"Sola Ecclesia"

Since the use of the term “sola ecclesia” is being questioned in the previous post, I thought I would try to briefly clarify (since Rhology is on hiatus).

In regards to the rule of faith, "Sola Ecclesia = Church Alone" as "Sola Scriptura = Scripture Alone".

From the Catholic Encyclopedia under the heading “THE CHURCH AS THE RULE OF FAITH”:

This follows necessarily from any adequate view of the Church as a Divinely constituted body, to whose keeping is entrusted the deposit of faith, but the grounds for this doctrine may be briefly stated as follows…If faith is necessary for all men at all times and in all places, and if a true saving faith demands a clear knowledge of what we have to believe, it is clear that an infallible teaching Church is an absolute necessity. Such a Church alone can speak to men of all classes and at all times; it alone can, by reason of its perpetuity and ageless character, meet every new difficulty by a declaration of the sound form of doctrine which is to be held. If the teaching of Christ and His Apostles is distorted, none but the Church can say "This is its true meaning, and not that; I know that it is as I say because the Spirit which assists me is One with the Spirit which rested on Him and on them"; the Church alone can say, "Christ truly rose from the tomb, and I know it, because I was there, and saw the stone rolled back". The Church alone can tell us how we are to interpret the words "This is My Body", for she alone can say, He Who spoke those words speaks through me, He promised to be with me all days, He pledged Himself to safeguard me from error at all times".

Sola Scriptura vs Sola Ecclesia blog debate

Though I'm on a short hiatus, I'm pulling a centuri0n and calling attention to the debate blog between TurretinFan and Orthodox, who frequently comments here. It's very interesting so far and I'd encourage you to take a look.

Necessary for Salvation

Catholic Catechism:

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation…

1277 Baptism...is necessary for salvation, as is the Church herself...

183 Faith is necessary for salvation…

1129 The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation…

980 …This sacrament of Penance is necessary for salvation…

846 ...the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation...

1816 …Service of and witness to the faith are necessary for salvation…

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

837 …Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved.

2036 The authority of the Magisterium extends also to the specific precepts of the natural law, because their observance, demanded by the Creator, is necessary for salvation…

2068 …so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments.


Council of Trent:

CANON XXXII.-If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.


Catechism of St. Pius:

39 Q: What are the conditions necessary to obtain Heaven?
A: The conditions necessary to obtain Heaven are the grace of God, the practice of good works, and perseverance until death in His holy love.


Baltimore Catechism
Q. 476. Is grace necessary to salvation?
A. Grace is necessary to salvation, because without grace we can do nothing to merit heaven.

Q. 477. Can we resist the grace of God?
A. We can, and unfortunately often do, resist the grace of God.

Q. 478. Is it a sin knowingly to resist the grace of God?
A. It is a sin, knowingly, to resist the grace of God, because we thereby insult Him and reject His gifts without which we cannot be saved.

Q. 479. Does God give His grace to every one?
A. God gives to everyone He creates sufficient grace to save his soul; and if persons do not save their souls, it is because they have not used the grace given.

Luther's Use of Reason (AKA: Atheists Need To Do Some Homework)

From my mailbox:

"Here's an alleged Luther quotation that is being at least misapplied by some atheists: “Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but - more frequently than not - struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God." (source) I know you are one of the on-line experts when it comes to debunking Luther misuse, so I thought I'd bring it to your attention. Perhaps, if you have time, you could respond to this particularly outspoken atheist website."

Ah, Atheists, freethinkers, skeptics, and agnostics love these type of Luther quotes. I could send them 50 similar in content to put on their websites and blogs. Unfortunately, they usually have no idea what Luther actually means. The person above may actually grip it a bit, but after reading his de-conversion story, I was impressed by the fact, once again, that there is no happy union between Jerusalem and Athens, particularly since Athens steals capital from the worldview of Jerusalem.

Note his commentary on the above Luther quote: "Martin Luther could scarcely have worded it better. For the greater part of my life, I held a faith that I believed was unified with reason." I would suggest, fallen, unregenerate reason, will never produce a faithful Christian worldview. This person was bound to a non-Christian position.

He then says, "I was a devout Christian in every sense of the word, living a life for Christ and striving to place him (or at least my perception of him) at the center of all my endeavors." I would note, he was devout not in every sense of the word, because he sought to unite some form of natural theology with Christian theology. This is a recipe for failure.

He comments, "... I committed the same crime of reason that nearly all believers are guilty of committing throughout the whole of their walk: I never truly questioned my faith." I would suggest, he has not even begun to question his faith. If he was trained like I was in secular philosophy, he would be faced with questioning every aspect of his very being, and arriving where I did: everything, and I mean everything, is reducible to faith a claim. It is not simply Christians who begin with basic presuppositions, it is everyone. At some point, every person can be reduced down to some unproven beginning point. It is simply naive to think Christians accept things on faith, while others do not.

Now, this particular de-conversion story appears to be from a youngster, so I expect him to think reality is not what his parents told him, and he now knows better. He is welcome to e-mail me privately, and I will gladly send him the Bahnsen Stein debate, free, and answer whatever epistemological questions he has.

But, as to the Luther quote: This quote comes from the older version of Luther's Tabletalk. Here is the context:

The anabaptists pretend that children, not as yet having reason, ought not to receive baptism. I answer: That reason in no way contributes to faith. Nay, in that children are destitute of reason, they are all the more fit and proper recipients of baptism. For reason is the greatest enemy that faith has: it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but - more frequently than not - struggles against the Divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God. If God can communicate the Holy Ghost to grown persons, he can, a fortiori, communicate it to young children. Faith comes of the Word of God, when this is heard; little children hear that Word when they receive baptism, and therewith they receive also faith.

An immediate comment must be made: Luther did not write this. The Tabletalk is a collection of sayings attributed to Luther, written down by either his students or friends. That being said, note the context: Luther is responding to Anabaptists who say children should not be baptized. Luther insists that they should, and adds that their reasoning against it is not Biblical reasoning. Whether you agree with Luther or not, something should strike the reader as very odd: Luther is using "reasoning" to denigrate reason! What is going on here?

Luther was quite familiar with “reason.” It is usually the situation that those examining Luther’s use of “reason” lack a significant understanding of his theology. My comments below are largely based on my notes on lectures by Lutheran scholar Robert Kolb, and Siegbert Becker's book, The Foolishness of God (Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House, 1999). Becker's books is, in my opinion, the best book in print on Luther's use of reason.

When Luther approached the Scriptures, he rejected the medieval use of the logical, “ergo” (therefore). He thought that theology is not systematic theological "reasoning." It is not simply the matter of moving from one human conclusion to another. Theology is always a matter of “denote.” For instance, instead of making an argument X + Y therefore= Z, Luther would express the same argument by his use of “nevertheless.” That is, X + Y nevertheless Z. A good example of this would be Luther's approach to the atonement and predestination. Luther believed that specific individuals were chosen and predestined, and that Christ died for these specific individuals. This is Calvinism 101. Nevertheless, according to Luther, Christ died for every single human being. His blood was shed for every single person. This is not Calvinism 101. Do you know what this called? Paradox. Luther was the king of paradox.

Luther though, did not reject natural theology completely (even though he felt it gave rise to false theology attempting to define the “hidden God”). Still, he didn’t think it worth a whole lot. For Luther, God reveals himself in the Scriptures or in the sacraments. Here alone God becomes present to reveal himself.

But what about general revelation? Does not God also reveal Himself there as well? Luther believed that man through philosophy can know something about God, but it cannot determine what God’s attitude toward us is, or how He wants to relate to us. This crucial knowledge can only be known by revelation.

Luther rejected the popular “prove it” mentality found in the popular theology of his day. The popular theology demanded “signs” (empirical epistemology), and also demanded “wisdom” (rational epistemology). In Luther’s concept of the “theology of the cross,” he posited a different presupposition about human knowledge and salvation. In terms of knowledge, God has placed himself above human control; He reveals Himself in the promise that elicits faith. Sometimes these promises will not seem rational to fallen human beings.

In Luther’s theology, faith is a gift from God. God is in charge of our hearing His Word and our learning of Him. God controls access to Himself. The human heart responds to God by faith. God must step out of “hiding” and reveal himself to us. He doesn’t reveal Himself with signs or wisdom (through empirical epistemology or rational epistemology). He reveals Himself with a promise that invites faith. We know God only by the faith that He creates in us. Faith is active and embraces God. Faith places us at the mercy of God. God informs us that the baby in the crib is God almighty, and the tortured man on the cross is God almighty. Human reasoning will never arrive at this, that the supreme God of all reality is found crying in a crib or suffering in agony on a cross. Only faith will embrace this, and if you think about it, it is quite a paradox... that God is found most clearly in a crib or a cross.

In a “traditional” concept of faith, faith is put into something that we can empirically or rationally verify. With this mind, Luther says by looking at the God of the Bible, one comes to know a “weak and foolish God,” since this God is not known by wisdom and signs (or by a process we can control). The God of the Bible reveals himself in what “reason” would think is foolishness: God is found in a crib, and on a cross.

Luther though, must not be seen as rejecting human reason. He did teach that God had fashioned His human creatures so we could learn a great deal about Him through empirical ways of learning, but reason was always to play the role of a servant. Hence, when one reads strong statements by Luther against reason (say, in some anti-Luther work from the late 19th Century), one must keep in mind that Luther valued reason, but it must be the “handmaid” to theology. It must be the servant. It is not that Luther didn’t understand the use of “reason,” it is simply the fact that “reason” must be kept in its place in theological matters.

I have only one question to ask the Atheist using this quote. While he claimed to be a Christian, did he ever read 1 Corinthians 1?

For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, "I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE." Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no man may boast before God. But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, so that, just as it is written, "LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD.

Catholic Historian on Trent and Salvation

Perhaps I am reading him incorrectly, but I have a feeling that Catholic historian Henri Daniel-Rops would be considered out-of-touch with "cutting-edge Catholic thought", especially as it relates to the interpretation of Trent. Daniel-Rops seems to recognize that the Reformation occurred for a reason and that Protestant and Catholic soteriology aren't as similar as some modern-day Catholics propose. In his book The Catholic Reformation, Daniel-Rops had this to say about the Council of Trent:

“The part played in the great debate by Luther, Calvin and the rest was exactly that recognized long since by St. Paul, in a celebrated passage to the Corinthians [1 Cor 11:19] as belonging to heretics. On the spiritual plane the Catholic revival…owed nothing to anti-Protestant endeavours; but on the doctrinal level the blows delivered by the heretics led the Church to discern more clearly those points of her structure which were threatened and to reinforce them accordingly. Every one of the great Protestant theses was surveyed by the Council, which opposed to it the Catholic truth, especially the three fundamentals bearing upon revelation and the bases of doctrine, upon the role of faith, works and grace, and upon the sacraments with particular reference to the Eucharist.”

…Luther won many followers by his doctrine of justification by faith, even while Calvin preached the terrible thesis of predestination in the cathedral of St. Peter in Geneva. Against these theories the Council took its stand...Luther and Calvin place no confidence in man. The Council of Trent has such confidence, because man bears within himself an ineffable likeness, which no defilement can erase. This is not to say that he is unscathed; original sin is there sure enough, and is minutely defined in five canons. But, darkened as it is by sin, human nature is not irremediably affected. Reason and will are damaged, but it is not true that they are without clear-sightedness, integrity and energy. What God asks of man is that he should co-operate fully in the work of his salvation, certain meanwhile that his effort is vain without grace, but equally assured that grace will not be refused to him so long as he remains faithful. Works therefore are necessary; faith alone is not enough. A Christian guilty of mortal sin is deprived of grace and condemned, even though he believes. Considerable stress is laid upon this double role of faith and works in decrees of the sixth session (thirty-three canons in sixteen chapters), which are due in large measure to the saintly Cardinal Cervini, afterwards Pope Marcellus II. Justification is not secured by faith alone, still less by Luther’s “conviction” of being justified. It requires human effort as well as the operation of God’s mercy.”

…Thus on all essential points of difference between Catholic tradition and heretical doctrine the Council speaks and resolutely determines what is to be believed. Its achievement is of capital importance, assuring to the Church stability of her foundations, removing revealed truth from the arena of debate, establishing rules which none henceforward can reject without lapsing into error.”

The Catholic Reformation by Henri Daniel-Rops (pgs 96-98)
First Published in France, 1955
Nihil obstat: Joannes M.T. Barton, S.T.D.,L.S.S., Censor deputatus
Imprimatur: E. Morrogh Bernard, Vic. Gen., Westmonasterii, die 21a Novembris, 1961

Worship and the Theology of the Cross In One Sentence

johnMark

I just want to share some thoughts as we prepare for the Lord's Day. Why are we going to worship the Lord tomorrow or any other day? Are we going to get an experience out of it like a trip to the zoo? Are we to seek an emotional experience like you get at the end of watching Old Yeller? Sinners that we are I believe these attitudes can creep in and we can think like that which is a reason that our journey doesn't end when by God's grace we come to faith in Jesus Christ. It begins.

At the same time, for example, when a very popular and influential pastor writes the following words that I stumbled upon we can begin to think too highly of ourselves.

Worship is not for your benefit. As a pastor, I receive notes that say, “I loved the worship today. I got a lot out of it.” This is another misconception about worship. It isn’t for our benefit! We worship for God’s benefit. When we worship, our goal is to bring pleasure to God, not ourselves.

If you have ever said, “I didn’t get anything out of worship today,” you worshiped for the wrong reason. Worship isn’t for you. It’s for God. Of course, most “worship” services also include elements of fellowship, edification, and evangelism, and there are benefits to worship, but we don’t worship to please ourselves. Our motive is to bring glory and pleasure to our Creator.

There is a larger context to this quote and, of course, I agree that the purpose is to bring glory to God and I even agree with much of this article. However, the implication is almost that God needs our worship. I'm not saying that our worship doesn't please God, but I will say individually that I know mine doesn't always! I'm there because I need Him not because I have something that He benefits from. I can't imagine getting up Sunday morning thinking that I'm getting ready to go benefit God because of my worship. Bringing glory to God through worship is coming to Him in a joyful sorrow with a repentant heart. I'm not trying to fully unpack the differences between the two positions, rather I am trying to challenge the attitude of how we approach God. How many times to we weep like Peter after he denied Christ when we deny Him? How often would we weep?

Gene Edward Veith gives a short Theology of the Cross for Dummies post that gives a little something further to think about. And for a little more to think about there is a great chart at the Confessing Evangelical blog. In the comment thread of this post is the one sentence rhetorical question that sums up worship and the Theology of the Cross.

Who should be thankful at the end of a service: God, or us?


Just think about it...
Mark

For Algo: Surprised By Truth #15

Here's one for Surprised By Truth #15. Algo in the Prosapologian chat channel reminded of this interesting Roman Catholic conversion story from April 2007.

People swim the Tiber for all sorts of reasons. This time the swim began because free tapes weren't given out.

A little background: I had stopped by the Catholic Answers forums, and I was dialoging about the Apocrypha. Enjoy this interesting conversion story, that was posted in response to my comments on the Apocrypha:

Ah are you the same James Swan who works for James White?The Same James Swan who when would not offer me even one apolgetic tape at a reduced price when I was exploring Christianity when I was having financial difficulties? You thumbed your nose at my propistion at the time Even though I promised to pay you latter?

Well thanks to your greed and James White and the generosity of the Bible Christian Society who offered a lot of materails for nothing I am a catholic who happens to be debating your false claims again and again. Well things are beter now and I paid the Bible Christian Society latter, the same propisition you turned down. Well I know you and your organization for what you are greed and false witness. Thank God for John Martgnoni whose was far more interested in my salvation than making a buck. I am sure your deny this as you deny other truths but its a true story.

There are other protestants that are not hack apolgist like James WHite and WIlliam Webster and yourself. So why would we waste our money on your biased observations? There are more objective protestant sources to go to. ANd besides you were very rude and crude to a a spritual seeker when he was a little light in the wallet.

It seems you were only interested in sharing your faith when it didn't cost you anything? Again you could not spare one tape?

And your post of your debates here in catholic answers that are taken out of context and selectively without our full responses and explanations are another chance of cheap shot tactics. I challenge all seekers to do what I did ask for tapes from the Bible Christian Society for virtually nothing and study what John has to say.

My response:

For the first time since I've been on the boards, I came very close to using the alert feature and reporting Wisdom's last post. Perhaps though, we can avoid such silliness.

I contribute articles for James White's aomin.blog, but I am not employed by Dr. White. I'm not sure who you are confusing me with.

To my knowledge, I have never spoken to you before, unless it was here via these Catholic Answers discussion boards (which I have visited off and on for a few years). I can assure you, I have nothing to do with selling tapes, books, or whatever. I live hundreds of miles away from Alpha and Omega Ministries. I would need a plane to get there and answer the phone.

That being said, much of the same material found in either Dr. White's books or tapes can be found for free on his website.

I find it hard to fathom that discount tapes or books are a factor in conversion, but I guess it's possible. The Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons often give out free material, and people do convert to these cults. I would much rather study the Bible, the very word of God, and follow it, rather than tapes, books, or materials put out by a particular organization.

Simply because discount tapes are not provided does not mean a particular organization is comprised of "hack apologists". Dr. White and William Webster are Godly men who do very good work. On the other hand, I would be careful placing your faith in any fallible human or apologist. If I were you, I'd simply study the Bible and history, and evaluate all arguments and facts put forth by everybody. This way, we could actually rationally discuss Ximenes, Archbishop of Toledo.

Regards,James SwanBeggars All: Reformation and Apologetics

The counter-response:

You seem to be overly familiar with alpha and omega ministries and yes your entier diatribe here is from the James White playbook its as if I am speaking to James White assistant at Alpha and Omega Ministires. The infalliability of of WIlliam Webster and James White are your usual trump card along with posting info on your blog. Sorry if this awful coincidence is just that but somehow I feel like this has all been done before or is it you guys seem to be all clones in your anti-catholic tactics. Look if its not you apologize but the expereince was actual and your responses are overly familiar.. This line that James White and WIlliam Webster are godly men and that my motive was suspect because they personally felt books and tapes were meaningless in converstions but on the other hand sold them to convert others is another tactic used by Alpha and Omega's assistance. Man if your not working for them you should as they use the exact same mantras. Of course the fact you used many of the same apologetic materials as Aplah and Omega is another suscipion. Oh well tell your twin in bizarro land that he has an imposter.

Wycliffe's Response to Church Authority

I picked up Great Voices of the Reformation from the library and was reading Wycliffe’s tract entitled AntiChrist’s Labour to Destroy Holy Writ. I was amused by the opening paragraph:

"As our Lord Jesus Christ ordained by the writing of the four evangelists, to make his gospel surely known, and maintained against heretics, and men out of the faith; so the devil, even Satan, devises by antichrist and his worldly false clerks, to destroy holy writ and Christian men's belief, by four accursed ways or false reasons. 1. The church is of more authority, and more to be believed than any gospel. 2. That Augustine said he would not believe the gospel if the church had not taught him so. 3. That no man alive knows which is the gospel, but by the approving of the church. 4. If men say that they believe this is the gospel of Matthew or John, they ask, Why believest thou that this is the gospel? as though they would say, There is no cause but that the church confirmeth and teacheth it."

I could not find an actual date for this writing, but since Wycliffe died in 1384 we can know it was written before that date. What I found so amusing was that even back in the late 1300s (prior to the Reformation), the same arguments for the authority of the Roman Catholic Church were being used. Coincidently, James posted about the same arguments in Luther’s time (just hours after I read Wycliffe’s tract), so I thought I would add Wycliffe’s response to #2 also:

"…They bear upon Augustine that he saith thus; That he would not believe the gospel unless the church said it. True men being answered thus, suppose that Augustine said this word. But he said to this intent, That unless Christ, head of holy church and saints in heaven, and the apostles of Christ that are holy church, said and approved this gospel, he would not believe thereto. And this understanding is full true, and reasonable, and according to the words of Augustine; but they understand them, that unless the multitude of accursed worldly clerks approve this for the gospel, Augustine would not believe the gospel of Jesus Christ; and since Augustine was, and is, so great a doctor of holy church, no man should believe the gospel, unless the church of these prelates confirm that this is the gospel of Christ; and unless the multitude of antichrist's clerks approve the gospel or truth of holy writ, no man should hold the gospel, or any command of God, or maintain any truth against antichrist, and his worldly prelates. But what heresy might sooner destroy Christian man's belief? and God forbid that Augustine were in perilous heresy, or any Christian man, therefore it is [lies] to slander St. Augustine with this accursed error, to colour their own false understanding and heresy by this holy doctor."

I just wanted to post a few words on the blog and my schedule.

First, a very big thanks to Carrie, Alan, and John Mark for their great contributions. I am currently taking a class (on top of my already hectic schedule), so their help has kept this blog going. I'm really enjoying having others posting along with me. This was actually something I've intended to do for quite some time, and I'm thankful for God's timing in bringing these people over here. I am still waiting for RAY AVILES to come on board. Ray is a long time cyber-friend, I've extended the invite, but he has a busy schedule also. I will continue to pester him until I get my way. He can even post in Spanish if he wants to.

Secondly, I must offer my apologies for those of you wishing to engage me in some of my recent posts. I just don't have the time. One particular person wondered why I wasn't simply quoting Augustine, but rather I quoted Luther quoting Augustine. He missed the point, which was to show that Protestants have engaged the pop-Catholic-apologetics quotes already. That being said, I've actually thought about not allowing comments on the posts I put up until I have time to defend or explain something I've written. I think though I'll leave my com-box open, and those of you wishing to comment should take this opportunity to speak your mind knowing you will get little back from me (in other words, declare yourselves "victors" and enjoy your triumph).

Third, I've seen that the blog has been attracting more than a few Roman Catholics, and some are complaining about how poorly they are being treated, while at the same time acting less than respectfully. Carrie, Alan, and John Mark are free to delete whichever comments they want to. Also, I will delete comments if any of my friends come by and are either insulted or offended.

If you are Roman Catholic (or Orthodox, Mormon, or adhere to some form of sola ecclesia), you are welcome to post your comments and defend your beliefs.

Apology to S&S

My apologies to Saint and Sinner for likely alerting DA to his series on DA’s book by my post here. I had no idea this would get DA so fired up that he would not only write about S&S in a new post, but move on to a whole diatribe against James White who has absolutely nothing to do with any of this.

S&S has only written an introduction to his series and already the backlash begins. I’ll admit, I don’t think I have ever read through an entire DA post because they get so long, but I hope S&S can get through a few posts without being barraged by DA and others with what mostly amounts to off-topic rants. I would suggest that Catholics who would like to interact with S&S's posts actually come up with exegetical arguments without using the word "anti-Catholic" (I counted 9 uses of that term in DA's post).

Again S&S, I am looking forward to your series!

Anti-Catholic Propaganda

Catholic Answers is asking for money to save the US Troops in Iraq from the real enemy: Anti-Catholic Propagandists:

"Imagine yourself in this situation...

You’re a young American soldier, born and raised Catholic, and you’re deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan or some other hot spot in the world today.

You risk your life on a daily basis. You’re fighting an increasingly unpopular war. Death and despair are all around you—and there’s little you can do about it.

This is a time when you need your Catholic faith and the soul-sustaining grace of the sacraments the most.

Yet, at the same time that you’re in harm’s way, you’re also “under fire” from zealous anti-Catholics who want you to go AWOL from the Catholic faith.

At night in your barracks, they ply you with tracts and booklets that show how unbiblical the Catholic religion is. They recite their version of the history of the Church and try to convince you that Catholicism is essentially pagan or blasphemous—and guilty of outright idolatry.

Now, bear in mind, you’re young—and you weren’t well-schooled in the catechism and Catholic apologetics when you were growing up. So you listen to the seemingly plausible arguments of the anti-Catholics . . . you stare blankly at your MRE . . . and you wonder if there are any answers to these attacks on your faith.

Out of loyalty, you try your best to defend the beliefs, practices, and traditions that the Fundamentalists are targeting. But to no avail—because you’re not equipped to defend the faith against such attacks.

Then, before you know it, you start to doubt the Catholic faith. You start reading the tracts and books that your buddy in the foxhole gave you. You even begin attending Protestant Bible studies. And then their church services. You discover that they’re really nice people, and they truly love the Lord.

Before you know it, you’re renouncing your Catholic faith and saying, “I used to be Catholic, but then I studied the Bible, and now I’m Christian!”

This happens every day among our armed forces.

The anti-Catholic zealots “target” the poorly-catechized Catholic troops they’re stationed with—and “save” them for the Lord by getting them to abandon Catholicism...

...You see, a high proportion (over 25%) of our troops are Catholics. Most are young and not well educated in the faith, so they are easy targets for the propaganda of anti-Catholic zealots.

Whether on a ship, on base, or in a foxhole, these troops are a captive audience for the Fundamentalists, who are encouraged by their own chaplains to evangelize Catholics and recruit them for Protestant Bible studies. Protestant chaplains have even been known to hand out Jack Chick publications—the worst anti-Catholic propaganda of all.

Well, a few years ago, we decided to do something about this problem..."

It's funny how easily "separated brethern" becomes "zealous anti-Catholics" when not in mixed company. Be sure to read the whole letter through.

Luther's Response To, "I Would Not Believe The Gospel Without The Authority of Rome"

I was listening to a Catholic Answers broadcast and heard Tim Staples repeat the oft-quoted words of Augustine, "I would not believe the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so." I thought about how interesting it was that the same material used today to defend sola ecclesia was used during the time of the Reformation as well.

I would like to provide the answers given by both Luther and Calvin. First, is Luther's answer:

"St Augustine is quoted as having written in the book against the Letter of the Manicheans, "I would not believe the Gospel if I did not believe the Church." Here you see we are to believe the Church more than the Gospel.

I answer: Even if Augustine had used those words, who gave him authority, that we must believe what he says? What Scripture does he quote to prove the statement? What if he erred here, as we know that he frequently did, as did all the fathers? Should one single sentence of Augustine be so mighty as to refute all the texts quoted above [Luther had quoted a variety of texts proving the supreme authority of Scripture]? That is not what God wills; St. Augustine must yield to them.

Further, if that were St. Augustine's meaning he would contradict himself; for in very many places he exalts the HoIy Scriptures above the opinions of all teachers, above the decrees of all councils and churches, and will have men judge of him and of the teachings of all men according to the Scriptures. Why then do the faithful shepherds pass by those sayings of St. Augustine, plain and clear as they are, and light on this lonely one, which is so obscure and sounds so unlike Augustine as we know him from all his writings? It can only be because they want to bolster up their tyranny with idle, empty words.

Furthermore, they are deceivers, in that they not only ascribe to St. Augustine an opinion he did not hold, but they also falsify and pervert his words. For St. Augustine's words really are 'I would not have believed the Gospel if the authority of the whole Church had not moved me.'

Augustine speaks of the whole Church, and says that throughout the world it with one consent preaches the Gospel and not the Letter of the Manicheans; and this unanimous authority of the Church moves him to consider it the true Gospel. But our tyrants apply this name of the Church to themselves, as if the laymen and the common people were not also Christians. And what they teach they want men to consider as the teaching of the Christian Church, although, they are a minority, and we, who are universal Christendom, should also be consulted about what is to be taught in the name of universal Christendom. See, so cleverly do they quote the words of St. Augustine: what he says of the Church throughout all the world, they would have us understand of the Roman See.

But how does it follow from this saying that the doctrines of men are also to be observed? What doctrine of men has ever been devised that has been accepted and preached by all of the universal Church throughout the world? Not one; the Gospel alone is accepted by all Christians everywhere.

But then we must not understand St. Augustine to say that he would not believe the Gospel unless he were moved thereto by the authority of the whole Church. For that were false and unchristian. Every man must believe only because it is God's Word, and because he in convinced in his heart that it is true, although an, angel from heaven and all the world preached the contrary. His meaning is rather, as he himself says, that he finds the Gospel nowhere except in the Church, and that this external proof can be given heretics that their doctrine is not right, but that that is right which all the world has with one accord accepted. For the eunuch in Acts viii, 37, believed on the Gospel as preached by Philip, although he did not know whether many or few believed on it. So also Abraham believed the promise of God all by himself, when no man knew of it, Romans iv, 18. And Mary, Luke i, 38, believed the message of Gabriel by herself, and there was no one on earth who believed with her. In this way Augustine also had to believe, and all the saints, and we too, every one for himself alone.

For this reason St. Augustine's words cannot bear the interpretation they put upon them; but they must be understood of the external proof of faith, by which heretics are refuted and the weak strengthened in faith, when they see that all the world preaches and regards as Gospel that which they believe. And if this meaning cannot be found in St. Augustine's words; for they are contrary to the Scriptures and all to experience if they have that other meaning."

Source: Martin Luther, That Doctrines of Men Are to be Rejected Together With A Reply to Texts Quoted in Defence of the Doctrines of Men (1522), Works of Martin Luther Volume II (The Philadelphia Edition), Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1943, pp. 451-453.

Also, in a Tabletalk entry Luther is reported to have said the following:

Belief in the Gospel Because of the Church? (April 6, 1539)

“In the passage, ‘I would not believe the gospel unless the authority of the church urged me to,’ Augustine never wished to embrace the opinion of the papists. He didn’t want to write what should be believed but what should be judged, as another passage indicates, ‘I do not wish you to believe my writings more than the Holy Scripture.’ But the sophists poked fun at Paul for having written obscurely and confusedly. Ah, dear God, this treasure of the Holy Scriptures belongs only to a contrite heart and a humble and God-fearing spirit. The ungodly must be exposed and their boasting put down. This is what Stephen did in Acts 7 [:2–53], where he spoke against the place of Jerusalem, against the law, against the prosperous people, against a demanding God. Truly it was an excellent and sharp sermon! In the Roman church today the glory of the church is not at all comparable with the glory of Jerusalem and of the people Israel.”

Source: LW 54:344

....Continued sometime next week: Calvin's answer...

The Quotable Sippo #2

...Let Catholic Apologist Dr. Art Sippo speak for himself (cf. James 3:3-12).

Source: Envoy forums, 9/24/07

"Protestantism is morally degenerate whereas Catholicism remains morally responsible"

“...the foundation of Protestantism of all kinds is the noxious heresy of JBFA which is based on a form of amoralist humanism which makes 'right standing' before God a mere matter of formality that is completely lacking in moral content. The Protestant revolt tried to allay troubled consciences with mantras like 'Sin strongly believe more strongly!' which were thinly veiled euphemisms for the real notion that with regard to true inherent morality 'It just doesn't matter.'”

“This is what is so insidious about the Protestant system. It creates a fake veneer of moral rectitude, but when it comes down to cases, you don't have to be good to be considered good. Morality is a merely a personal affectation, not a requirement for salvation..”

“Protestants are only as "good" as they want to be. Ultimately, they can always fall back on "once saved always saved" or similar antinomian heresies to justify virtually anything.”

"The fist generation of Protestants wanted to divorce their tired old wives and marry nubile new ones. EVERY branch of the so-called "reformation" allowed this. Some Lutherans and Anabaptists actually advocated polygamy. Celibacy, the evangelical counsels, self-denial and contrition were all swept away in favor of Luther's "if it feels good do it" philosophy and the sin of presumption that it necessarily advocated."

Cooperation in Salvation

There are only two possible ways to salvation.

Salvation is either 100% of God or there is some amount of cooperation on the part of the sinner. Jesus either paid the price in full, or there is still some work to be done.

The Catholic model of salvation is one of cooperation between God and the sinner. Jesus’s perfect righteousness and death on the cross merited the grace for the sinner to justify (make righteous) himself.

This grace merited by Jesus (sanctifying grace) is given in increments starting with Baptism and is continued to be merited by the sinner through good works (sacraments, acts of charity, etc.). But sanctifying grace can also be lost through sin, and if you die without sanctifying grace in your soul, you will not make it to heaven.

"Once you have supernatural life, once sanctifying grace is in your soul, you can increase it by every supernaturally good action you do: receiving Communion, saying prayers, performing the corporal works of mercy. Is it worth increasing sanctifying grace once you have it; isn’t the minimum enough? Yes and no. It’s enough to get you into heaven, but it may not be enough to sustain itself. It’s easy to fall from grace, as you know. The more solidly you’re wed to sanctifying grace, the more likely you can withstand temptations.

And if you do that, you maintain sanctifying grace. In other words, once you achieve the supernatural life, you don’t want to take it easy. The minimum isn’t good enough because it’s easy to lose the minimum. We must continually seek God’s grace, continually respond to the actual graces God is working within us, inclining us to turn to him and do good.” Catholic.com

"Grace is the help God gives us to respond to our vocation of becoming his adopted sons. It introduces us into the intimacy of the Trinitarian life." CCC 2021

"We can have merit in God's sight only because of God's free plan to associate man with the work of his grace. Merit is to be ascribed in the first place to the grace of God, and secondly to man's collaboration. Man's merit is due to God." CCC 2025

"No one can merit the initial grace which is at the origin of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods." CCC 2027

"We can therefore hope in the glory of heaven promised by God to those who love him and do his will. In every circumstance, each one of us should hope, with the grace of God, to persevere "to the end" and to obtain the joy of heaven, as God's eternal reward for the good works accomplished with the grace of Christ..." CCC 1821

Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God's wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions. CCC 2010

"The preparation of man for the reception of grace is already a work of grace. This latter is needed to arouse and sustain our collaboration in justification through faith, and in sanctification through charity. God brings to completion in us what he has begun, since he who completes his work by cooperating with our will began by working so that we might will it: Indeed we also work, but we are only collaborating with God who works, for his mercy has gone before us." CCC 2001

"The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man's free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man's merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit." CCC 2008

This cooperation with God by the sinner to ensure salvation is quite different than the Protestant understanding of justification which relies on the completed work of Christ on the cross to reconcile the sinner to God (which is obtained by faith alone).

I've updated my blog page that has many of the articles and blog posts on Martin Luther. Take a look:

Martin Luther: Topical Master Index

It doesn't have everything, but it has most of it. This is more for my sake than yours. I have a hard time keeping track of everything I've written. This link can be found on my sidebar under "Archives".

A Conversation on Calvinism

johnMark

I was talking to an old friend from high school not long ago. We talked of many issues about church in general. I’ve run into this old friend in the church we now attend which is some 250+ miles away and 15+ years ago from High School. We caught up a little bit on old friends and old times. We talked theology and evangelism a bit and the “C” word came up.

Yes, Calvinism came up. I expressed my disappointment with such folks as Johnny Hunt, Nelson Price and others in the SBC who continuously take unjustified swipes at Calvinism. I mentioned the recent LifeWay study to my friend that showed only 10% of SBC pastors were Calvinistic and not necessarily Calvinist. This was just to make my point that if we are to deal with the problems in the SBC we may to well to look to the theological persuasion of the other 90% of SBC pastors. And if there is truth in these misrepresentations then give us names and real life examples. It’s certainly hard to address strawmen and hypothetical people.

The first thing I brought up was that from either side we have to contend with why did God create anyone who He knew from eternity past would never believe in Jesus and go to hell. Free will? Free will doesn’t answer this question since God already knew the outcome. Unless God some how owes man something unto the glory of man’s decision. Of course, we know God owes no man anything. Even so, God still knew from eternity who will and who will never believe. Yet, He still created them. We didn’t really go this route too much further.

Then, I remembered an old post I wrote as we were talking and brought up five points that are in my friend’s paradigm. I wanted to do this to show that God’s sovereignty is always a “problem” for man’s free will, even for those who are not Calvinists. I was going from memory, but I present them below in original form.

Premises:
1. God unequivocally wants all people to be saved. (referring to God’s decretive will not just His revealed will although most may not even think in these terms)

2. God gives each person equal measures of grace that they can cooperate with and be saved or resist and be damned.

3. Every single person has the ability to believe by cooperating with God’s measure of grace He has given them.

4. God is working within His creation to save all people trying to persuade/convince them to believe.

5. God in His omniscience and omnipotence knows what it would take for each person to believe and can maneuver elements in each persons life to so affect them.

I then asked why aren’t all men saved and hasn’t God has essentially failed? His reply was free will. But I just gave him his own paradigm in which to work. He didn’t take away a good understanding of my presentation or else I gave it very poorly. Hopefully, we can speak more on this another time. I really don’t see what choices one is left with in this paradigm other than God’s sovereignty at work one way or the other.

The glory and the relief of the way we interpret Scripture

The often wacky, sometimes insulting Lucian has commented on my blog, wondering about the many strains of interpretive tradition present in the life of Eastern Orthodoxy. Is it best to interpret the Scripture literally, he asks?


Among his propositions are to take Ezekiel 44:2 and apply it to the perpetual virginity of the BVMary.

Or to take the 4 rivers of the Paradise of Eden. In the literal interpretation, they are the four earthly rivers of Tigris, Euphrates, Pison and Gihon. On a more spiritual level, exemplified by the Exegetical School of Alexandria, the four rivers of Paradise are -let's say- the four cardinal virtues, which water our hearts.
And yet, on a still DEEPER, and, this time, Christological level, exemplified now by the Exegetical School at Antioch, the four rivers of the Paradise are the Four Gospels, which, -again-, water our hearts through the Holy Spirit that enbreathes them.

I, OTOH, am proposing the grammatico-historical method. The GHM employs the grammar, vocabulary, and context of the author, the historical context, the context of the passage in question, the context of the book, and the context of the rest of the Bible to determine authorial intent of the passage in question. That's the GHM in a nutshell. What the author intended is the correct interpretation.

This is, by the way, the method that anyone uses virtually all of the time while reading virtually anything. And of course authorial intent is what we want to discover since we believe that the Scripture is God speaking. Thus, obviously, we want to know what God said and less what man said about what God said, even though that has its (far subordinate) place.

Now, what does that mean for us in the examples Lucian brought up? Alot. The really fun thing is that EOx are often quick, as I mentioned, to question what a SS-ist might say in regard to, say, justification by faith alone. "That's just your individual, private interpretation! Your interp must agree with what The Church® says!"

A few points on that, by way of reminder:
1) How would I know I'm supposed to submit to what The Church® says except the Scr allegedly instructs me to do so? But of course that would be an individual private interpretation of the allegedly-supportive passages. Either that or I a priori accept The Church as infallible interper and then see that it teaches that these Scr psgs direct the reader to submit to The Church as infall interper. Problem solved either way, right?
2) Of course, I can't infallibly know what the infall interper says, b/c I'd be exercising private individual interp of what the infall interper said. I need an infall interper of the infall interper.
3) And then of course I'd need an infall interper of the infall interper of the infall interper of the Scr.
4) And then I'd need an infall interper of the infall interper of the infall interper of the infall interper of the Scr.
5) Another problem is that there is not necessarily any reason within EOdox Tradition to take the psgs that allegedly direct me to submit to the EOC as infall interper as a command. Rather, as demonstrated here by Lucian, there are a few possibilities:
a. I could go off into flights of allegorical fancy. No, Peter is not LITERALLY given the keys to the kingdom of heaven in Matt 16. Jesus changes Peter's name from bending reed (Simon) to Peter (rock), symbolising how the Jewish people would become no longer pliable to what the Lord said back in the days of Nehemiah and Ezra, and now they would be hardened in heart against the Messiah, and they would open the door to heaven for the Gentiles to come in.
b. I could easily, in my flight of fancy, contradict EO Tradition.
c. There's no good mechanism (beyond I said so b/c my bishop said so b/c The Church® said so) to distinguish between what is true and what is false in this tremendously wide scope of possibility of interpretations.
d. Why can't I just allegorise the crucifixion and the resurrection of Christ as well? Don't talk to me about context or 1 Corinthians 15. No, I'm spiritualising the text here. (Do I sound like John Shelby Spong yet?)

Or we could stick to the GHM and let the text speak for itself. The danger is, of course, to run the risk of private interps and unsupported, sinful ideas being taken and run with by someone, possibly leading people away with him. But I'd ask: How is that different than what we've seen here? Isn't Sacred Tradition just a chrismated bundle of private interps that somehow the amorphous, vague mass The Church® has "stated" that it will accept as part of its teaching? At least in this way, errors can be corrected from becoming fossilised and ingrained into the life of the church, never to be correctable again. Especially not by someone's "private interp."

Luther: The Assumption Was A Settled Fact? (Part 3)

I didn't plan on doing three entries on Luther and the Roman Catholic dogma of Mary's Bodily Assumption (especially since very few probably actually care). In the grand scheme of things, it is really an insignificant point. But, I like the fact of having these entries to refer back to when needed, and it is yet another opportunity to show what those devoted to Rome do with history in the service of their church. My previous entries can be found here:

Luther: The Assumption Was a Settled Fact?: A look at Catholic Apologist Mark Shea's proof that Luther believed in the Assumption because of a sculpture near his tomb.

Luther: The Assumption Was a Settled Fact? (Part 2): A look at Catholic apologist Peter Stravinskas' claim that Luther "...did not pronounce clearly on this subject, but was content simply to affirm it."

No treatment of Luther's Mariology would be complete without consulting the work of one particular Catholic apologist. He says on Luther and the Assumption:

"[Luther's]Later references to the Immaculate Conception appear in his House sermon for Christmas (1533) and Against the Papacy of Rome (1545). In later life (he died in 1546), Luther did not believe that this doctrine should be imposed on all believers, since he felt that the Bible didn't explicitly and formally teach it. Such a view is consistent with his notion of sola Scriptura and is similar to his opinion on the bodily Assumption of the Virgin, which he never denied - although he was highly critical of what he felt were excesses in the celebration of this Feast. In his sermon of August 15, 1522, the last time he preached on the Feast of the Assumption, he stated: "There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know. And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith . . . It is enough to know that she lives in Christ." Luther held to the idea and devotional practice of the veneration of Mary and expressed this on innumerable occasions with the most effusive language: "The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart."(Sermon, September 1, 1522)"

He uses similar argumentation of Stravinskas and Cole, but with a twist: Luther must have held a lifelong belief in the Assumption because he never denied it. In my earlier post, I traced the popular notion that Luther simply affirmed the Assumption, even though never pronouncing on it clearly, and that this notion comes from a mis-reading of a footnote by Max Thurian. His argument is only slightly different but just as weak. I pointed out this faulty method of argumentation in part one, via this quote:

"But an argument from silence is recognized by all to be quite weak. It implies that one must have almost total evidence before demonstration is possible. If this is the case, one could argue cogently that there may have been airplanes in the time of Christ." Dewey M. Beegle, Scripture, Tradition, and Infallibility (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1973), p. 178.

If we followed this method of argument, we could prove Luther believed in Santa or Bigfoot, simply because no evidence exists to prove he did not. I think it's important to keep in mind, it seems Catholic apologists do not have any positive evidence to offer that Luther actually believed in the Bodily Assumption of Mary. The closest they get is the 1522 quote, and this quote never affirms Mary's Bodily Assumption.

As I pointed out previously, by the time of his later lectures in Genesis, Mary is considered along with the other women of the Bible whose deaths are not recorded. One thing we can say about this quote, Mary's death is not distinguished from any of the other women whose deaths are not recorded in the Bible:

"Then one should much rather consider how Abraham delivered a beautiful funeral address about Sarah. For in the Holy Scriptures no other matron is so distinguished. Her years, lives, conduct, and burial place are described....Scripture has no comments even on the death of other matriarchs, just as it makes no mention of how many years Eve lived and of where she died. Of Rachel it is recorded that she died in childbirth (Gen. 35:16–19). All the other women it passes over and covers with silence, with the result that we have no knowledge of the death of Mary, the mother of Christ. Sarah alone has this glory, that the definite number of her years, the time of her death, and the place of her burial are described. Therefore this is great praise and very sure proof that she was precious in the eyes of God."

We can at least give this apologist credit for noting Luther's later disdain for the Feast of the Assumption. Catholic historian Thomas O’Meara points out:

“In 1544 the Assumption is abandoned as a feast; the Ascension of Christ alone is recognized: '“The feast of the Assumption is totally papist, full of idolatry and without foundation in the Scriptures. But we, even though Mary has gone to heaven, should not bother about how she went there. We will not invoke her as our special advocate as the Pope teaches. (The Pope takes away veneration due to the Ascension of our Lord, Christ, with the result that he has made the mother like in all things to the Son.)' "

William Cole points out that Luther,

"...used strong language....for the elimination of the Assumption as an aspect of the 'hypocritical church',” particularly in celebrating a feast for it. Cole cites Luther as saying in 1544: 'The feast of the Assumption is totally papist, full of idolatry and without foundation in the Scriptures. But we, even though Mary has gone to heaven, should not bother how she went there. We will not invoke her as our special advocate as the Pope teaches. The pope takes away the honor due to the Ascension of our Lord, Christ, with the result that he has made the mother like her Son in all things."

Catholic apologists seem to downplay this evidence. Somewhere I have the contexts of these Luther quotes, and I'll post them at a later date.

One thing I also wanted to mention about this internet apologist's argumentation is how similar it is to the old article by William Cole. Cole states:

"For Luther the Assumption seems not to be so much a matter of doubt as of little importance and this is perhaps the reason, as Max Thurian affirms, that Luther did not pronounce clearly on the subject, but was content simply to affirm it. It is in this sense that Walter Tappolet interpets the Reformer's sermon of August 15, 1522, the last time Luther preached on the Feast of the Assumption. Luther had said: 'There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know. And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith .' and then explained the significance for him: 'It is enough to know that she lives in Christ, as God is not the God of the dead, but of the living...' If in 1530, he uses strong language in his Admonition to the Ministers, calling for the elimination of the Assumption as an aspect of the 'hypocritical church,' the accent should be placed more on his animosity towards the Church and the celebration of one of its feasts than on the Assumption." [William J. Cole, "Was Luther a Devotee of Mary?" (Marian Studies), (1970), 123-124]

Since the internet apologist doesn't provide any bibliographic documentation for his information, I can think of only a few possibilities to explain the similarities between Cole's article and this apologist's later blog entry.

1. The internet apologist did primary research on Luther. He read Luther's sermon from 1522 in German, and then did a thorough study of all passages from Luther relevant to the Assumption.

2. The internet got a hold of Walter Tappolet's old book Das Marienlob der Reformatoren, translated it, and utilized it in similar fashion as Cole did. Many older writers utilized Tappolet's book. This really is one of the only books to look at this subject closely. In many ways, Catholic writing on Luther's Mariology are only footnotes to Tappolet's book. So, it is within the realm of possibility that the internet apologist used the same source Cole did.

3. The internet apologist did no primary research on Luther's view of the Assumption, but rather utilized Cole's article, or another writer who used Cole's article. Even this quote, "The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart" is in Cole's article.

This internet apologist hates when I point things like this out, but remember, he's the one claiming to be a professional Catholic apologist. Maybe those committed to Rome will take his research methods seriously, but I do not, unless of course, number #1 turns out to be the approach used. I'd even give him credit for number #2. The approach used in number #3 is simply what anyone can do. It takes no skill or insight. In other words, it is not the approach used by someone claiming to be a professional apologetic writer. At the very least, he could cite which source he used for his Luther/Assumption material, rather than giving the appearance he did actual research for his conclusions. Perhaps he has the information from which secondary source he used elsewhere on website, in which case I would offer my apology, but still challenge his conclusions, and exhort him to do primary research on Luther.

Cutting-Edge Catholic Interpretation

A discussion in the combox of this post veered into the topic of RC versus Protestant justification. In accusing me of “inaccuracies” and “caricatures” in my presentation of RC soteriology, David made some confusing assertions with regard to RC authority and interpretation:

The basic tenor of your above posts is that the issues between Catholics and Protestants on the all important teaching of “the Biblical gospel” are ‘black and white’ (i.e. clear –cut). I believe that just the opposite is true: the issues are very complex…There have been numerous works, recently published, that identify and discuss the complexities involved; and though great strides have been, and are being made, much more work is needed. Important for OUR discussion at hand is the need to be conversant with this literature, for if one is not ‘up-to-date’, one will be at a significant disadvantage.

To which I asked:

Are the Councils of Trent not up to date?

David’s response:

As up to date as the Bible; but the interpretation of Trent, like the ongoing process of interpreting the Bible, is not static; if you have not read what Catholic and Protestant scholars have written on Trent over the last couple of decades you are bound to misunderstand how Catholics are currently interpreting Trent.

I then responded:

Sorry, I thought Trent was infallible - I don't understand how that leaves room for future interpretation. If infallible councils are now a matter of interpretation for Catholic theologians (magesterium members or just random theologians?) then we are back to Rhology's argument that "infallibility" has gained you nothing in certainty and clarity.

David’s response:

There are degrees of clarity. Some defined doctrines are crystal clear, but others have room for further development….And BTW, what you so affectionately term “Protestantized form”, is simply cutting-edge, up to date, Catholic thought—that you have little interest in such scholarly discourse has painfully come to my attention.

I’ll admit, I haven’t kept up with “cutting-edge Catholic thought” as I wasn’t aware such a thing existed in an infallibly-led institution that claims almost 2000 years of consistency in teachings. Of course, this idea flies in the face of the certainty that an infallible authority is suppose to provide since 400+ years post-Trent it appears Catholics are still trying to figure out what the infallible Trent decrees actually mean. And in the context of justification, does this mean that Catholics are still not certain exactly how they are made right with God?

As supporters of this “cutting-edge Catholic thought”, David listed Augustine, Aquinas, Rahner, Yves Congar, Joseph Fitzmyer, Cardinal Dulles. It seems odd that the proper interpretation of Catholic truths should be coming from mostly Catholic theologians and not from the magesterium. If I were a lay Catholic, how would I know whose interpretation to trust? Would I know whether or not Hans Kung’s interpretation of Trent and justification is accurate (while ignoring his opposition to papal infalliblility)?

This is just another example of how the claims of Roman Catholic authority just don’t add up.

Luther: The Assumption Was a Settled Fact? (Part 2)

I have some further remarks on Luther and the Roman Catholic dogma of the Assumption. Let's take a closer look. Catholic apologist Peter Stravinskas states, "As far as the assumption goes, he 'did not pronounce clearly on this subject, but was content simply to affirm it.' "

First, note Stravinskas provides no references to any primary material from Luther writings. Rather, Stravinskas is citing the opinion of someone else, William J. Cole ["Was Luther a Devotee of Mary?" (Marian Studies), (1970), 123]. The odd thing about the Cole citation, is that Cole is also actually citing someone else's opinion! See for yourself:

"For Luther the Assumption seems not to be so much a matter of doubt as of little importance and this is perhaps the reason, as Max Thurian affirms, that Luther did not pronounce clearly on the subject, but was content simply to affirm it."

So I went and took at look at what Max Thurian said. Thurian's comment is as follows:

"On the issue of the Assumption Luther does not speak precisely but is content to assert on August 15th, 1522: 'From this gospel one cannot draw any conclusion about the fashion in which Mary is in heaven- it is not necessary any more to know the fate of the saints in heaven. It is enough to know that they dwell in Christ as God says in Matt. 22: 32: "God is not a God of the dead but of the living' making reference to the text of Exodus 3. 6: "I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob"' (ibid., 55)." (Thurian, Mary Mother of the Lord, Figure of the Church, p.197)

First, note Thurian never says Luther "simply affirmed" the Assumption. He says Luther made an assertion in 1522. So, shame on Stravinskas for not looking up the basis of Cole's opinion. Then, shame on William Cole, for reading into the Thurian quote the idea that Luther simply affirmed the Assumption. We can conclude therefore, that the basis for which this idea of Luther simply affirming the Assumption is based on a mis-reading of Thurian. Thurian states Luther did not speak precisely.

In regard to the Luther quote Thurian provided, there simply isn't enough of a context to know exactly what Luther was talking about. In 1522, early in the Reformation, it would not be so outrageous to find Luther making a statement like this that would allow for some version of the Assumption (as Thurian says elsewhere, the Assumption was"...accepted by certain Reformers, not of course in [its] present form but certainly in the form that was current in their day."). It is interesting to note that Thurian's research and this quote comes from yet another secondary source, Walter Tappolet’s Das Marienlob der Reformatoren. So, what we have here is an opinion on Luther's view in which no one except Tappolet has actually read the primary source. Thurian provides sparse comments on Luther’s Mariology. It is hardly a thorough treatment.

Now, let's take off our Assumption Dogma glasses for a moment with that Luther quote from 1522. Toward the end of his life, Luther delivered a series of lectures on the book of Genesis. Note the following quote:

"This is what Moses wanted to indicate when he speaks of 'the lives of Sarah.' It is as though he were saying: 'Sarah, in conformity with differences in places and people, often adopted a different attitude and different ways. When she came to a place where she thought she would live pleasantly and quietly, she was compelled to move and to change her plans and feelings as she did so.' For this reason that saintly woman had many lives. More attention should have been given to these things, although it is easy for me to believe that in her hundredth year she was just as beautiful as she was in her twentieth.

Then one should much rather consider how Abraham delivered a beautiful funeral address about Sarah. For in the Holy Scriptures no other matron is so distinguished. Her years, lives, conduct, and burial place are described. In the eyes of God, therefore, Sarah was an extraordinary jewel on whom extraordinary love was bestowed, and she is mentioned deservedly by Peter as an exemplar for all saintly wives. He says (1 Peter 3:6) that she called Abraham lord and that “you are her daughters.” To all Christian matrons Peter holds her up as a mother.

Scripture has no comments even on the death of other matriarchs, just as it makes no mention of how many years Eve lived and of where she died. Of Rachel it is recorded that she died in childbirth (Gen. 35:16–19). All the other women it passes over and covers with silence, with the result that we have no knowledge of the death of Mary, the mother of Christ. Sarah alone has this glory, that the definite number of her years, the time of her death, and the place of her burial are described. Therefore this is great praise and very sure proof that she was precious in the eyes of God.

But these facts do not concern Sarah, who is already dead, as much as they concern us, who are still alive. For it is a very great comfort to hear that the departure and death of that most saintly matriarch and of all the fathers, in comparison with whom we are nothing, differs in no wise from our own death but was just as odious and ignominious as our own is. Their bodies were buried, consumed by worms, and hidden in the earth on account of their stench, not otherwise than if they had not been the corpses of saints; yet they were most saintly people, and, although departed, they are actually alive in Christ.

Accordingly, these things are written for our sakes, in order that we may know that the most saintly fathers and mothers underwent the same experiences we are wont to undergo. Nevertheless, it is certain about them that in the eyes of God they live; and I believe that they — namely, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Adam, etc. — rose with Christ.

Note above how Luther treats Mary. He doesn't speak of some cryptic way in which Mary disappeared off the earth. No, she's placed in a list with others whose deaths are not recorded in Scripture, and are passed over in silence. Are we to assume, based on Luther's words, that all the women were Assumed into Heaven? For those wanting to affirm the Assumption, no lack of information will stop them from finding the Assumption, I'm sure.

Luther: The Assumption Was a Settled Fact?

I listened to a few of Catholic apologist Mark Shea's webcasts on the Assumption of Mary. Mark made one statement that I would be very interested in having documentation for:

"For Luther the Assumption was a settled fact...indeed Luther's burial vault in the Wittenburg church on whose door he had posted his ninety five theses was adorned with the 1521 Peter Vischer's sculpture of the Coronation of the Virgin."

First and foremost, I would be extremely interested in which primary references Shea can provide from Luther in which Luther explicitly confirms a lifelong belief in Mary's Assumption. Saying "settled fact" requires proof. A quote with a context would be nice (and I would hope not to get one of those sparse English translations from a German source that no one has, particularly the person making such a claim). I have done a lot of research into this, so if Shea can pull the assumption out of a Luther-hat, this I'd like to see.

Secondly, as to Luther's burial vault, Shea explains in an old blog entry (edit: no longer available, but found here, and here):

"And, of course, problems with it constituted no difficulty for the Reformers, which is why Luther's tomb is decorated with a bas-relief of the Assumption. Indeed, objections to Mary are johnny-come-latelies on the stage of Protestant theology, as is demonstrated by Fr. Peter Stravinskas in Mary and the Fundamentalist Challenge."

This is the claim made by Peter Stravinskas:

"Most interesting of all, perhaps, is the realization that his burial chamber in the Wittenberg church, on whose door he had posted his 95 Theses, was adorned with the 1521 Peter Vischer sculpture of the Coronation of the Virgin, with the inscription containing these lines: Ad summum Regina thronum defertur in altum: Angelicis praelatia choris, cui festus et ipse Filius occurrens Matrem super aethera ponit. This "archaeological" fact would seem to speak volumes about Luther's final thoughts on the place of Mary in the life of a Christian."

This website makes an interesting counter-claim:

"If one believes Peter Stravinskas, it would seem that this inscription on [Luther's] heart is reflected in the inscription on his tomb. Stravinskas published a generally good article on 'The Place of Mary in Classical Fundamentalism', but I'm afraid he made one pious mistake: He maintains that the sculpture of the Coronation of the Virgin and inscription by Peter Vischer the Younger which is to be found in the Wittenberger Schlosskirche, where Luther is burried, goes with Luther's tomb. I wish it were so, but I'm afraid it belongs to one of the other tombs in the church. If you google for images of Luther's tomb (or Luthers' Grabmal), you'll see that it is the simplest little slab of stone rising a little out of the floor of the main church, a good distance away from the walls - no "burial chamber" at all. The German tour guide "Baedekkers Allianz Reisefuehrer Deutschland, 1991" mentions that "in the Schlosskirche there is a piece of art by Peter Vischer the Younger, who also created the tombs of Sir Hans Hundt and Prior Henning Gode." So if somebody out there could go by the church and let us know to which tomb this obscure "piece of art" belongs, I would much appreciate it."

And this website states:

"2. Epitaph for Henning Goeden
Directly to the right is located "The Coronation of Mary", a bronze plate created in 1521 by Peter Fischer the Younger, a founder from Nuremburg. A work of great aesthetic merit, the plate is the tombstone for Henning Goden, Jurist and last Catholic Provost of the Castle Church."

But, ok, let's for a moment grant that Luther's burial chamber has this particular sculpture. How in the world does this serve as proof Luther held a lifelong belief in the assumption as a settled fact? Mark, if you read this, please try an understand, lack of proof does not mean "proof". You must do better than a burial tomb, or stating something like Luther never spoke against it. Take these words to heart:

"But an argument from silence is recognized by all to be quite weak. It implies that one must have almost total evidence before demonstration is possible. If this is the case, one could argue cogently that there may have been airplanes in the time of Christ." Dewey M. Beegle, Scripture, Tradition, and Infallibility (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1973), p. 178.