost cause, Madruzzo, the Carmelite general, and the Bishop of Agde stood for the limited canon, and the bishops of Castellamare and Caorle urged the related motion to place the books of Judith, Baruch, and Machabees in the "canon ecclesiae." From all this it is evident that Seripando was by no means alone in his views. In his battle for the canon of St. Jerome and against the anathema and the parity of traditions with Holy Scripture, he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship" (Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate at the Council of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 281-282).

 

Addendum #3 John C. Olin: Catholic Reform: From Cardinal Ximenes to the Council of Trent 

I'm not familiar with the book, Catholic Reform: From Cardinal Ximenes to the Council of Trent by John C. Olin (Fordham University Press, 1990) alluded to above by the person arguing the Cajetan quote does not exist. It is the responsibility of the person claiming this source proves the Cajetan quote is ingenuine to produce the relevant material from page 61 to see exactly what's going on.

 

Revised April 2026 

God and Evil: The Trauma of Sovereignty

Originally posted on the Aomin blog, March 9, 2010

I'm not particularly keen on reinventing wheels. Part of the fortunate heritage of the Reformed worldview is that much better minds than mine have studied the Biblical text, then formulated its information into concise doctrinal statements. Of course the statements are only as good as the verses they're based on. For instance, chapter three of the Westminster Confession of Faith states:

God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass:[1] yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,[2] nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.[3]

1. Psa. 33:11: Eph. 1:11: Heb. 6:17
2. Psa. 5:4; James 1:13-14; I John 1:5; see Hab. 1:13
3. Acts 2:23; 4:27-28: Matt. 17:12; John 19:11; Prov. 16:33

If one were going to dispute this statement, it shouldn't be by philosophic speculation, tradition, or an emotional feeling. It should be done by proving the Biblical texts used don't support the statement being made. Such though typically isn't the case. The counter charge often begins with the assertion that Reformed theology turns God into a puppet master and the author of evil. The ingredient said to be missing is free will. It's touted that by adding free will to a biblical summary statement, a completely different view of sovereignty emerges, one which absolves God of being the author of evil and provides humanity with true freedom. Some go as far to say that the God of Reformed theology is far from Biblical.

Before a Reformed person pounces on such a counter view, one thing shouldn't be overlooked. Those who find Reformed theology illogical often have no other intent than to vigorously defend the honor of God as not being the author of evil, and wanting to place responsibility for evil and sin clearly on the shoulders of mankind. The irony of course is that the Reformed don't hold God to be the author of evil, nor do they consider men to be mere puppets. We agree with them that God is good and men are responsible. We're on a similar page in some respects, but the theological explanation as to how we both got there is very different. There are also crucial ramifications on other important areas of soteriology based on those differing explanations.

When non-Reformed people argue against the Reformed understanding of sovereignty, I have to immediately ask them how they also avoid their own argument. If we apply their argument against their own position what happens? They similarly believe God created all that is, and knew the beginning from the end before He created. If I knew in advance that a person was going to get in their car by their own choice, and while driving down the road strike and kill someone, and I let them do it, I share responsibility. It's actually a severely culpable responsibility because I knew and they didn't. When God chooses to create knowing full well what evil will happen, and creates anyway, I don't see how a non-Reformed person can avoid the same charge they place on us. Also, if God knows what we're going to choose when he creates us, do we really have free will? We certainly can't choose otherwise at that point. Further, to really make a free choice, those choices would have to be uncaused by circumstances surrounding us. Don't genetic and environmental factors place quite a burden on the proper and pure operation of free will? The long chain of events leading up to our point of choosing can't in any way be caused by God for our choices to be truly free. If God is behind that long chain of events, shouldn't God share at least some responsibility?

Many of you probably realize the above arguments are those typically launched by atheists against theists that use free will to absolve God of evil and determinism. One thing should jump out immediately: garden variety non-Reformed people really share a similar dilemma as the Reformed. Rarely though will a non-Reformed person admit that their view of sovereignty if scrutinized by an atheist, ends up with the conclusion that people are puppets and God is ultimately the author of evil. When the non-Reformed argue against us, they need to explain why they aren't arguing against themselves. Then they should explain why they use our paradigms when trouble or evil enters their lives. They can't escape their own heart of faith that knows "God is in control" and that all works according to His purposes. Everything is a free will adventure until tough circumstance befall a non-Reformed person. Then come cries for God's sovereign control.

The battle therefore really shouldn't be the Reformed versus the non-Reformed. The battle should be Christian theism versus atheism. The battle is between belief and unbelief. If you have non-Reformed friends that attack your Reformed understanding of sovereignty, with love and respect you have to show them they are standing right next to you facing common enemies: the world, the flesh, and the Devil. If their own arguments work just as well against their own position, they don't have valid arguments. Then it's to the Biblical text, to see whose view fits the evidence of Scripture. There, free will as understood by the non-Reformed crumbles under the weight of clear Scripture.

One of the problems with non-Reformed argumentation on this subject is it's application of extra-Biblical reasoning rather than simply taking sola scriptura to its logical conclusion. This isn't readily admitted. No Christian wants to admit their core belief on this issue is tainted. Of course, making generalized statements typically isn't safe, but I've found probing through typical non-Reformed explanations of sin and the nature of the will ultimately turn "The carnal mind is enmity against God for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be" into "That man has a will and the ability to choose from his heart (indeed that he must in order to please God) is abundantly clear from the repeated references to 'heart' throughout Scripture" (Dave Hunt, Debating Calvinism pp.339-340). The Reformed hold whatever views we have of God's sovereignty and man''s will must be based only on the Scriptures. If God says he's sovereign, we're enslaved to sin and responsible, and he's not the author of sin, that is precisely who God is and how the world is. It doesn't matter how many times the word "heart" is used. If the Bible repeatedly describes the will and heart as enslaved and dead in sin, that's indeed what it is.

Only the eyes of faith want to know who God is and what the exact plight of man is according to Scripture. By worldly standards, a sovereign God and a spiritually dead sinner sounds absurd, utterly foolish. The God invented by mankind is more of a loving aged grandfather. It holds each person, though they make mistakes, all have a spark of goodness within them simply needing to be ignited. Contrary to this, 1 Corinthians tells us how a central tenet of our theology, the cross of Jesus Christ, is foolishness to the world. The passage should serve as a reminder that much of what we believe as Christians will be considered foolish. Is it foolish to believe that a sovereign God created everything from nothing, knew the beginning from the end, is not the author of evil, and that men are responsible? I say without the eyes of faith, it is, but it's just as foolish as other central beliefs of Christianity:

Christians believe that a virgin gave birth to the Son of God. Is this not just as "foolish" as believing God is sovereign, not the author of evil, and that we are responsible?

Christians believe that this baby was fully God and fully man, infinite and finite at the same time. Is this not just as "foolish" as believing God is sovereign, not the author of evil, and that we are responsible?

Christians believe that God almighty spent his infancy being taken care of by a woman, nursed and diapered. Is this not just as "foolish" as believing God is sovereign, not the author of evil, and that we are responsible?

Christians believe that God Almighty had a job. He was a carpenter. Is this not just as "foolish" as believing God is sovereign, not the author of evil, and that we are responsible?

Christians believe that a man deemed to be a criminal by his own people and by the governing powers was God. God Almighty, the most powerful force that is, was nailed to a cross and died in weakness. Is this not just as "foolish" as believing God is sovereign, not the author of evil, and that we are responsible?

Christians believe that God has communicated to us via a book. The book is perfect, even though written by sinful human beings. The book also is authored by God the Holy Spirit. Is this not just as "foolish" as believing God is sovereign, not the author of evil, and that we are responsible?

This of course is only a partial list. We could go on, exploring many more facets of Christian theology. I think non-Reformed Christians often forget the deep mysteries of the faith. There are simply facets of Christianity that can't be dissected philosophically or understood completely. God's sovereignty and human responsibility is just as mysterious as all those things listed above. As Christians, we don't simply pick and choose what we're going to believe based on if it makes sense to us. When our non-Reformed friends chastise us for believing something that sounds utterly foolish, we need to remind them of all the foolish things they likewise believe along with us. We have to press them to choose either the world's wisdom of the loving grandfather and humanity's spark of goodness, or the foolish paradigm of a holy sovereign king and enslaved sinful humanity.

Attempting to get an infinite being off the hook because of his sovereignty is a difficult plight for anyone claiming to adhere to Christian theism. It's a built in failure that the finite will never be able to fully comprehend the infinite. I can't even wrap my brain around the fact that a simple line with two points on either end has an infinite amount of points in between. How is it possible I can see the beginning and ending of a line, yet have infinity in the middle? As Christians, we're surrounded by more mysteries than we even realize. But some of those mysteries are holy. In terms of getting God's sovereignty off the hook, perhaps it would be wiser to simply stand back in awe of his holiness and infinitude.

Simply because it is a mystery though, doesn't mean Reformed people don't have any Biblical information to prove their view. The Bible repeatedly shows us that God decreed all things, and that people are still held accountable for their actions, especially their sinful actions.Theologians refers to this as compatibilism: God's decree is compatible with a person's will. They don't contradict each other.

In Genesis 50 we find Joseph, whose brothers sold him into the evil of slavery, who lied to their father breaking his heart, claiming Joseph was dead. In front of his brothers, years later Joseph states, "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive." The two statements in Hebrew are in direct parallel. Joseph's brothers meant evil by their actions, but God intended the same actions for good. The text shows one action with two intentions. This same principle can be found in Isaiah 10: 5-12, where God uses Assyria as an instrument of judgment on the rebellious people of Israel, and then holds Assyria responsible for her sinful attitude and desires against Israel. The text shows one action with two intentions, a sinful intention and a holy intention.The most important example of compatibilism though is Acts 4:27-28. Herod, Pilate, the Gentiles and the Jews all sinfully join forces to crucify Jesus. Yet God?s predestined the entire event for his holy purpose.

R.C. Sproul wrote a chapter a number of years ago entitled, "The Trauma of Holiness." Similarly, I think looking at this issue as "the trauma of God's sovereignty" is a good beginning. We need to remind the non-Reformed of the danger is defining God's sovereignty differently than the way the Bible has expressed it. It's not simply an issue that we can be haphazard with. It demands reverence, caution, and meekness. The Belgic Confession rightly puts the humble spirit of a Christian before us on this issue:

As to what God does surpassing human understanding, we will not curiously inquire into farther than our capacity will admit of; but with the greatest humility and reverence adore the righteous judgment of God, which are hid from us, contenting ourselves that we are pupils of Christ, to learn only those things which he has revealed to us in His word, without transgressing these limits.

Martin Luther Claimed Jesus Was Sexually Promiscuous

"Martin Luther Claimed Jesus Was Sexually Promiscuous"... so claims a recent video from ChurchMilitant.com. The statement was made by a person allegedly with "two masters degrees in Theology."  "Martin Luther had one problem. It was sex." Two examples are given, both said to come from "The Tabletalks" which were "published by Protestants, not Catholic hack-jobs" nor "refuted by the Protestant communities." They state:

He said "If the wife doesn't submit, let the maid come." His exegesis on Jesus would make your hair stand on end. He said our Lord committed fornication three times....now there's publications, in writing from Protestant sources that have his Tabletalks, and they say well, you know he'd get a little bit of wine and he would say some things, but, he did put those things out there, that Christ committed fornication three times, and he would double down on why he said this... He said Jesus committed adultery with the woman caught in adultery.. Well how'd you get that from Scripture? He said, well how would he let her off so easy? He must've been involved."

I probably shouldn't be surprised that even with degrees in theology, this polemic was stated.  The conclusion was said to come from Father John Hardon ("Martin Luther had one problem. It was sex."). Hardon may have picked it up from earlier generations of Roman Catholic scholarship basing their conclusions on the work of Heinrich Denifle, a work by and large typically ignored by current Roman Catholic Scholarship.

Two quotes were mentioned. The first quote is not from "The Tabletalks," But rather from The Estate of Marriage, LW 45:34 (Vom ehelichen Leben: WA 10.II, 290). This quote has nothing to do with "Martin Luther Claimed Jesus Was Sexually Promiscuous." I covered this quote many years ago. The context for this polemical remark is in regard to separation and remarriage, not bigamy or adultery.

The second quote about "our Lord committed fornication three times" is from the Tabletalk. Likewise, I covered this quote many years ago. It is not something Luther actually wrote, but something he is purported to have said. The Tabletalk is a collection of comments from Luther written down by Luther’s students and friends. It is not in actuality an official writing of Luther's and should not serve as the basis for interpreting his theology. This particular utterance has no context. One does not know what exactly Luther had in mind. Was he kidding? Was he summarizing someone else's argument? Was he using hyperbole? No one knows.

The irony is that it was stated of these quotes they were not put out by "Catholic hack-jobs." Yet the very way they were presented by ChurchMilitant.com was.... a blatant hack job.


Addendum: Father John Hardon on Luther

Consequently, back to where we were regarding Lutheranism.  That for Luther, having been a priest, and never of course losing his priesthood, you would expect one of the key features, call it a feature of Lutheran Protestantism, would be precisely why Luther was distinct. He was a well educated priest who gave up his faith.  But we go on, still on Luther, because the stage that Luther set has been pretty much colored by his thinking over the centuries.  In English there are 54 volumes to the complete works of Martin Luther, 54 volumes.  And I’ve told people, I’m sure many of you, you can spare yourself the trouble of reading those 54 volumes, that’s a lot of reading, a lot of pages, it’s more simple to just know what besides what I’ve just said, mainly, his denial of the Real Presence of Christ, His humanity in the Holy Eucharist, and he invented the idea of Christ universal humanity. Christ already is everywhere as man, and so nothing really happens at what we call the consecration.  But, there is another distinctive feature in Lutheran Protestantism.  And that is, for Luther having struggled as, your author will point out, having struggled with his passions, especially his passion of lust.  Martin Luther had a very strong sex passion.  And, he claims, though once you get to know Luther’s life you realize just a claim. Among other things Luther stopped doing was praying.  One of the letters that he wrote was one to his sister, which he told her I’ve got so much work to do I don’t have time even to say my office.  In any case, after years of what he called struggle with his passions, he decided it’s no use, and he decided what was wrong was not Martin Luther, but the Catholic Church.  That the Catholic Church is mistaken in thinking that we, somehow we, can contribute to our either sanctification or to our control of our lower drives.  No, said Luther, it is all up to God.  If God wants….Always a sin.  Omnia qua ego facio son semper pecatum.  All the things that I do are always a sin.  That’s Martin Luther.  And that then is the second cardinal feature of Lutheran Protestantism what we’ve come to call the total depravity of human nature.  Human nature is so depraved you couldn’t be more depraved in theological language than to claim as Luther did that everything we do is always a sin.  That’s pretty depraved.  And of course the consequences of these positions, after almost five hundred years have been disastrous. [source]

Luther lived with Katie for 1 1/2 years before marrying her?

Here's a comment from one of Rome's defenders from a discussion board. The charge against Luther this time is in regard to his relationship with his wife, Katherina von Bora:

If Martin Luther did not suffer from severe bipolar manic-depressant illness with frank psychosis during his periods of mania, he would never have invented a purely formal definition of 'righteousness' that was evacuated of all moral content and inspired millions of others to settle for a sub-Christian notion of discipleship… Luther lived with his paramour for 1 1/2 years before marrying her. He was complicit in the bigamy of Philip of Hess. He encouraged gangs of thugs to invade convents and rape the nuns therein. [CARM boards 3/26/16]

Origin of the Myth
There are multiple charges in this comment, most of them typical of Rome's defenders. The comment though that was atypical was,  "Luther lived with his paramour for 1 1/2 years before marrying her." A "paramour" is "a lover, especially the illicit partner of a married person." This is old school Roman polemic, hearkening back to the sixteenth century when Rome's defenders where scandalized by a monk marrying a nun. I'm not sure if the person making this charge was using the term in the sense that Luther was married to the church (so his relationship was Katherine was illicit), or if the person was simply using a fancy term to sound intelligent. I'm going to assume the later. I searched the phrase and came up with some exact hits to various Internet forums (2010, 2011, 2012, 2016, 2016). It appears the person posting this comment either previously posted the same content elsewhere or is currently plagiarizing. I suspect the former, and not the later.

Where was this notion taken from? For this current defender of Rome, I'm not sure, nor did I come across any elaboration. The myth itself may have originally come from a contemporary of Luther's: Cochlaeus. Katherina von Bora was said to be promiscuous, and that Luther eventually married her after she lived with him for two years. (see here for details). The myth did survive all the way up to the twentieth century, though tempered. Father Patrick O'Hare refers to Luther and Katie as, "the Adam and Eve of the 'new gospel' of concubinage." In his book, The Facts About Luther, O'Hare stated:

It is well known that he was pretty generally and often openly accused by his enemies, both Catholic and Protestant, of extremely grave moral delinquencies. No doubt there was considerable exaggeration in the accusations brought against him, but it nevertheless remains true that many of his faults and failings against morality cannot be denied or gainsaid. As a matter of fact he was openly blamed for his well known and imprudent intimacy with Katherine Von Bora before his marriage and Melanchthon severely censured him for his lack of personal dignity, his loose behavior and coarse jests in the company of his intimates and even in the presence of the nuns he helped in violation of Germanic law to escape from their convents (p.317).

[I]n violating the laws of God and disregarding his vow of chastity by taking a partner unto himself, he committed an act of perfidy and his union, even from a legal standpoint, was no marriage. Katherine Von Bora was only his companion in sin and the children brought into the world through the unholy alliance were illegitimate children (p. 344).

O'Hare then goes on to elaborate by delving into letters written at the time, insinuating that Luther married von Bora to stop the gossip about their relationship (p.345-347). O'Hare states,

His remarks in the letter as to certain rumors no doubt concern suspicions which were cast upon Luther's relations with Bora before their marriage. His conduct with Bora previous to wedding her called forth from both friends and enemies severe and apparently well-grounded criticism. Luther himself admits that his marriage was hastened precisely because of the talk that went the rounds concerning him and Bora. Burgenhagen said that "evil tales were the cause of Dr. Martin's becoming a married man so unexpectedly." And Luther himself wrote to his friend, Spalatin, that "I have shut the mouth of those who slandered me and Katherine Bora." It is not proven that he was openly immoral with her before marriage, but it is certain that there was so much talk going on about his intimacy with the ex-nun, that he thought it advisable to marry her sooner than he had expected (p.347).

The Facts: Luther did Not Live with Katherine von Bora Before Marrying

In response: of the biographical information available, the bare facts are as follows:

1. April 1523, Katherina Von Bora escaped from a convent with a group of nuns.
2. The group of nuns temporarily stayed in the Wittenberg castle untill homes were found for them.
3. Katherina stayed at the home of Philipp Reichenbach and Lucas Cranach
4. Luther married Katherina on June 13, 1525.

Or, to go beyond the bare facts, here's testimony from Roman Catholic historian Hartmann Grisar:

Of the twelve who escaped from Nimbschen, nine, who were without resources, found a refuge in various houses at Wittenberg, while only three went to their relatives in the Saxon Electorate. To begin with, from necessity and only for a short time, the nine found quarters in the Augustinian monastery which had remained in Luther's hands, in which he still dwelt and where there was plenty of room; later they found lodgings in the town. Luther had to provide in part for their maintenance. Catherine von Bora was lodged by him in the house of the Town-clerk, Reichenbach. [source]

For a helpful biographical article, see Katharina von Bora, the Woman at Luther's Sideby Martin Treu (Lutheran Quarterly XIII, 1999).


Erasmus and Rumors on Luther's Marriage
There were a number of rumors surrounding Luther's marriage believed by some of Rome's defenders- especially that Luther had sexual relations with her before their marriage, and got her pregnant. The offspring was popularly believed to be the Antichrist. Rome's defenders even produced abusive satires about their marriage. In regard to Luther and Katherina, Erasmus passed along this witty comment , "If there is truth in the popular legend, that Antichrist will be born from a monk and a nun (which is the story these people keep putting about), how many thousands of Antichrists the world must have already!"  According to Richard Marius, Erasmus initially believed the popular rumor that Kathrine von Bora had given birth a few days after her wedding. On page 438 of Martin Luther The Christian Between God and Death (Cambridge, Belknap Press, 1999), Marius states:

His forecast that his enemies would reproach him was on the mark. Then and for centuries afterward Catholic antagonists had proof that all Luther had ever wanted was sex, and since he married a former nun, it seemed he had now lived out yet another of the bawdy stories told of nuns and monks lusting for one another. His most bitter foes crowed over the marriage in monotonous fury in print. Erasmus knew of it by October and wrote to friends ironically about it. He passed on the canard that Katherine had given birth to a child a few days after the wedding (10). By March 13 he had learned that the rumor was false, although he understood (correctly) that Katherine was now pregnant. He ruminated on the 'popular legend' that the Antichrist would be born to a monk and a nun- a tale probably circulating about Luther's coming child. If that prophecy were true, he said with bitter wit, 'How many thousands of Antichrists had the world already known!'(11) He expressed the wistful hope that marriage might make Luther more gentle, but by this time he had seen Luther's vehement On the Bondage of the Will, and he had given up all hope that Luther might moderate his language.

(10) October 10, 1525; EE no. 1633; 6:197-199.
(11) March 13, 1525; EE no. 1677; 6:283-284.

Here are specific comments from Erasmus:

The comments from Erasmus ultimately served as a defense for Luther. Bayle's Dictionary was a popular eighteenth century apologetic dispelling numerous myths on various theological figures. Bayle did an entry entitled, "Bora." (see this overview as well). Bayle use the testimony of Erasmus under point #F.

Luther: "I am more afraid of my own heart than of the pope and all his cardinals. I have within me the great pope, self"

Over the years, I've received a few messages like this:

I am trying to verify if Luther wrote this quote; "I am more afraid of my own heart than of the pope and all his cardinals. I have within me the great pope,self." I searched the all beggar site plus numerous books and those who quote it never reference where that it can be found. Any ideas where this was said/written?

This appears to be an apocryphal Luther quote with a long history, though I'm not 100% sure. The quote (in its various forms) goes back at least to the 1800's. Here are some examples. The first three examples seem completely different. They are previous to the 1800's. I've included these because parts were eventually tacked on to the quote in question:

They divide us not only from God, but from one another. This I learne, says Luther, from mine owne experience, that I have more cause to feare what is within me, then what is without. (1653)

I more fear what is within me, says Luther, then what comes from without: the storms and winds without do never move the earth, it is only vapours within that causeth earthquakes, (1655)

Luther hit it when he said, I more fear what is within me, than what comes from without; the storms and winds without do never move the earth, it is only vapours within that causeth earthquakes, as philosophers observe. (1762)

The NATURAL HEART- Our Hearts are born enemies to Christ. So sensible was Luther of this, that he said, "I dread my own heart more than the pope and all his cardinals." (1850)

Our hearts are born enemies to Christ. So sensible was Luther of this, that he said, "I dread my own heart more than the pope and all his cardinals." (1851)

Luther used to say, "I am more afraid of my own heart than of the pope and all his cardinals. I have within me the great pope, Self." (1860)

2834. HEART, fear of the. I am more afraid of  my own heart," says Luther, "than of the Pope and all his Cardinals. I have within me the great Pope - Self. (1870)

Martin Luther's great foe was himself. "I am more afraid of my own heart," he said, " than of the pope and all his cardinals. (1875)

"I AM more afraid of my own head," said Luther, "than of the Pope and all his cardinals. I have within me the great "pope, self." (1877)

It is well if one can say with Luther, "I am more afraid of  my own heart," says Luther, "than of the Pope and all his Cardinals. I have within me the great Pope - Self." (1884)

I dread my own heart more than the pope and all his cardinals, for within me is the greater pope, even self. (1994)

“I am more afraid of my own heart than of the Pope and all his cardinals. I have within me the great Pope: Self. I more fear what is within me than anything that might come from without.” (unknown date)

Some other versions link the quote to Luther's famous speech at Worms in 1521:

On the subject of conscience Martin Luther declared before the court of the Roman Empire at Worms in 1521: "My conscience is captive to the Word of God... I am more afraid of my own heart than of the pope and all his cardinals. I have within me the great pope, "self." [1986]

Just before Luther's audience with the pope, the prelates, the cardinals, and the emperor , a friend moved alongside the maverick monk and asked, "Brother Martin, are you afraid?" Luther responded with a marvelous answer:  Greater than the pope and all his cardinals, I fear most that great pope, self."(1995)

On a later occasion, while awaiting an audience before the prelates of the church, Luther was asked if he were now afraid. "Afraid? Greater than the pope and all his cardinals, I fear most that great pope, self." (2008)

The last two quotes come from Chuck Swindoll. He documents the quote to Revivals Their Laws and Leaders by James Burns, p. 167-168. These pages do not contain the quote, but rather a description of Luther at Worms, 1521. A typical example of Luther's full speech can be found here (and here), and it doesn't appear to me that this quote comes from this speech. By looking through the various versions of the quote, it appears that it was tacked on to Luther's speech at Worms.

A real Luther quote? I'm tempted to say no, at least not in the form it's usually presented in. It could be a truncated synopsis of a much larger writing. That is, someone may have summarized a section with the quote serving as a summary statement.

Bullinger on the Assumption of Mary, Revisited

This is a follow up to my previous post about Heinrich Bullinger and the Assumption of Mary. 

Previously I argued that Protestant Reformer Heinrich Bullinger appears to go from being certain about Mary's Assumption (as early as 1539) to being agnostic on Mary's Assumption later in his life (by at least 1552). Why bother with such tedium? I do so to demonstrate that Rome's defenders don't always go that deep into history as they so often claim.  Sure, they'll point out that Heinrich Bullinger made a strong statement affirming the Assumption of Mary. What they might not mention is that he made statements after it in which he said that it's dangerous to explore where Scripture is silent. For instance,

"The most learned theologians say that one cannot assert anything on the matter of the death or the assumption of the virgin. To wish to unearth or clarify certain facts on which scripture is silent is not without its dangers. Let us content ourselves with believing that the Virgin Mary is indeed active in heaven and has received every beatitude after her departing" (Latin text, Translation, Thurian, p.197).

Did Bullinger believe in the Assumption? It appears he at least did in 1539. He plainly states though in later writings that one cannot know Mary was Assumed into heaven. I see a development in Bullinger here. The entire sixteenth century church was bathed in Mariology, so it would not be surprising to discover that Heinrich Bullinger didn't necessarily repudiate every aspect of it immediately. It would not be surprising as well to discover that as church history progressed from the Reformation, the bath water of Mariology gradually disappears, and I would argue, this is indeed what happened. Bullinger never totally escaped from medieval Mariology, but his comments on the Assumption when placed in their historical context show that he may have been on his way.

Bullinger's Sermon, De beata virgine Maria: Proof for Believing in the Assumption? 
In going through this tedium, I found one author claiming that Bullinger believed in Mary's Assumption later in his life, oddly enough, based on the testimony of Eusebius. If this is so, it would indicate my argument isn't valid, because here would be Bullinger in the late 1550's affirming the Assumption. The author states,

These comments above are based on this passage from Bullinger's sermon De beata virgine Maria. Along with the Latin text, I have William Tappolet's German translation of this passage from Das Marienlob der Reformatoren: Martin Luther, Johannes Calvin, Huldrych Zwingli, Heinrich Bullinger, p. 292-293. As I suspected, Bullinger is not using Eusebius to claim he again was certain on the Assumption of Mary. Bullinger states that Eusebius wrote a chronicle up to the year 48 A.D., but this diligent historian doesn't really get into what happened to Mary other than saying Mary had been taken up to her Son in heaven. He then mentions papal decrees condemning apocryphal literature that delve into Mary's Assumption. He then says to avoid the arguments about the Assumption from the Disputations of Antonius (Besutius?) and that it's useless to argue where Scripture is silent. The aspect of Mary's final end to keep in view is that she now lives in heaven with Christ. The theme of not delving into where Scripture is silent is exactly what his other later quotes say.

Here is Tappolet's text:

Eusebius, der Bischof von Cäsarea, der - bis ans Wunder grenzend - der fleißigste Forscher des ganzen Altertums war, erwähnt in seiner Chronik zum Jahre 48 nach Christi Geburt, dem 15. nach dem Tod des Herrn, ganz wenig und sagt: die Jungfrau Maria, die Mutter Jesu Christi, wird zum Sohn in den Himmel aufgenommen, wie manche schreiben, daß ihnen geoffenbart worden sei. Dies sagt jener, der in der Kirchengeschichte davon nichts erwähnt. Es ist deshalb nicht verwunderlich, daß in den päpstlichen Dekreten (Distinct. 15. Cap. „ Sancta") der Bericht vom Heimgang der heiligen Maria verurteilt und unter die apokryphen Schriften gezählt wird, wie auch jener Bericht, der über die Geburt des Heilandes, die heilige Maria und die Hebamme des Heilandes etc. herausgegeben wurde. Daher mahnen wir auch, daß jene, die die Disputation des Antonius in seiner Geschichte (Tit. 6, Cap. 3) über den Heimgang Mariens mit Verstand lesen, und alle lernen mögen, wie un fruchtbar und gefährlich es ist, neugierig zu forschen und darüber reden zu wollen, was uns in der Heiligen Schrift vorenthalten ist. Es möge uns genügen, schlicht und einfach zu glauben und zu bekennen, daß die Jungfrau Maria, die liebe Mutter unseres Herrn Jesus Christus, durch die Gnade und das Blut ihres eigenen Sohnes ganz geheiligt und durch die Gabe des Heiligen Geists überreich beschenkt und allen Frauen vorgezogen, und endlich, wie von den Engeln selber, von allen Geschlechtern wahrhaft selig gepriesen, jetzt lücklichmit Christus im Himmel lebe und daß sie ewige Jungfrau genannt werde und auch sei und bleibe, nämlich Gottesgebärerin, deren Andenken unter den Gläubigen in der Kirche stetig und festlich, jedoch fromm und nicht abergläubisch sein soll.

Here is the Latin text:

The Latin text doesn't say anything different than Tappolet's German: Eusebius Caesariensis episcopus, omnis uetustatis, ad miraculum usque, omnium diligentissimus indagator, in Chronicus suis, sub anno a' natiuitate Domine 48. qui nimirum erat 15. a morte Domini annus, paucula annotans, Maria virgo, inquit, Iesu Christi mater, ad filium in ccelum assumitur, ut quidam fuisse fibi reuelatum scribunt.


Addendum: What Did Eusebius Say?
In the Chronicon of Eusebius, there is a disputed passage that reads, "Mary the Virgin the mother of Jesus, was taken up into heaven as some write that it has been revealed to them." The Catholic Encyclopedia notes the passage is spurious:

"There is no certain tradition as to the year of Mary's death. Baronius in his Annals relies on a passage in the Chronicon of Eusebius for his assumption that Mary died A.D. 48. It is now believed that the passage of the Chronicon is a later interpolation."