Did Jerome Change His Mind on the Apocrypha?

Did Jerome Change His Mind on the Apocrypha?By Ray Aviles 

[I have known Ray Aviles quite a few years now. I've always been impressed by his work and discussions on Roman Catholic doctrine. A few years back, I watched him in dialog with a Roman Catholic on Jerome and the Apocrypha. It was so compelling, I never forgot about it, so I've asked him to write on it here. This is a good one to bookmark- James].

There’s an argument going around the Catholic apologetic circles claiming that Jerome changed his position on the Apocrypha later in his life. That he came to accept these books as inspired because of the “judgment of the churches” on this matter. Furthermore, they claim the evidence of this lies in his citing these books using the word “Scripture” to define them. RC apologist Mark Shea provides an example of this in an Envoy Magazine article (found here). He writes:

"In his later years St. Jerome did indeed accept the Deuterocanonical books of the Bible. In fact, he wound up strenuously defending their status as inspired Scripture, writing, "What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume (ie. canon), proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I wasn't relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us" (Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]). In earlier correspondence with Pope Damasus, Jerome did not call the deuterocanonical books unscriptural, he simply said that Jews he knew did not regard them as canonical. But for himself, he acknowledged the authority of the Church in defining the canon. When Pope Damasus and the Councils of Carthage and Hippo included the deuterocanon in Scripture, that was good enough for St. Jerome. He "followed the judgment of the churches."

Shea not only claims that Jerome accepted them, but that he “strenuously” defended them. A word used to intrigue the reader, but there is no evidence that he defended them, let alone “strenuously.” Furthermore, from the citation above, he states that Jerome followed the “judgment of the churches”, which Shea translates as the synods of Hippo and Carthage, but he is mistaken. Contextually, the “judgment of the churches” refers to Theodotion’s translation of Daniel which the churches were using instead of the Septuagint version. To add to this, he couldn’t have followed Carthage considering they met 17 years after Jerome penned the above. Both Hippo and Carthage were regional councils, didn’t speak for the entire church, thus it wasn’t mandated that Jerome submit to their decisions. Yet, it was Theodotion’s version Jerome refers to when he mentions the “judgment of the churches” and not their decision on canon:

"In reference to Daniel my answer will be that I did not say that he was not a prophet; on the contrary, I confessed in the very beginning of the Preface that he was a prophet. But I wished to show what was the opinion upheld by the Jews; and what were the arguments on which they relied for its proof. I also told the reader that the version read in the Christian churches was not that of the Septuagint translators but that of Theodotion. It is true, I said that the Septuagint version was in this book very different from the original, and that it was condemned by the right judgment of the churches of Christ; but the fault was not mine who only stated the fact, but that of those who read the version. We have four versions to choose from: those of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us. I did not reply to their opinion in the Preface, because I was studying brevity, and feared that I should seem to be writing not a Preface but a book. I said therefore, "As to which this is not the time to enter into discussion." Otherwise from the fact that I stated that Porphyry had said many things against this prophet, and called, as witnesses of this, Methodius, Eusebius, and Apollinarius, who have replied to his folly in many thousand lines, it will be in his power to accuse me for not baring written in my Preface against the books of Porphyry. If there is anyone who pays attention to silly things like this, I must tell him loudly and free that no one is compelled to read what he does not want; that I wrote for those who asked me, not for those who would scorn me, for the grateful not the carping, for the earnest not the indifferent. Still, I wonder that a man should read the version of Theodotion the heretic and judaizer, and should scorn that of a Christian, simple and sinful though he may be."

The issue was Theodotion’s (a known heretic) translation of Daniel which was being used by the churches. The translation was faulty, wasn’t based on the Septuagint, and condemned by the “right judgment of the churches”, but the reader can see that this in no way applies to the decision on canon made at the local councils of Hippo and Carthage.

Jerome goes on to say that he is merely stating Jewish opinion against these books. Although this was the view he espoused, he was not the originator, and it put him in the uncomfortable position of arguing with the Jews on this. J.N.D. Kelly expounds:

"Jerome, conscious of the difficulty of arguing with Jews on the basis of books they spurned and anyhow regarding the Hebrew original as authoritative, was adamant that anything not found in it was ‘to be classed among the apocrypha’, not in the canon; later he grudgingly conceded that the Church read some of these books for edification, but not to support doctrine." [J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: Harper, 1960), p. 55].

He was further riled by the fact that the churches followed the translation of a known heretic instead of a Christian such as himself. As an aside, Shea wrongfully associates Pope Damasus as being in agreement with the alleged “decision” at Hippo and Carthage, but Damasus died in 384 A.D, nine years before Hippo (393) and thirteen years before Carthage (397).

Shea continues with the usual RC apologetic misrepresentations against Martin Luther, naming him as the culprit who excluded the deuterocanonicals (Jim Swan did a wonderful job of putting the proper perspective on Luther and the canon here) Yet, I’ve always found this to be odd reasoning considering the Roman Catholic canon wasn’t decided until Trent. Cardinal Cajetan (the same one who opposed Luther) and Cardinal Ximenes, both contemporaries of the era, wrote against the canonicity of these books as well. Further, there was opposition within Trent regarding these books, spearheaded by the group led by Giralamo Cardinal Seripando (for more information on this, read Hubert Jedin’s Cardinal Seripando, Papal Legate at Trent). The mere fact that there was opposition at Trent substantiates that no canon was in effect where the “judgment of the churches” would authoritatively bind the Catholic to the decision at Hippo and Carthage.

Shea reiterates his error here:

"As St. Jerome said, it is upon the basis of "the judgment of the churches" and no other that the canon of Scripture is known, since the Scriptures are simply the written portion of the Church's apostolic tradition."

Again, Shea is embellishing Jerome’s statements regarding the “judgment of the churches” to mean something that it isn’t. As I’ve already shown, contextually, Jerome is saying something else entirely. Yet, Shea isn’t the only one who tries to make Jerome pro-deuteros. Some Catholic apologists play more loosely with Jerome’s words. An apologist who calls himself “Matt1618” asserts in his internet article “Did Some Church Fathers Reject the Deuterocanonicals as Scripture?”that Jerome did indeed show an acceptance of these books because he never denied them inspiration and he called them “Scripture” in his later writings. This is merely “reading between the lines” in an attempt to find something more favorable to his position. He states:

"In fact it is true that none of the Fathers, even St. Jerome, ever deny their inspiration."

I don’t know how “Matt1618” would define this “denial”, but all this amounts to wishful thinking. To put it simply, what Jerome states in his prefaces and commentaries amounts to a denial of their inspiration as well as their canonicity. To put it plainly, if Jerome states that a book isn’t canonical it is only because Jerome doesn’t believe it is inspired. Scripture is “God-breathed” and men wrote as they were inspired of God. Inspired books are in the canon because they came from the very mouth of God. It defeats the purpose of the canon if some “God-breathed” Scriptures are included and others aren’t. If a book is not in the canon, it is because it is not inspired. In essence, “Matt1618” is implying that Jerome didn’t see “inspiration” as the criterion for inclusion into the canon and that a book can be “inspired” and “Scripture” and, for whatever reasons, be outside of the canon. In his commentary on Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus, Jerome states:

"As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two Volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church."

According to Jerome, these books are ecclesiastical, capable of spiritual teaching, but cannot be used for supporting church doctrine. This begs the question: Since when is known Scripture not to be used for supporting doctrine? Even Scripture itself attests:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Furthermore, Jerome, emphatically states in his preface to the books of Samuel and Kings:

"This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a "helmeted" introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the canon."

In his preface to the Daniel he states:

"I say this to show you how hard it is to master the book of Daniel, which in Hebrew contains neither the history of Susanna, nor the hymn of the three youths, nor the fables of Bel and the Dragon; because, however, they are to be found everywhere, we have formed them into an appendix, prefixing to them an obelus, and thus making an end of them, so as not to seem to the uninformed to have cut off a large portion of the volume."

Four things are to be noted here. The first being that the additions weren’t in the Hebrew Scriptures; secondly, that Jerome calls Bel and the Dragon a “fable”; thirdly, that they were appended to his Vulgate; and fourthly, that they were marked with an “obelus” which is a critical symbol used in ancient manuscripts to mark a questionable passage. Nothing here reveals any indication that Jerome held, at least, the additions to be inspired Scripture.

Again, to Jerome, the extra books were “…not to give authority to the doctrines of the Church” and they “…are not in the canon.” Attempting to draw skepticism by claiming that he didn’t call them “uninspired” is leading the reader at best. Sure, they have some ecclesiastical value within them, but a book doesn’t need to be inspired or canonical to have ecclesiastical value. Although there are other passages from his writings that I can cite, I believe these suffice in showing that Jerome did not believe the Apocryphal books were inspired.

Next, “Matt1618” states there is evidence that Jerome did indeed cite these books and cited them “…approximately 55 times.” This is easy to refute. After all, if Paul can cite pagan writers such as Menander, Epimenedes, or Aratus, I’m sure Jerome can cite from these books which he claimed were good for the edification of the church as well as others. But “Matt 1618” goes further and says that he cited them as Scripture. He then goes to give a few selected quotes from Jerome:

(I am citing from his article, my comments are in black fonts and brackets)

Does not the SCRIPTURE say: 'Burden not thyself above thy power' [SIRACH 13:2] Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 108 (A.D. 404), in NPNF2, VI:207 [* Matt1618 is correct, Jerome does call this verse from Sirach “Scripture”, but one must question if what he means is in the “inspired” sense. Considering he has already stated that “Ecclesiasticus” (Sirach) is not to be used doctrinally (see above) we can assume that this is not the case]

Do not, my dearest brother, estimate my worth by the number of my years. Gray hairs are not wisdom; it is wisdom which is as good as gray hairs At least that is what Solomon says: "wisdom is the gray hair unto men.’ [Wisdom 4:9]" Moses too in choosing the seventy elders is told to take those whom he knows to be elders indeed, and to select them not for their years but for their discretion (Num. 11:16)? And, as a boy, Daniel judges old men and in the flower of youth condemns the incontinence of age (Daniel 13:55-59, or Story of Susannah 55-59, only found in the Catholic Bibles) Jerome, To Paulinus, Epistle 58 (A.D. 395), in NPNF2, VI:119 [* Matt1618 is reading too much into this citation, although he “cites” these books, citing them doesn’t mean he viewed them as “Scripture”, especially in light of the fact that he stated the books can be used “ecclesiastically”]

"I would cite the words of the psalmist: 'the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,’ [Ps 51:17] and those of Ezekiel 'I prefer the repentance of a sinner rather than his death,’ [Ez 18:23] AND THOSE OF BARUCH,'Arise, arise, O Jerusalem,’ [Baruch 5:5] AND MANY OTHER PROCLAMATIONS MADE BY THE TRUMPETS OF THE PROPHETS." Jerome, To Oceanus, Epistle 77:4 (A.D. 399), in NPNF2, VI:159 [* Same as above]

[It is true that a festival such as the birthday of Saint Peter should be seasoned with more gladness than usual;] still our merriment must not forget the limit set by Scripture, and we must not stray too far from the boundary of our wrestling-ground. Your presents, indeed, remind me of the sacred volume, for in it Ezekiel decks Jerusalem with bracelets, (Eze. 16:11) Baruch receives letters from Jeremiah,(Jer. 36, Bar. 6) and the Holy Spirit descends in the form of a dove at the baptism of Christ.(Mt. 3:16) Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 31:2 (A.D. 384), in NPNF2, VI:45 [* In the beginning brackets, I added what “Matt1618” left out considering this adds context to the passage. If I would’ve left it exactly as he cited it, then it would seem as if this is one thought. However, the first “Scripture” is within the context of the festival of St. Peter. The second “sacred volume” is in the context of the presents given to Jerome. These are two thought and not one. Thus, when he cites Baruch, he isn’t specifically calling it Scripture and, again, Jerome could be citing it for its ecclesiastical value].

As in good works it is God who brings them to perfection, for it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that pitieth and gives us help that we may be able to reach the goal: so in things wicked and sinful, the seeds within us give the impulse, and these are brought to maturity by the devil. When he sees that we are building upon the foundation of Christ, hay, wood, stubble, then he applies the match. Let us then build gold, silver, costly stones, and he will not venture to tempt us: although even thus there is not sure and safe possession. For the lion lurks in ambush to slay the innocent. [Sir. 27:5] "Potters' vessels are proved by the furnace, and just men by the trial of tribulation." And in another place it is written: [Sir. 2:1] "My son, when thou comest to serve the Lord, prepare thyself for temptation." Again, the same James says: [James 3:22]"Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only. For if any one is a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a mirror: for he beholdeth himself, and goeth away, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was." It was useless to warn them to add works to faith, if they could not sin after baptism. Jerome, Against Jovinianus, Book 2, 3 NPNF2, VI:390 [* Matt1618 makes the assumption that Jerome’s usage of the phrase “it is written” is being used in the biblical sense—that there is an air of Scriptural credibility within this phrase—but he never stops to think if Jerome simply meant that these citations were “written”, nothing more and nothing less).

"Yet the Holy Spirit in the thirty-ninth(9) psalm, while lamenting that all men walk in a vain show, and that they are subject to sins, speaks thus: "For all that every man walketh in the image."(Psalm 39:6) Also after David's time, in the reign of Solomon his son, we read a somewhat similar reference to the divine likeness. For in the book of Wisdom, WHICH IS INSCRIBED WITH HIS NAME, SOLOMON SAYS: "GOD CREATED MAN TO BE IMMORTAL, AND MADE HIM TO BE AN IMAGE OF HIS OWN ETERNITY."(Wisdom 2:23) And again, about eleven hundred and eleven years afterwards, we read in the New Testament that men have not lost the image of God. For James, an apostle and brother of the Lord, whom I have mentioned above--that we may not be entangled in the snares of Origen--teaches us that man does possess God's image and likeness. For, after a somewhat discursive account of the human tongue, he has gone on to say of it: "It is an unruly evil ... therewith bless we God, even the Father and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God."(James 3:8-9) Paul, too, the "chosen vessel,"(Acts 9:15) who in his preaching has fully maintained the doctrine of the gospel, instructs us that man is made in the image and after the likeness of God. "A man," he says, "ought not to wear long hair, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God."(1 Cor. 11:7) He speaks of "the image" simply, but explains the nature of the likeness by the word "glory."

Instead of THE THREE PROOFS FROM HOLY SCRIPTURE which you said would satisfy you if I could produce them, BEHOLD I HAVE GIVEN YOU SEVEN"--- Jerome, Letter 51, NPNF2, VI:87-8 [* In context, Jerome gives more then seven Scriptures within this passage and there is no way of telling whether the citation from Wisdom is amongst the “seven”, but for the sake of argument we’ll give it the benefit of the doubt. I don’t know why “Matt1618”capitalizes “which is inscribed with his name” and I can only hope he isn’t implying that “his name” refers to God, thus indicating inspiration. On the contrary, this evidently refers to Solomon who it is said wrote this book].

A. "Your argument is ingenious, but you do not see THAT IT GOES AGAINST HOLY SCRIPTURE, which declares that even ignorance is not without sin. Hence it was that Job offered sacrifices for his sons, test, perchance, they had unwittingly sinned in thought. And if, when one is cutting wood, the axe-head flies from the handle and kills a man, the owner is[Num. 35:8] commanded to go to one of the cities of refuge and stay there until the high priest dies; that is to say, until he is redeemed by the Saviour's blood, either in the baptistery, or in penitence which is a copy of the grace of baptism, through the ineffable mercy of the Saviour, who[Ezek. 18:23] would not have any one perish, nor delights in the death of sinners, but would rather that they should be converted and live. C. It is surely strange justice to hold me guilty of a sin of error of which my conscience does not accuse itself. I am not aware that I have sinned, and am I to pay the penalty for an offence of which I am ignorant? What more can I do, if I sin voluntarily?

A. DO YOU EXPECT ME TO EXPLAIN THE PURPOSES AND PLANS OF GOD? THE BOOK OF WISDOM GIVES AN ANSWER TO YOUR FOOLISH QUESTION: [Sir 3:21] "LOOK NOT INTO THINGS ABOVE THEE, AND SEARCH NOT THINGS TOO MIGHTY FOR THEE." AND ELSEWHERE,[5] "Make not thyself overwise, and argue not more than is fitting." And in the same place, "In wisdom and simplicity of heart seek God." You will perhaps deny the authority of this book;" "Jerome, "Against the Pelagians, NPNF2, VI:464-5" [* He submits these together, but anyone can see that when Jerome refers to Scripture in the passage, he is referring to canonical Scripture (Job, Numbers, and Ezekiel). The citation from Sirach is independent of the above citation and there is no indication that Jerome cites it as Scripture].

"And in the proverbs Solomon tells us that as "the north wind driveth away rain, so doth an angry countenance a backbiting tongue.(Prov. 25:23)" It sometimes happens that an arrow when it is aimed at a hard object rebounds upon the bowman, wounding the would-bewounder, and thus, the words are fulfilled, "they were turned aside like a deceitful bow," (Psalm 128:57) and in another passage: "whoso casteth a stone on high casteth it on his own head." (Sir. 27:25) Jerome, To Rusticus, Epistle 125, 19 (A.D. 404), in NPNF2, VI:251 [* Again, although Sirach is used in context alongside Scripture, it doesn’t prove much, especially in light of ecclesiastical usage]

9. Let me call to my aid the example of the three children, (Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in Daniel 3) who, amid the cool, encircling fire, sang hymns, (Song of Three Holy Children, found only in Deuterocanonical portion of Daniel 3) instead of weeping, and around whose turbans and holy hair the flames played harmlessly. Let me recall, too, the story of the blessed Daniel, in whose presence, though he was their natural prey, the lions crouched, with fawning tails and frightened mouths.(Daniel 6) Let Susannah also rise in the nobility of her faith before the thoughts of all; who, after she had been condemned by an unjust sentence, was saved through a youth inspired by the Holy Ghost (Susanna 45, or Daniel 13:45). In both cases the Lord's mercy was alike shewn; for while Susannah was set free by the judge, so as not to die by the sword, this woman, though condemned by the judge, was acquitted by the sword. Jerome, Letter 1:9, NPNF2, VI:2 [* Jerome cites the additions to Daniel, but this doesn’t mean he cited this as inspired Scripture and not ecclesiastically]

6. I salute your mother and mine with the respect which, as you know, I feel towards her. Associated with you as she is in a holy life, she has the start of you, her holy children, in that she is your mother. Her womb may thus be truly called golden. With her I salute your sisters, who ought all to be welcomed wherever they go, for they have triumphed over their sex and the world, and await the Bridegroom's coming, (Mt. 25:4) their lamps replenished with oil. O happy the house which is a home of a widowed Anna, of virgins that are prophetesses, and of twin Samuels bred in the Temple! (Luke 2:36, Acts 21:9, 1 Sam. 2:18) Fortunate the roof which shelters the martyr-mother of the Maccabees, with her sons around her, each and all wearing the martyr's crown! (2 Macc. 7) For although you confess Christ every day by keeping His commandments, yet to this private glory you have added the public one of an open confession; for it was through you that the poison of the Arian heresy was formerly banished from your city. Jerome, to Chromatius, Jovinus, and Eusebius, Letter 7:6, NPNF2, VI:10 [* Jerome cited a historical fact which happens to be recorded in 2 Maccabees 7. Citing history doesn’t make the history book “Scripture”]

But now that a virgin has conceived (Isa. 7:14) in the womb and has borne to us a child of which the prophet says that "Government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called the mighty God, the everlasting Father," (Isa. 9:6) now the chain of the curse is broken. Death came through Eve, but life has come through Mary. And thus the gift of virginity has been bestowed most richly upon women, seeing that it has had its beginning from a woman. As soon as the Son of God set foot upon the earth, He formed for Himself a new household there; that, as He was adored by angels in heaven, angels might serve Him also on earth. Then chaste Judith once more cut off the head of Holofernes (Jud. 13).Then Haman--whose name means iniquity--was once more burned in fire of his own kindling (Est. 7:10) Then James and John forsook father and net and ship and followed the Saviour: neither kinship nor the world's ties, nor the care of their home could hold them back. Then were the words heard: "Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me." (Mark 8:34) For no soldier goes with a wife to battle. Even when a disciple would have buried his father, the Lord forbade him, and said: "Foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man hath not where to lay His head." (Mt. 8:20-22) So you must not complain if you have but scanty house-room. In the same strain, the apostle writes: "He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord but he that is married careth for the things that are of the world how he may please his wife. There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she that is married careth for the things of the world how she may please her husband." (1 Cor. 7:34-36). Jerome, to Eustochium, Letter 22:21, NPNF2, VI:30 [* Again, citing an apocryphal book doesn’t mean that Jerome viewed it as “Scripture” when he could be using it ecclesiastically]

For it is not ecclesiastical rank that makes a man a Christian. The centurion Cornelius was still a heathen when he was cleansed by the gift of the Holy Spirit. Daniel was but a child when he judged the elders.( Dan. 13:55-63, or Susanna 55-63) Amos was stripping mulberry bushes when, in a moment, he was made a prophet (Amos 7:14) David was only a shepherd when he was chosen to be king.(2 Sam. 16:11-13) And the least of His disciples was the one whom Jesus loved the most. My brother, sit down in the lower room, that when one less honorable comes you may be bidden to go up higher (Luke 14:10). Jerome, to Heliodorus, Letter 14:9, NPNF2, VI:17. [* Jerome refers to a history recorded in Susanna. Again, nothing that would place Jerome as citing inspired Scripture]

These things, dearest daughter in Christ, I impress upon you and frequently repeat, that you may forget those things which are behind and reach forth unto those things which are before (Phil. 3:12). You have widows like yourself worthy to be your models, Judith renowned in Hebrew story (Jud. 13) and Anna the daughter of Phanuel (Lk 2) famous in the gospel. Both these lived day and night in the temple and preserved the treasure of their chastity by prayer and by fasting. One was a type of the Church which cuts off the head of the devil (Jud. 13:8) and the other first received in her arms the Saviour of the world and had revealed to her the holy mysteries which were to come (Lk 2:36-38). Jerome, to Salvina, Letter 79:10, NPNF2, VI:168 [* Jerome explicitly calls the Judith account a “Hebrew story”, but the account of Phanuel in Luke 2 he calls “the gospel.” If he were citing them both as Scripture, why classify Judith this way and contrast it to a gospel account? I think the answer is obvious].

To summarize, “Matt1618” has only one instance of Jerome calling an Apocryphal book “Scripture”, maybe two if we ease up a bit and include Jerome, Letter 51, NPNF2, VI:87-8. Yet, in neither of these instances do we have anything which would enthrall the reader into believing he accepted these books as inspired Scripture. J.N.D. Kelly sheds light on Jerome’s usage of these books and his usage of the word Scripture:

Jerome’s conversion to ‘the Hebrew verity’ [i.e. in contrast to the LXX] carried with it an important corollary—his acceptance also of the Hebrew canon, or list of books properly belonging to the Old Testament. Since the early Church had read its Old Testament in Greek, it had taken over without question the so-called Alexandrian canon used in the Greek-speaking Jewish communities outside Palestine. This had included those books (Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, etc.) which are variously described as deuterocanonical or as the Apocrypha. Around the end of the first century, however, official Judaism had formally excluded these, limiting the canon to the books which figure in English Bibles as the Old Testament proper. Since Origen’s time it had been recognised that there was a distinction between the Jewish canon and the list acknowledged by Christians, but most writers preferred to place the popular and widely used deutero-canonical books in a special category (e.g. calling them ‘ecclesiastical’) rather than to discard them. Jerome now takes a much firmer line. After enumerating the ‘twenty-two’ (or perhaps twenty-four) books recognised by the Jews, he decrees that any books outside this list must be reckoned ‘apocryphal’: ‘They are not in the canon.’ Elsewhere, while admitting that the Church reads books like Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus which are strictly uncanonical, he insists on their being used solely ‘for edifying the people, not for the corroboration of ecclesiastical’. This was the attitude which, with temporary concessions for tactical or other reasons, he was to maintain for the rest of his life—in theory at any rate, for in practice he continued to cite them as if they were Scripture. Again what chiefly moved him was the embarrassment he felt at having to argue with Jews on the basis of books which they rejected or even (e.g. the stories of Susanna, or of Bel and the Dragon) found frankly ridiculous. J. N. D. Kelly, Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2000), pp. 160-161.

RC apologists, those who argue this way, are merely using sophistry to recreate Jerome and place him on the side of the Deuterocanonicals, but the evidence really doesn’t give them much to stand on. I guess this is due to the fact that Jerome is one of the Doctors of the Church and he happened to disagree that these books were inspired Scripture. It is a source of embarrassment to them so they attempt to salvage whatever they can and find themselves reading “between the lines” of his writings in a futile attempt to win him back. There is no record showing that Jerome had a change of heart regarding these books and the very fact that scholarly clergymen, such as the aforementioned Cardinals, used Jerome’s position as a catalyst for their own disagreements with these books shows an understanding that he never wavered, never changed his position. But some RC apologists choose to blind themselves from the facts.

In conclusion, Augustine, who was a contemporary of Jerome, advocated the Apocryphal books and used his weighty suffrage to influence the African synods (Hippo and Carthage), but his appeal to them was strictly emotional and, as evidenced in the City of God, he used folklore to gain acceptance of these books. Regarding canon issues and languages, it was Jerome who was the canon scholar and not Augustine. In their correspondence on the issue of the Latin translation (dated 404 AD), Jerome chides Augustine for misunderstanding the nuances of his translations (see Correspondence of Augustine and Jerome concerning the Latin Translation of the Bible). Augustine chose not to side with Jerome, but continued to push the Septuagint over the Hebrew, even though the Septuagint itself was translated into Greek from the Hebrew. Augustine’s adherence to the LXX was based on the story of the “Seventy” which were the 72 Jewish translators who translated the Hebrew into the Greek language. Augustine tells the story of how these men worked separately in cells and when they compared their manuscripts, they were uniform in every detail, word for word. Jerome calls the story of the cells “fables” and made up, but Augustine claimed that because they worked under the same Spirit, they were led in this endeavor, thus proving the LXX to be of God. What Augustine either didn’t understand or ignored is that the “Seventy” only translated the first 5 books of Moses, the Pentateuch. In the website “The Septuagint Online” states:

Philo of Alexandria (fl. 1st c CE) confirms that only the Torah was commissioned to be translated, and some modern scholars have concurred, noting a kind of consistency in the style of the Greek Penteteuch [sic]. Over the course of the next three centuries, however, other books of the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek in an order that is not altogether clear. By observing technical terms and translation styles, by comparing the Greek versions to the Dead Sea Scrolls, and by comparing them to Hellenistic literature, scholars are trying to stitch together a history of the translations that eventually found their way into collections. It seems that sometimes a Hebrew book was translated more than once, or that a particular Greek translation was revised. In other cases, a work was composed afresh in Greek, yet was included in the collection of scriptures (from Septuagint Online). 

Only the Pentateuch was translated by the “Seventy” and Augustine truly had no clear reasoning in accepting the Septuagint and the books not found in the Hebrew text. It would seem he influence men through the use of quaint myths or hearsay, but as for Jerome he was resolute and never changed his mind, never follow a “decision” made by the councils influenced by Augustine and, most obviously, he never felt the need to. Jerome denied both the inspiration and the canonicity of the added books and no amount of historical revision will change the facts.

Formatting revised, April 2026.

Luther Between God and the Devil: Catholic Apologist Art Sippo on Heiko Oberman

I have often suggested a good biography on Luther is Heiko Oberman’s Luther: Man Between God and the Devil [New Haven: Yale University, 1989]. The book is affordable, easy to find in many libraries and bookstores, well written, well documented, and written by an expert in the field of Reformation research. Rarely, if ever, will one find Oberman’s credentials questioned on his expertise on Luther, or his books vilified as propaganda rather than cogent historical study.

Oberman’s spent his last years as Regents Professor of Medieval, Renaissance, and Reformation History at the University of Arizona. This school notes:

“Heiko Oberman was an internationally acclaimed scholar, winner of the prestigious Dr. A. H. Heineken Prize for History —the highest award for the historical discipline. Fellow of the Medieval Academy of America, Corresponding Fellow of the British Academy and Correspondent of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, in 1991 he was elected as a member of the American Philosophical Society, America's oldest learned society, begun in 1743 in Philadelphia by Benjamin Franklin. He received many distinguished fellowships and awards including honorary degrees from Harvard University, the University of St. Louis, the University of Aberdeen (Scotland), and Valparaiso University (Indiana). Coincident with the diagnosis of his terminal illness, it was announced that a distinction for extraordinary representation of Dutch scholarship and culture would be conferred on Heiko Oberman by Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands in April 2002.”[Source]

“Author and/or editor of 30 books and some hundred articles, he is particularly known for his prize-winning study The Harvest of Medieval Theology (Harvard University Press, 1963) and for his Luther: Man Between God and the Devil (English version, Yale University Press, 1990), for which he received the German Historischer Sachbuchpreis for "the most significant history book during the decade 1975-1985."[Source]

Catholic apologist Art Sippo though has an entirely different perspective on the ability and writing of Heiko Oberman. Sippo says bluntly:

“Heiko Obermann is a fawning sycophant when it come to Luther. In one of his books, he claims that Luther was the champion of the modern secular world with its sexual freedom and easy contraception and abortion! Consequently, I do not consider him to be a good judge of normative Christianity. He is like those 19th Century Kulturkampf types that Fr. Denifle refuted.”

Let’s work these charges slowly. I propose Sippo’s evaluation of Heiko Oberman’s Luther: Man Between God and the Devil is blatantly absurd. Anyone applying his reasoning in evaluating this book begins with presuppositions that are emotionally bent toward a misunderstanding of history, and reading biographies in general.

Sippo Charge #1 “Heiko Obermann is a fawning sycophant when it come to Luther.”

One has to immediately ask, what is the role of a biographer? Is it to pass judgment on the person whom one is writing about, or is a biographer’s role, to attempt to present the “facts” of history with as much context, care, and impartiality as is humanly possible? This is what Oberman attempts, and it is a strength of his work. Oberman presents the “facts” about Luther, and places them in their historical context. Oberman states,

“Discovering Luther the man demands more than scholarship can ever expect to offer. We must be prepared to leave behind our own view of life and the world: to cross centuries of confessional and intellectual conflict in order to become his contemporary” (p. xix)

Oberman attempts to understand Luther as a medieval man, in a medieval context:

“Oberman lays before his readers both a man, Luther, for whom the Devil was as real and as much on his thoughts as God, and a theology, Luther’s, which sees all of humanity as the battlefield between God and the Devil. To match, perhaps, the alien righteousness of Luther’s theology, Oberman presents an alien Luther, not the modern, progressive Luther of much post-enlightenment scholarship of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, but a Luther caught not only between God and Devil but also between the medieval and the modern, a Luther who lived the conviction that his world existed ‘in the shadow of the last days.’ While some scholars feel Oberman may have overstated his case, he has undoubtedly produced a [sic.] important corrective to the studies that make Luther too modern and too heroic ....” [Reformation and Revival Ministries. (1999; 2003). Reformation and Revival Volume 8 (vnp.8.1.212]

“What makes this book intriguing, and at the same time unusual, is how the author traces Luther’s struggle to his opposition of the Devil. He insists that Luther was acutely aware of Satan. Oberman believes, therefore, that the Devil “provides the key to understanding this man at once creative and crude, who railed bitterly against popes, Turks, and Jews as instruments of the Devil” (dust jacket). The same description concludes that Luther “... brought hope and consolation by emphasizing the need for people to have faith in God’s mercy and to perform acts of righteousness—with the aim not of winning favor with God but of improving the world. Oberman demonstrates that the times were such that belief in the Devil was commonplace. He then develops his unique thesis by showing that whether it was Luther’s rebellion against the church or his exhortations against the wiles of the enemy, it must all be understood by the belief that Luther understood himself to be locked in a profound conflict with Satan himself."[Reformation and Revival Volume 8 (vnp.8.1.238)]

“The author’s avowed purpose is to encounter a Luther devoid of the excessively prosaic or condemnatory views of Protestant or Catholic or of those who would portray him as an ecumenical figure. Oberman attempts to discover Luther in the context of the most important battle of his life: that with the devil. In crafting such an approach the author portrays Luther as a man in constant tension and turmoil in which his personality is fully displayed in public as well as private life. In Oberman’s own words he desires to “grasp the man in his totality—with head and heart, in and out of tune with the temper of his time” (p. ix).” [Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Volume 34 (Vol. 34, Page 568)].

Now, Mr. Sippo appears to have a different standard for biographers. His standard seems to be that the biographer must be overwhelmingly critical of its subject. The biographer must be able to take the “facts” and use them to annihilate the subject. I posit those who do Reformation history according to Dr. Sippo’s paradigm will arrive nowhere near an intelligent or rational understanding of history. One arrives in “Jack Chick” land- a land in which “facts” are weapons of destruction, rather than tools for arriving at truth.

Sippo Charge #2 “In one of his books, [Oberman] claims that Luther was the champion of the modern secular world with its sexual freedom and easy contraception and abortion!”

Let’s have a run on Art Sippo’s playground for a moment. Sippo claims that Heiko Oberman’s book should not be read because somewhere, Oberman says something like, “Luther was the champion of the modern secular world with its sexual freedom and easy contraception and abortion!” Now, if Oberman really said this, wouldn’t this be a good reason for a Catholic to read Luther: Man Between God and the Devil? Here’s a scholar willing to blame Luther for societal problems most important to Catholics. I doubt though, this is what Sippo (or Oberman) has in mind.

What Sippo probably means is Oberman attributed the rise of aspects of modernity to the Reformation, and Sippo linked this to “sexual freedom and easy contraception and abortion!” Without having a context by which to evaluate Oberman’s actual remarks, Sippo’s polemic does nothing more than suggest that Oberman shouldn’t be read because the author makes a point of interpretation Sippo disagrees with. I suggest this is not a correct method to use to evaluate a biographer. I highly doubt Dr. Sippo will produce a context for his remark. Even if Sippo could prove his point, it doesn’t necessarily mean Oberman is an author to be avoided. It means you the reader, should critically evaluate everything you read.

Sippo Charge #3 “Consequently, I do not consider [Oberman] a good judge of normative Christianity. He is like those 19th Century Kulturkampf types that Fr. Denifle refuted.”

Sippo implies that only biographies written by those who are advocates of “normative Christianity” can write books about Luther, whatever that means. The immediate problem of double standard is clearly thrown into Sippo’s lap. Sippo’s champions of Luther biography include Erik Erikson and Richard Marius. Neither of these men write from the perspective of “normative Christianity” (Marius explicitly states his approach to Luther as “essentially non-religious” [Martin Luther, The Christian Between God And Death, xii]. Erikson disavows the reality of religious experience.

Sippo also implies Denifle’s book on Luther represent books written from the perspective of “normative Christianity”. But recall, Denifle interpreted the Reformation by exploring Luther’s sexuality and alleged lust. For Denifle, Luther’s carnal desires caused the Reformation. Luther was forced to reinterpret the Scriptures to legitimize marriage for himself. Thus, Sippo’s “normative” paradigm would perhaps explore anyone’s life by looking at lustfulness and need for marriage. It would question why any of you succumbed to your lustfulness rather than joining a monastery or nunnery.

For The Record: On Luther's Mariology

"I think that most Protestants are quite capable of understanding Catholic positions - provided they aren't anti-Catholic. James Swan is, so he has a tough time figuring out that we don't think Mary is a goddess, etc., and will often make rather silly and ridiculous statements about our supposed Mariology."

"But we see that James Swan doesn't even agree that I established that Luther believed these things [about Mary]. He insists that Luther later changed his mind, in the face of the consensus of even Lutheran scholarship."
-Musings from a Catholic Apologist

I’m not really sure why (nor do I really care as to the reason), but on his blog, a Catholic apologist is highlighting the discussion he and I had on Luther’s Mariology from a few years back. The two recent quotes above show that he didn't read my old responses very carefully. The first statement neglects that Luther rebelled against the Mariolatry inherent in the medieval church, the second neglects that I dealt, at length, with the majority of his argument about the "consensus" of scholarship.

Now I haven't re-reviewed his "responses" in a while. This guy frequently revises his "responses" so, if he's added anything new, I haven't read it. Also, it should go without saying, that simply because someone offers a "response" doesn't mean they've offered a valid refutation.

Of course, I have my side of the “Luther’s Mariology” fixation as well. These links below are responses:

*Luther's Theology of Mary* This paper was originally written for a class at Westminster Seminary. This paper takes a look at Luther’s understanding of Mary. Some Roman Catholics perpetuate the myth that “Luther was extremely devoted to the Virgin Mary.” While having nice things to say about Mary, Luther’s Mariology is not modern-day Roman Catholic Mariology. Luther’s Mariology stands in direct contrast to the midieval Mariolatry of his day.

*Luther's Theology of Mary: A Response* After a Romanist reviewed my paper Luther’s Theology of Mary, I provided this detailed counter response, which took months to write. If I recall, this Romanist responded in about a week or two (I’m sure he’ll post the dates). His counter-responses to this paper are the reason I don’t take his work with great seriousness. The time and I effort I poured into this paper has not been matched by his “counter-responses.” I have found no compelling arguments in any of his responses. I invite anyone who has read both my work on this subject, and this guy's work on this subject, to prove to me Romanism has an important, valid point on this subject with which I disagree, or have been soundly “refuted” by his work.

*How To Eliminate Blog Readers: Bore Them With Tedium*A short response to a Romanist on the tedium involved with long discussions on Luther's view of the Immaculate Conception.

*“They understood not the saying, which he spake unto them.”*This is a selection from Luther from a sermon in which Luther makes some claims about the imperfection of Mary.

*Luther, and Mary...One More Time.*A short response to Romanists on Luther's Mariology, and a plea for them to use ad fontes evidence in his Luther research.

*Ad Fontes: To The Sources *A plea to Romanists to use ad fontes evidence in their Luther and Reformation research.

Very recently, a Roman Catholic said to me, “IMHO [this guy] intellectually evicerates [sic] James in a dialogue about the leader of the Protestant revolution. No offence James. By the way James, did you post his rebuttle[sic] to you on your blog for your readers to view?” I think I shocked him when I informed him that I try to link all of the “responses” on this blog. For instance, "Be Nice To Catholic Apologists" Thursday links to many of Romanist responses. I have also linked to other writings as well.

I’m really not scared of Romanist papers or responses. I say go ahead, read them all. My challenge though is for people to read my material as well. Rarely does this happen. I come across this type of sentiment from time to time: "Hey look at this link about this Swan guy." Usually when they do this, it’s an indication they aren’t able to deal with what I’ve written, so rather than do some work, it’s much easier to link to someone who has done “something” and hope that the tactic of poisoning the well against me has worked. My question is usually, “Ok, which point 'eviscerates' my work?" 9 out 10 times, they haven’t got a clue.

Most people don't want to take the time to read both sides- this isn't just bashing Catholics- Protestants do this as well. We all are emotionally attached to our presuppositions, and we love when our heroes bash down “the infidels.” We enjoy watching "our guy" argue against the position we emotionally dislike. My gut feeling is that 90% of what we like to read is based on what we agree with emotionally- and no amount of logic or fact will change our likes or dislikes. This has come quite clear to me in my recent dialog with Art Sippo. Sippo says all sorts of inane things, and so far, the surrounding Catholics will not step out of the box and say, “Hey Art, you’ve said some really silly illogical things.” Of course, it’s peer pressure- doing something like that takes guts. We all cower at times. I really find it hard to believe the Roman Catholics in the discussion board that hosts Dr. Sippo’s comments are that simplistic in their thinking, that they can’t tell the emperor he’s got no clothes on.

Guest Blog: Bondage Of The Will

By Frank Marron (Lutheran)

Due primarily to the increasing pressures from the writings of Martin Luther stressing needed reform in the medieval church, supporters of the papacy turned to the most respected scholar of the period, Desiderius Erasmus, to come to the aid of the Roman Catholic Church. Although Erasmus was initially sympathetic with Luther's call for corrections within the medieval church, he was compelled to engage Luther to maintain his standing in the church. On September 1, 1524, Erasmus printed his Diatribe seu collatio de libero arbitrio (Discussion, or Collation, concerning Free-Will). Luther's response to this Diatribe was his treatise The Bondage Of The Will, appearing in December 1525. Martin Luther considered this treatise to be his finest writing and thanked Erasmus for getting straight to the heart of the most critical aspect of the Reformation: man's will in spiritual matters.

The Treatise contains reviews of the position of Erasmus and Luther's responses to such claims. The final sections deal with Luther's biblically based proofs that with respect to spiritual matters, man has no ability to even desire goodness or truth(1Cor 2:14). Luther skillfully utilizes Holy Scripture alone to make his case, claiming the superiority of the Word of God over human reason and philosophy. Luther emphasizes the plain words of Holy Scripture and criticizes the attempts of Erasmus to elevate human reason and logic over plain text of Holy Scripture in order to substantiate "free-will" on the part of unconverted man. Luther, consistent with our Lutheran Confessions, maintained that Christ is a higher authority than any early Church Father, such as Origen or Jerome, and that these men often erred in their teachings based upon the infallible Word of God. Luther maintained that men's ordinances cannot be observed together with the Word of God, and that the former bind consciences and the latter looses them. Luther maintained that brilliant minds in history searched for "truth" and yet they were not part of the True Church, which is hidden - that the appeal by Erasmus to such men, even early Church Fathers, proves nothing: the saints of God are hidden with Christ. They are the remnant of each generation(1Kings 19:18; Romans 9:27) led by the Spirit of God(Romans 8:14) - Christ abides with them until the end(Matthew 28:20).


Martin Luther nailing his 95 Theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg. These "Theses" were a list of abuses which had crept into the medieval church and was a call for discussion




Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam was a noted scholar and humanist. Luther highly appreciated his fine scholarship which resulted in a comprehensive Greek New Testament translation.



Based upon Holy Scripture alone, Luther demonstrates that all men are born in bondage to sin and that only through the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit can man come to receive and believe in the true God, as revealed in the Person and work of Jesus Christ(John 1:12-13; 1Cor 2:10ff). Without the Holy Spirit, all attempts by man to understand spiritual truths fail. Indeed, everything man does prior to conversion is sinful in the eyes of God. The distinction is made between "free will" and "free choice". Only those converted to and abiding in Christ have "free choice", and with the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit produce spiritual good works, referred to as "fruits of the Holy Spirit"(Galatians 5:22ff). Since unbelievers are in bondage to sin, the only "free will" they have is to will to sin. God is interested in a man's motives. Without the Holy Spirit all motives are self-centered and sinful, despite outward appearances. Another way of considering this is that unbelievers can perform "good works" in the temporal kingdom - the world, and even be recognized and rewarded for them. But from God's perspective in His Kingdom, all "good works" done without faith in Christ are still sinful(Hebrews 11:6). And of course, nothing except the sacrifice of Christ can atone for the sins of the world(John 3:16).

Luther stresses the words of Jesus in John's Gospel where we are told a man must be born again to enter God's Kingdom(John 3::3ff). Luther also references:

John 1:12-13
But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, [13] who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Man is saved monergistically - by the Grace of God alone, not of his own will. Luther shows that through Baptism a man receives forgiveness of sins and is sealed with the Holy Spirit. According to the Scriptures, saving Faith comes through the Word of God, through Baptism, and the Lord's Supper.


Lucas Cranach Altar Panel painting depicting the administration of the Sacraments



Luther maintained that man is born in bondage to sin and apart from the Holy Spirit he goes on willing and desiring to do evil. That is why the Scriptures say that God hardened the heart of Pharaoh(Exodus). Pharaoh was in bondage to sin and without the Spirit he could only resist God and become hardened. Luther makes the interesting comparison that man's will is like a beast standing between two riders. If God rides, it wills and goes where God goes(Psalm 73:22-23). If Satan rides, it wills and goes where Satan wills. The riders themselves fight to decide who shall ride man. Man has no control over the situation.

Luther maintained that the Scriptures are perspicuous, both internally and externally. Internally believers have the Holy Spirit Who enables him to discern truth(1Cor 2:15). Externally there is the public ministry of the Word that administers the Sacraments and the Scriptures themselves interpret and clarify: Scripture interprets Scripture. Clear passages shed light upon cloudy ones.Whenever men claim the Scriptures are unclear, these are "maniacs' dreams". If the Scriptures are unclear, how are the teachings of men more clear?

Luther maintained that the Diatribe was not able to properly distinguish between Law and Gospel. He used the terms "Imperative" and "Indicative". For example, Erasmus maintained that the following verse championed his theory of "free-will":

Deut. 30:19
I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live,

This verse is Law, not Gospel(Promise). This verse states what man ought to do(Imperative - Law), not what he is able to do(Indicative-Gospel). Many people today have similar difficulties understanding Scripture. They are unable to properly distinguish between Law and Gospel. They do not know that the primary purpose of Law is to show man's sin(Romans 3:20), not to enable a man to keep the Law by his own strength! As Luther states: "…the commandments are not given inappropriately or pointlessly; but in order that through them proud, blind man may learn the plaque of his own impotence, should he try to do what is commanded….the work of Moses is…through the law to lay open to man his own wretchedness, so that, by thus breaking him down, and confounding him in his self-knowledge, he may make him ready for grace, and send him to Christ to be saved." Luther further maintained that the Diatribe could not distinguish between "God preached" and "God hidden". That man only knows what God has revealed to him in His Word. Therefore we know God desires all men to be saved(1Tim 2:4) and therefore it is our own fault if we perish. Why all men are not saved is part of the unrevealed, or hidden will of God and man should not question the Creator Who made him(Romans 9:20). Therefore, the Diatribe, by quoting passages of Scripture which are to be read in the Indicative, not Imperative, are making the same error as many early Church Fathers quoted by Erasmus. They fail to realize:

Mark 10:27
Jesus looked at them and said, "With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God."

Without the Holy Spirit man can do nothing. The Diatribe reads Scripture as statements what unregenerated man can do, rather than descriptions of the status of believers abiding in Christ. He is the vine, believers are the branches - without Him we can do nothing(John15:1ff). Nevertheless, unbelievers continue to demand that God should act according to their idea of right!

Luther maintained that man always attempts to reconcile God's will with his own, and therefore even those in hell still complain to God! Man simply cannot let God be God and realize he cannot possibly understand everything about God, such as His foreknowledge. Man can only understand what God has chosen to reveal to him in His Word. Although many learned men and early Church Fathers, such as Jerome and Origen, have attempted to reconcile the hidden will of God with their own logic and reasoning, these men have erred. Erasmus and men like him, by quoting Jerome rather than Holy Scripture, have also erred. The fact that God determined the elder shall serve the younger(Jacob and Essau - Romans 9:12) is simply the hidden will of God. Paul teaches that faith and unbelief come to us by no work of our own, but through the love and hatred of God. When faith has come to men, He exhorts them to persevere, lest they be cut off. But exhortation establishes only what we ought to do, and not what we can.

Luther concludes by restating his position:

-All men are born into sin and are in bondage to it. Without enlightenment of the Holy Spirit it is impossible for any man to know spiritual truth(Romans 5:12; 1Cor 2:14)

-No man can come to God unless he draws man to Himself(John 6:44).

-The world is ignorant of sin, but the Holy Spirit reproves the world of sin(John 16:19). Therefore it is sin not to believe in Christ.

-Man must be born again of Spirit and water to enter His Kingdom(Baptism)(John 3:5ff)

-"Free-Will" denies the Grace of God and the absolute necessity of the regeneration of the Holy Spirit to receive Christ and saving Faith

-All believers are New Creations by the Holy Spirit, neither male nor female, slave nor free, but one in Christ(Galatians 3:28; Gal 6:15; 2Cor 5:7).

-Although the Church is hidden, on the Last Day it shall be revealed(Col 3:4)-The appeal by Erasmus to ancient writings and the authority of early Church Fathers is folly. Only Holy Scripture is infallible and is to be the standard by which we know spiritual truth


Read More From Frank Marron:

Guest Blogger: Frank Marron (Lutheran)

Guest Blog: Law & Gospel

Guest Blog: The Word Of The Lord Endures forever, Not The words Of Martin Luther!

Guest Blog:Why Are There So Many Christian Denominations?

Using Psychohistory To Interpret Martin Luther (A Response to Roman Catholic Apologist Art Sippo, Part 3)

Roman Catholic apologist Art Sippo’s understanding of Martin Luther appears to be strongly based on the psychohistory approach. In this view, history can be understood by applying the science of psychoanalysis to an historical figure. This view holds that history is more than simply facts; history is also the result of psychological forces that drive people to do what they do. Sippo's psychohistory champions are men like Heinrich Denifle (Roman Catholic), Hartmann Grisar (Roman Catholic), and Erik Erikson (secular) and a few others. 

Note Mr. Sippo’s words:

[Heinrich Denifle] dug into the archives where only scholars had previously gone and he found evidence of Luther's intemperate personality, his intolerance, and his gross logical inconsistency in what he wrote. He also resurrected the complaints of many of Luther's contemporaries about the man's erratic behavior and his excesses. It is Fr. Denifle who brought these things to light and spurred on the more critical portrait of Luther that would emerge in the 20th Century from Fr. Grisar, Preserved Smith, Paul Reiter, Erik Ericsson[sic], Marius, and Rix.

Mr. Sippo also says, 

It must be noted that psychiatric diagnoses cannot be made with certainty on deceased people. But some folks have left us enough information in their journals, diaries and written output that we can make an intelligent guess as to their state of mind. 

One thing Mr. Sippo doesn’t tell you is that while men like Denifle, Grisar, Smith, and Erikson used a similar approach in trying to understand Luther, none of them arrived at the same conclusions.  Even though Martin Luther produced a large corpus of writings to draw analysis from, each of these psychohistorians arrived at different conclusions when digging for pychohistory facts. Let’s look at the Mr. Sippo's psychohistory champions.

Roman Catholic historian Heinrich Denifle’s approach has been called “the pansexual interpretation of the Reformation.” According to Denifle, Luther’s psychosis was inherent lust, secret vices, an overpowering sex drive, and an opposition to celibacy. All these were Luther’s psychological reasons to abandon the Roman Church in his “attempt” to destroy her." This approach to Luther has been largely abandoned; even Denifle’s close associate, Albert Maria Weiss, O.P., concluded, “Denifle was a historical researcher of the first rank, but as a historical writer Denifle was not the equal of the researcher.” In other words, the case against Luther that Denifle built was not valid. Rarely will anyone find a brave writer willing to defend Denifle’s pansexual approach to Luther. That Mr. Sippo could even recommend his writings leads me to believe he is completely unaware of its abandonment by modern Roman Catholic historians.

Immediately following Denifle were the works of Roman Catholic historian Hartmann Grisar. Grisar similarly used a psychohistory approach to interpret Luther. Did Grisar exclusively use the pansexual approach as did Denifle? No. While at times Grisar will indict Luther’s in similar ways, he basically categorizes Luther's neurosis with pathological manic-depressive psychology. Where Denifle wants you to hate Luther as a depraved sex maniac, Grisar wants you to pity him for being a psychopath. Mr. Sippo comments that it was Herbert David Rix “who makes the case for Luther's manic-depression problem” in the mid-1980’s. Actually, Grisar made it long before him. Out of all the psychohistory works, Grisar’s books at least have some value in factual content. Generally, Grisar’s facts and research are good, even if his conclusions and insinuations flaw his overall work. Grisar can also be praised for avoiding some of the abusive polemic language that filled Denifle’s work. He strove to disprove many of the stories about Luther’s personal life that Denifle used to damage the reputation of Luther:

Grisar demolished two major points in the thesis of Denifle. He was not at all disposed to credit the tale of Luther’s moral turpitude. He stated emphatically that ‘the only arguments on which the assertions of great inward corruption could be based, viz. actual texts and facts capable of convincing anyone…simply are not forthcoming’ He admitted that Denifle’s interpretation of ‘concupiscence’ would not bear examination. ‘Nor does the manner in which Luther represents concupiscence prove his inward corruption. He does not make it consist merely in the concupiscence of the flesh.’ He can pay tribute to Luther’s minor virtues, as when he admits that “Of Christian Liberty” “does in fact present his wrong ideas in a mystical garb which appeals strongly to the heart. [Gordon Rupp, The Righteousness of God (Great Britain: Hodder and Stoughton Publishing, 1953), p. 25].

Mr. Sippo also mentions Protestant historian Preserved Smith. One of Smith’s most famous works on Luther is a compilation of his correspondence called, The Life And Letters of Martin Luther. Smith was an excellent historian, but as Reformation expert Lewis Spitz once pointed out, in his psychological analysis he was a “very amateurish analyst.” Smith was very interested in Freudian analysis and theory, particularly the role of sex in personal development. In 1913 he published an article called “Luther’s Early Development in the Light of Psychoanalysis” [American Journal of Psychology 24 (1913) 360-77]. Commenting on Luther, Smith says,

Luther is a thoroughly typical example of the neurotic quasi-hysterical sequence of an infantile sex-complex; so much so, indeed, that Sigismund Freud and his school could hardly have found a better example to illustrate the sounder part of their theory than him (p.362).

Smith’s Freudian observations show Luther to be a product of an alcoholic parent, a sufferer of the Oedipus complex, an abused child, struggling with depression, had an infatuation with demonism, and had sexual repression. Smith then interprets these factors as the causes of some of Luther’s central doctrines (like faith alone, the Bondage of the Will, etc.).

The most famous of all the psychohistorians writing on Luther is Erik Erikson in his book, Young Man Luther (1958). Erikson used a modified Freudian approach to Luther. He approached religious phenomena with prejudice: Freud argued that religious phenomena are to be understood on the model of the neurotic symptoms of the individual, hence, a materialistic outlook on religion. Freud saw religious concerns within an individual as reflecting something wrong in a human being. Erickson does the same with his treatment of Luther. Roman Catholics beware: Erikson is no friend of your beliefs... or of anyone with religious beliefs! While Mr. Sippo criticizes me for recommending Roman Catholic authors John Todd and Joseph Lortz, one should ask him why he recommends a book presupposing an atheist worldview.

Erikson felt that since a great body of writing from Luther and his students existed, a meaningful evaluation could take place. He analyzed Luther’s writings with Ego Development psychology. This uses a model that posits two important crises in Luther’s life: identity and integrity crises. These are key to the development of the human personality:

Identity crises: this takes place in the years of adolescence: a young person comes to some independent recognition of himself.

Integrity crises: Begins in more mature years (mid life crises).

Erikson looked at Luther’s relations to his father and mother (even though the source material was very limited). For instance, he quotes Luther’s statement on his dad beating him. Erikson’s conclusion is that since Luther had such a love / hate relationship to his father, he eventually rejected the pope. Erikson also argues that Luther’s father was a drunkard, given to cruelty. In regards to Luther’s mother, Erikson makes much of Luther’s statement that she beat him once for stealing a nut. Erikson concludes Luther dethroned the Virgin Mary due to his hatred of his mother. In these examples, Erikson failed to take into account all the evidence. Luther elsewhere says his father was happy when drunk. Also in the account of his beating there are other texts that say his father felt quite remorseful for it and expressed this to Luther. Erikson doesn’t take into account that Luther rejected the devotion to Mary of the medieval church, and also wrote a sensitive commentary on Mary’s Magnificat. There wasn’t a violent rejection of Mary due to his relationship with his mother. If anything, Luther reevaluated Mary’s role as an example of justification by faith alone. Positive statements about Mary are peppered through his writings.

Erikson’s notes three crises in Luther’s life:

First crises: The thunderstorm in 1505 and joining of monastery. Erikson argues for Luther's identity crises: Luther’s desire to separate himself from his father and join a monastery.

Second crises:(also an identity crises) in 1507 Luther in the monastery has a ”while Mark 9:17 is being read (the healing of a boy with demon). Luther cries out, “It is not I!” Erikson argues that Luther so identifies with the story of a boy possessed with a demon that he has to scream out to try to establish his non-identity with the demon [Luther never referred to this story: It comes from a Cochlaeus- a Roman Catholic 16th century polemicist who wrote against Luther. Cochlaeus admitted he got this story fourth hand].

Third crises: Luther’s Tower experience. Erikson takes a German phrase uttered by Luther and interprets it literally to mean Luther was sitting on the toilet when he has his evangelical breakthrough. Erikson concludes that one can see from a Freudian perspective how Luther’s spiritual issues are tied up with biological functions [there was no toilet in the tower. The phrase Luther said in German means, “down in the dumps.” It was conventional speech. Luther really was saying that his breakthrough came during a time when he was depressed].

Many reviews of Erikson’s book have been written. There is no agreement among scholars as to whether or not his work on Luther is reliable. To my knowledge, Erikson refused to answer his many critics, in print. Historical scholars are fairly unified that Erikson made poor use of the evidence: Erikson was not a Reformation historian. Erikson made use of both Protestant and Roman Catholic sources. In terms of Roman Catholic sources, he used the work of Heinrich Denifle and did not discriminate carefully enough amongst primary sources, secondary sources and hostile sources. For Erikson, hearsay also functioned as historical fact.

These are some of the sources Mr. Sippo directs you toward in understanding Martin Luther. Judge for yourself if these men produce a unified, historically verifiable understanding of Luther, or if they’re... guessing! How can someone do psychology on a dead man? One cannot. The psychohistory method, while interesting, should not be the overarching approach to learning about Martin Luther.

Now, I realize I’m the enemy Protestant in Mr. Sippo's eyes…you know, that evil snake that’s come to the Roman Catholic Envoy forums to trip up innocent Roman Catholics. But: judge for yourself by what I’ve written if I deserve the treatment being doled out by Mr. Sippo. I’ve attempted to substantiate my opinion respectfully. Mr. Sippo has continually hurled invective at me. 

I don’t claim to be a Martin Luther expert. But I do claim to pursue the truth. I apply the same scrutiny to Protestant writers as well. Maybe Mr. Sippo hurls insults at me because he’s scared people will read my responses seriously... and maybe even read the books I recommend? I don’t claim to be any type of psychologist, but I do wonder why Mr. Sippo writes violently when dialoging with protestants or discussing the Reformation. I think before I write. I try to do serious historical study. I don’t simply rant and rave and hurl invective. Roman Catholics can hate me for being a Protestant or anti-catholic if they want but at least argue cogently!

Addendum

This blog entry is a continuation of look at Roman Catholic apologist Art Sippo’s take on Luther scholarship. Previous entries can be found here:

On Dialoging With Catholic apologist Art Sippo on Luther Scholarship

Catholic Apologist Art Sippo on Father O’Hare’s “Facts About Luther”

Catholic Apologist Art Sippo on Luther Scholarship and Research (Part 1)

Art Sippo on Catholic Historians Grisar and Denifle and Luther’s Demon Possession (part 2)

Catholic Apologist Art Sippo Takes The Time To Thank Me For My Luther Research

Updated March 2026

Catholic Apologist Art Sippo Takes The Time To Thank Me For My Luther Research

Catholic apologist Art Sippo took some time recently to thank me for my work on Protestant reformer, Martin Luther. Note the warmth and care in Art's words. Perhaps there really is value in dialog with Catholic apologists.

Mr. Sippo commented,

"Please spare us all your ridiculous propaganda, James. Nothing you can say changes who and what Luther was. The most damning thing of all is that he was excommunicated by the Catholic Church and is formally condemned as a heretic. He was so condemned for a good reason: Luther taught false doctrine and by the sheer force of his will tried to destroy the Christian religion and replace it with his own man-made counterfeit. But even more importantly, he was a morally disordered man suffering from serious personality disorders and may have been frankly mad.

There is nothing so amusing and disturbing than have someone like you in serious and deprecating tones defending such a mad dog as a "reformer" of Christianity! I am reminded of Chance the gardener from the movie Being There being lauded as deep thinker when in reality he was a uneducated simpleton whose mental simplicity was confused with intellectual depth. You confuse Luther's insane ravings with spiritual zeal and his self-serving defense of his psychological catharsis with the spread of the Gospel.

If you were not so absurd I could pity you. As it stands I find you ridiculous and most damnably wilfully self deceived."

You're welcome Art.

Next installment: A look at using Psychohistory to understand Luther.

Art Sippo on Catholic Historians Grisar and Denifle and Luther’s Demon Possession (part 2)

"The sad and uneducated Mr. Swann has given up on proving that Fr.Lortz was nt a Nazi. Now he is whining about Cochleus whom I never mentioned." -Catholic apologist, Art Sippo

"Frs. Denifle and Grisar revealed what prots had been deing for centuries. Luther was mentally unstable and those stupid enough to follow him were dsiciples of a lunatic and a dishonest immoralist."
-Catholic apologist, Art Sippo

This is a continuation of look at Catholic apologist Art Sippo’s take on Luther scholarship. Previous entries can be found here:

On Dialoging With Catholic apologist Art Sippo on Luther Scholarship

Catholic Apologist Art Sippo on Father O’Hare’s “Facts About Luther”

Catholic Apologist Art Sippo on Luther Scholarship and Research (Part 1)

My discussion with Art Sippo is geared toward exposing his outdated approach to understanding Luther. Sippo serves as an example of the stereotypical Catholic laymen approach to Luther. Sippo vilifies Luther rather than understand Luther. Because he is given a particular weight of authority, he perpetuates hostile polemic that feeds those who are already emotionally geared against the Reformation. I’ve been “topically” looking at the authors Art Sippo has commented on.

I've also been going slowly through Sippo's comments, much to his disaproval. The careful reader will note that Sippo doesn't respond to the errors I point out. For instance, below Sippo claims Catholic Historians Hartmann Grisar and Heinrich Denifle both attributed Demon Possession to Luther.

Sippo says,

“Frs. Denifle and Grisar definitely show Luther's dark side and may go a bit far on that. Both of them were concerned that Luther might be possessed.”

I can appreciate Sippo’s comment that Denifle and Grisar “may go a bit far.” Recall, I have argued that both of these writers belong to an outdated style of Luther scholarship that indeed presented excessive vilification, rather than scholarly history. In other words, Sippo is basically granting my point. “Going to far” is exactly the criticism I have made.

I am not familiar with either Denifle or Grisar thinking Luther “possessed.” I’d be prone to believe Denifle may have made such an assertion. I would also be interested in any ad fontes documentation on this claim- since documentation of this nature would only strengthen my case. I have read much from Grisar, and I don’t recall this being put forth, though it is within the realm of possibility for reason I will explain.

If indeed Sippo is correct, this only proves my point that both of these writers echoed the sentiment of Johannes Cochlaeus. Cochlaeus, an early contemporary and biographer of Luther has been charged by many scholars of “poisoning the well” and setting the tone of Catholic Luther studies for a few hundred years. It was he who originated the claim that Luther was “demon possessed” in his book, Commentaria de Actis et Scriptis Martini Lutheri (1549). Cochlaeus said:

“…[W]hen [Luther] was in the country, either because he was terrified and prostrated by a bolt of lightning, as is commonly said, or because he was overwhelmed with grief at the death of a companion, through contempt of this world he suddenly - to the astonishment of many - entered the Monastery of the brothers of St Augustine, who are commonly called the Hermits. After a year's probation, his profession of that order was made legitimate, and there in his studies and spiritual exercises he fought strenuously for God for four years. However, he appeared to the brothers to have a certain amount of peculiarity, either from some secret commerce with a Demon, or (according to certain other indications) from the disease of epilepsy. They thought this especially, because several times in the Choir, when during the Mass the passage from the Evangelist about the ejection of the deaf and mute Demon was read, he suddenly fell down, crying 'It is not I, it is not I.' And thus it is the opinion of many, that he enjoyed an occult familiarit with some demon, since he himself sometimes wrote such things about himself as were able to engender a suspicion in the reader of this kind of commerce and nefarious association. For he says in a certain sermon addressed to the people, that he knows the Devil well, and is in turn well known by him, and that he has eaten more than one grain of salt with him. And furthermore he published his own book in German, About the 'Comer' Mass (as he calls it), where he remembers a disputation against the Mass that the Devil held with him at night. There are other pieces of evidence about this matter as well, and not trivial ones, since he was even seen by certain people to keep company bodily with the Devil.”

Sippo then said:

“The strong point of their work [Grisar and Denifle] is that they faced up to all the horrible things Luther actually said and did which prots had been keeping hidden or ignoring. They treated Luther as he actually was: a seriously disturbed man who led many people into perdition based on his uncontrolled emotional outbursts and his glib demagoguery.”

This is indeed the same approach as Cochlaeus. Cochlaeus does what later villifying Catholic critiques of Luther promise: to present the real “facts” about Luther, undistorted from Luther’s own writings. Cochlaeus, in essence, became one of Luther’s most influential opponents. His biography “deeply influenced the image of Luther held by Catholics for more than two centuries” [Gotthelf Wiedermann, “Cochlaeus as Polemicist,” found in, Peter Newman Brooks (ed.), Seven-Headed Luther (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983) 200]. His overall “image of the devilishly destructive Luther dominated Catholic popular understanding of Luther for centuries.” [Jared Wicks, Luther and His Spiritual Legacy, (Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1983) 15].

“There can be no doubt of the sincerity and conviction of Cochlaeus, but neither can there be any doubt that it was he who poisoned the well of historical studies. Roman Catholic historians have drawn their prejudice against Luther from this polemical source, which in its animosity has an almost total disregard for objective truth and historical facts. Denifle, Grisar, Cristiani, Paquier, and Maritain (to cite the most famous and influential) have all drunk deep of this poisoned well-too deeply- and lesser historians have adopted their position.” [Jared Wicks, Luther and His Spiritual Legacy,16].

“An answer to this question of why the more scientific and accurate Catholic depiction of Luther is so recent was well stated at the time of World War II by Catholic scholar Adolf Herte in a three-volume work, Das katholische Lutherbild im Bann der Lutherkommentare des Cochlaeus. His clear and, for many Catholics, embarrassing answer was this: Catholic Luther interpretation for the previous 400 years had more or less repeated what Johannes Cochlaeus, a contemporary of Luther, set forth in his extremely negative Commentaria de actis et scriptis M. Lutheri.. Cochlaeus' writings were basically nothing but fiction, calumny, and lies. In the rude style of that time, Cochlaeus depicted Luther as a monster, a demagogue, a revolutionary, a drunkard, and a violator of nuns.” [James Atkinson, Martin Luther: Prophet to the Church Catholic (Grand Rapids: WB Eerdman’s Publishing co., 1983), 8].

Mr. Sippo’s understanding of Luther follows in the same vein of destructive criticism. Sippo’s claim that the authors he utilizes “faced up to all the horrible things Luther actually said and did” and that “prots had been keeping hidden or ignoring” and these authors treat “Luther as he actually was: a seriously disturbed man who led many people into perdition based on his uncontrolled emotional outbursts and his glib demagoguery” is nothing but the sentiment of Johannes Cochlaeus. Cochlaeus’ polemical work served as a distorted systematic guideline of what Catholics were to think about Luther. This method was perpetuated by Grisar and Denifle.

These are some of the authors Art Sippo recommends- despite the fact that both Catholic and Protestant historians link their work to a tradition that that has long been shown to be nothing more than “poisoning the well.” Did Denifle and Grisar think Luther was possessed? If they did, my case against these authors is even more solid. If they didn't, they still put forth enough material to prove they "went too far":

Denifle has said:

"Luther, there is nothing godly in you!" Luther was an ordinary, or if you will, an extraordinary destroyer, a revolutionary, who went through his age like a demon ruthlessly trampling to earth what had been reverenced a thousand years before him. He was a seducer who carried away hundreds of thousands with him in his fateful errors, a false prophet who in his contradiction-burdened teaching as in his sin-laden life manifested the exact opposite of what one should expect and demand from one sent from God. He was a liar and deceiver who through the very overthrowing of all moral limitations under the banner of Christian freedom attracted to himself so many deluded souls."

Leonard Swidler states,

“For the Jesuit Hartmann Grisar, Luther was not so much a morally evil man as a mentally sick man. We should turn not our hate but our pity toward Luther the psychopath, who was subject to illusory visits by the devil and terrible fits of depression. It is granted by Protestants that Grisar went about his work with a great deal of scholarly zeal and that his work “contains a powerful denial of the old Catholic Luther-fables and calumniations as well as the deep-rooted view, most lately upheld by Denifle, according to which Luther was driven down the path of the Reformer by lust of the flesh.” However, this improvement over Denifle was hardly satisfying to Protestants. Grisar’s polished style merely poured salt in the wound, and his apparent objectivity convinced no one. Without a doubt all the terrible words of Luther, full of hate, anger, “Wildheit und Rohheit” are actually found in Luther’s writings. But the complaint was raised that this was far from all that was in Luther’s writings. This was only a one-sided picture, and therefore a distortion, though one with a certain refinement. In the end, “Grisar, just as Denifle, wishes to annihilate Luther.”[85]

On Dialoging With Catholic apologist Art Sippo on Luther Scholarship

To the Right: Catholic Apologist Art Sippo

This is a continuation of look at Catholic apologist Art Sippo’s take on Luther scholarship. Previous entries can be found here:

Catholic Apologist Art Sippo on Father O’Hare’s “Facts About Luther”

Catholic Apologist Art Sippo on Luther Scholarship and Research (Part 1)

This evaluation grew out of a discussion with Art on the Envoy Forums. Some may question why I would engage Art Sippo, particularly on a topic like this. I know that a discussion with Art Sippo on either the Reformation or Luther is somewhat of an exercise in futility. I go into this knowing that he’s probably not listening, nor cares what I say. He will either ignore the sources I cite, or attack the authors I mention rather than what they’ve written. That being said, my reasons for energy directed towards this discussion are multiple.

First, I think that the task of understanding Luther and the Reformation has changed dramatically with the rise of the Internet. Previous to the Internet, serious written discussions about Luther really only took place in either books or periodicals. In other words, discussions like the one in which Sippo and I are engaging wouldn’t have been as easy previous to cyberspace. Written discussions of this nature usually only took place amongst those entrenched in academia.

If one traces these discussions, a general historical outline emerges. Previous to the early 20th Century, one finds Roman Catholic academics vilifying Luther. As Eric Gritsch has so aptly pointed out, “Catholic biographers employed the best scholarly methods to produce the worst images of Luther” [Eric W. Gritsch, Martin- God’s Court Jester: Luther in Retrospect (Philadelphia: fortress Press, 1983, 205]. By and far, the majority of serious Catholic scholarship abandoned this approach in the 20th Century. It can be argued that many Catholic scholars were perhaps motivated by ecumenical concerns in abandoning hostile invective against Luther. This solution though does not do justice to the tremendous output put forth by men like Joseph Lortz, Adolph Herte, Jared Wicks, Harry McSorley, John Todd, Leonard Swidler, Thomas McDonough, or even the New Catholic Encyclopedia.

What really should be considered in the change of approach in serious Catholic scholarship is the fact that it is scholarship. Many of the authors cited above did the work necessary at arriving at truth. In effect, they recognized the historical flaws in the early Catholic treatment of Luther. They saw that that the approaches taken by Cochlaeus, Denifle, Grisar, O’Hare, and even the Old Catholic Encyclopedia were seriously flawed.

But consider the rise of the Internet. Catholic laymen with little or no knowledge of this historical progression zealously defend their beliefs. There is still a strong undercurrent of the previous tendency toward Luther vilification within the heart of many Catholic laymen. Thus begins the rise of web pages seeking to “expose” Luther- in the same way Catholic polemical approaches did previous to the 20th Century.

Then comes along the rise of the new breed of Catholic apologists- many of whom were ex-Protestants. Many of them got a hold of the reprint of the outdated and historically flawed book, The Facts About Luther. Some of them even got a hold of the books from the 19th Century- like those put out by Hartmann Grisar. I have a tendency to discredit the work of many of the new breed of Catholic apologists and laymen on Luther- simply because I have found in many instances, they are not really doing historical work on Luther- but are simply parroting back the old polemical work put forth by Grisar and O’Hare.

Consider also the impact of Erik Erikson’s book, Young Man Luther-, which is widely available, and came at a time when the psychoanalytical approach to history was taken seriously. Erikson’s book gave the approach of Denifle and Grisar new life- the book is easily available and has wide distribution. Numerous authors have seriously debunked Erikson’s psychoanalytical approach to Luther- but for the most part, these refutations are ignored. I recall sitting next to a stranger at a classical concert. She overheard me talking about Luther, and commented that Luther had serious psychosis and Erickson’s book proved it. Was this person a Christian? No, probably not- she was just someone who read this popular book of worldly wisdom and bought it hook, line, and sinker.

My discussion with Art Sippo is thus geared toward exposing his outdated approach to understanding Luther, and also will serve as a tool for proving the theory above. Sippo serves as an example of the stereotypical Catholic laymen approach to Luther. Sippo is infected with the typical pop-apologetical approach to all things Protestant. He vilifies Luther rather than understand Luther. He vilifies the Reformation rather than understand the Reformation. Because he is given a particular weight of authority, he perpetuates hostile polemic that feeds those who are already emotionally geared against the Reformation.

I think that the scales are tipped towards the Catholic apologists when it comes to disseminating information about Luther and the Reformation. I think they put forth a lot of criticism that goes unanswered by Protestants. I can understand why Protestants generally don’t spend the time to provide responses about Luther- and my Guest blogger Frank Marron provided some insight on this as well, found here:

Guest Blog: The Word Of The Lord Endures forever, Not The words Of Martin Luther!

I applaud my fellow Protestants for spending the majority of their time defending the Bible rather than the man, Luther. This is indeed the main battlefield. On the other hand, I think it necessary to at least provide historical answers to the Reformation when they arise. In this, I think Protestant apologetic sites could do much more.

My work on the Reformation grows out of a frustration with knowing that cogent answers have existed for quite a long time- but have not been disseminated down from the ivory towers of academia. Catholic apologists do a much better job of putting forth mis-information about the Reformation than Protestants do in responding to it. I see the same questions and comments from Catholic laymen over and over again- but just try going to some of the more popular Protestant apologetic sites to find responses about the charges against Luther. It is not an easy task to find answers.

My evaluation of Art Sippo will be really an exercise in Presuppositional apologetics, as most of my work is. Sippo begins with flawed presuppositions, therefore his conclusions are flawed. Sippo’s approach is an extreme version of the majority of pop-Catholic apologetics. Sometimes though, dealing with the extreme is an excellent way to be prepared to analyze those in the same vein that have less intensity. Ironically, in reading Sippo’s comments thus far, I have a new appreciation for those less extreme in hostile polemic.