The author of Hebrews states, “The word of God is living and active, sharper than any double- edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart” (Heb. 4:12). The certainty that God has spoken, and has done so in a fixed number of inspired books has swung open the doors to several confessions of faith. The London Confession of Baptist Faith opens by stating, “The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith and obedience.” The Westminster Confession states that God committed His word to writing, “for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world.” The confession adds, “those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.” This point, while seemingly innocuous and held to as a basic Christian presupposition, is a point of contention between historic Protestants and Roman Catholicism on the extent of the fixed canon of sacred Scripture. Roman Catholics since the sixteenth century Council of Trent are required by dogmatic decree to accept an additional set of books almost all exclusively written during the intertestamental period known as either the Apocrypha or Deuterocanon. While the argument over the inclusion or exclusion of these books generally takes place in the realm of historical analysis, certain internal biblical arguments for either inclusion or exclusion are likewise put forth. One such internal argument is based on Hebrews 11:35-37.
Hebrews 11:35-37 states, “(35) Women received back their dead by resurrection; and others were tortured, not accepting their release, so that they might obtain a better resurrection. (36) and others experienced mockings and scourgings, yes, also chains and imprisonment. (37) They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were tempted, they were put to death with the sword; they went about in sheepskins, in goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, ill-treated.” These verses, while intended to be a statement supporting the exposition and implication of biblical faith actually serve as a popular proof-text in the debate over the extent of the Hebrew canon. Those of Roman Catholic persuasion argue these verses are at least an allusion to 2 Maccabees 7:1, 13-14, if not a direct reference. These verses state, “(1) It came to pass also, that seven brethren with their mother were taken, and compelled by the king against the law to taste swine's flesh, and were tormented with scourges and whips. (13) Now when this man was dead also, they tormented and mangled the fourth in like manner. (14) So when he was ready to die he said thus, It is good, being put to death by men, to look for hope from God to be raised up again by him: as for thee, thou shalt have no resurrection to life.”
Is this parallel justified? Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis argues that there are “over two dozen such allusions between the Deutero-canonicals and the New Testament” [Robert Sungenis, Not By Scripture Alone (Santa Barbara: Queenship Publishing), p.278]. He lists this passage along with many others. According to Catholic apologists, the reason for such parallels are due to the fact that the Bible used by the New Testament writers was the Greek Septuagint. Roman Catholics hold this Bible translation contained the Deuterocanon, and the disputed books were treated implicitly as sacred scripture by the New Testament authors, as well as the early church. Recently, Roman Catholic apologists have had a boost of support from a recent book, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger by Gary Michuta. Mr. Michuta has presented the first full-length defense of Apocrypha inclusion coming from a Roman Catholic perspective in quite a while.
Michuta argues that Hebrews 11:35 is indeed a reference to the Maccabean martyrs, and is so with “a high degree of certainty.” First, there are no other examples presented in the Greek Old Testament of persons undergoing torture and not accepting deliverance for the hope of a better resurrection.”[Gary Michuta, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger (Port Huron: Grotto Press, 2007), p. 37]. Second, 2 Maccabees twice explicitly refers to a “hope for a better resurrection” as does Hebrews 11:35. Third, Michuta finds linguistic similarities between the words rendered “tormented”(or “tortured”) in Hebrews with Eleazar’s martyrdom in Maccabees. Hebrew 11:36 mentions “mockings and scourgings” as does 2 Maccabees 7:7, “So when the first was dead after this number, they brought the second to make him a mocking stock: and when they had pulled off the skin of his head with the hair, they asked him, Wilt thou eat, before thou be punished throughout every member of thy body?” Michuta summarizes these points by stating, “Apart from dogmatic prejudice, this reference to 2 Maccabees is unquestionable, and both Catholic and Protestant scholars rightly acknowledge this point of contact between Hebrews and the Deuterocanonical book of 2 Maccabees.”[Ibid., p. 37].
If it can be established that the New Testament writers quoted the Apocrypha as Scripture, it would follow that the Protestant Bible is missing inspired God-breathed books. Michuta concludes his book by stating, “The removal of the Deuterocanon is indeed a matter of supreme importance, since it affects the very Word of God Himself; and its effects can be shown to have been devastating in both theology and practice”[Ibid., p. 308]. Has Mr. Michuta and Catholic apologetics proved their contention? Did the writer of Hebrews implicitly consider the Apocrypha as God inspired scripture, and quote it as such in Hebrews 11?
At stake in such a controversy is the very certainty of the word of God. If Rome is correct, the Old Testament that the author of Hebrews believed in is not the same Old Testament that that the Westminster divines believed in. When the author of Hebrews stated the word of God is living, active, with a piercing sharpness, have Protestants dulled the blade by leaving the Apocryphal books out? Can Protestants consistently and actually find comfort and exhortation in the testimonies of faith found in Hebrew 11 if they actually deny the Biblical books from which the author compiled his list of faith’s heroes?
Context
Before delving specifically into answering these questions, it is crucial to review the immediate context surrounding the passage in dispute. The writer of the book of Hebrews exhorts his readers to persevere amidst trials and persecution (Heb. 10:19-39). He reminds his readers that earlier they had earlier stood their ground “in a great contest in the face of suffering” (Heb, 10:32), even while being “publicly exposed to insult and persecution” (Heb. 10:33). They need to persevere (Heb. 10:36), because they are those who do not “shrink back” and are destroyed (Heb. 10:39).
They are those who are to live by faith, and are themselves part of a great community of saints. Surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses (Heb. 12:1) described at length in Hebrews 11, they are those whose faith was authored and finished be their great high priest, Jesus Christ (Heb. 12:3). Hebrews 11 presents a substantial panoply of specific events in Biblical history, beginning at creation, and taking the reader on a rapid journey through Hebrew history. The writer mentions and expounds briefly on specific individuals: Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, and Rahab. All these mentioned have explicit Biblical references to substantiate their place among the heroes of faith. The writer of Hebrews also speaks of Israel collectively living by faith during the Exodus, and the claiming of the land promised to them by God.
Noting his limitation by time, toward the end of the chapter the writer ventures from the specific to general. He is unable to specifically expound with greater depth on others included in the great cloud of witnesses (Heb. 11:32). These though, are no less important: Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jepthah, David, Samuel, and the prophets (Heb. 11:32). Similar to those presented in Hebrews 11:1-31, these names also find explicit mentioning in the Old Testament. These people would have been as familiar to the Hebrews as were those the writer did expound on. Hebrews 11:33-40 appears to be expounding on the names just mentioned:
“(33) Who by faith conquered kingdoms, performed acts of righteousness, obtained promises, shut the mouths of lions, (34) quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, from weakness were made strong, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight. (35)Women received back their dead by resurrection; and others were tortured, not accepting their release, so that they might obtain a better resurrection; (36) and others experienced mockings and scourgings, yes, also chains and imprisonment. (37) They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were tempted, they were put to death with the sword; they went about in sheepskins, in goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, ill-treated (38) (men of whom the world was not worthy), wandering in deserts and mountains and caves and holes in the ground. (39) And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, (40) because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect.”
P. E. Hughes states this description is “spontaneous and unstudied”[William Lane, Hebrews 9-13 (WBC 47B) (Waco: Word, 1991), p. 385]. William Lane says these verses “presupposes a rather detailed knowledge of the OT and of Jewish history on the part of the writer and the congregation addressed”[Ibid., p. 385]. He further expounds on this section from Hebrews noting the section includes nine short clauses in vv 33-34. He speculates, “The first three appear to form a group prompted by the antecedent reference to those named in v 32b”[Ibid., p.385]. Verse 33 describes those “who by faith conquered kingdoms, performed acts of righteousness, obtained promises, shut the mouths of lions.” This verse clearly applies to those mentioned in Hebrews 11:32. Verse 33 first notes those “who by faith conquered kingdoms.” As Albert Barnes noted long ago, “The meaning is, that some of them subdued kingdoms, others obtained promises, etc. Thus, Joshua subdued the nations of Canaan; Gideon the Midianites; Jephtha the Ammonites; David the Philistines, Amalekites, Jebusites, Edomites, etc”[Albert Barnes, Notes, on the Epistle to the Hebrews (London: George Routledge and Sons, 1876) pp. 293-294]. Here easily documented Biblical figures correspond to the description offered. These also “performed acts of righteousness.” As John Gil described, these people “exercised vindictive justice, in taking vengeance on the enemies of God, and his people; civil righteousness, in the discharge of their offices; and moral righteousness, in their conversation before God and men”[John Gil , The Collected Works of John Gil (electronic edition) (Baptist Standard Bearer, 2002)]. These people also “obtained promises,” promises from God to their posterity, specifically promises to be in God’s people, ruled by His Messiah.
Specific acts of courage and faith then follow. Some who lived by faith were able to “shut the mouths of lions.” While some of the intended audience may have thought of Samson killing a lion in Judges 14:6, the reference was most likely to Daniel in the lion’s den (Daniel 6). Daniel was also able to “quench the power of fire” as recorded in Daniel 3. Others “escaped the edge of the sword,” perhaps an allusion to David as recorded in 2 Kings 6:16 in which David fled from Saul’s deadly pursuit. Some “from weakness were made strong” may be an allusion to Samson who at times received increases in bodily strength, or David, who in times of weakness was refreshed by the Lord. Some “became mighty in war” and “put foreign armies to flight” could refer to most of those names mentioned in Hebrews 11:32. Recall how Gideon overthrew the camp of the Midianites.
From the preceding, it is obvious the writer to the Hebrews assumes his readers are quite familiar with the history of the Jewish people as recorded in the Bible. William Lane implies through his exposition of this section that the examples given in 11:32-40 not only show a deep familiarity with the biblical record, but possibly a correspondence to Jewish extra-biblical history as well. Lane points out that these two counts of divine deliverance reported in the book of Daniel are linked and mentioned together in Jewish tradition in 1 Maccabees 2:59-60; 3 Maccabees 6:6-7; 4 Maccabees 16:3, 21; 18: 12-13 [Lane, p.386]. He also states, “The reference to David is not surprising since he holds such a firm place in the exemplary tradition (e.g., Sir 45:25; 47:2-11; 1 Macc 2:15)”[Ibid., 384]. Lane see verse 34 as not only deeply biblical, but also “richly illustrated in the early Maccabean resistance to Seleucid repression at the time of Antiochus IV Epipihanes (cf. 1 Macc 3:17-25; 4:6-22, 34-36) [Ibid., p. 387]. Despite Lane’s appeal to Jewish tradition, one thing is most certain; the names and descriptions presented in Hebrews 11:32-34 are first and foremost biblical. Lane himself is most aware of this. Commenting on the overall structure of Hebrews 11, he states, “In brief, the introduction, first two examples, and conclusion of Heb 11:1-40 take the form of a list of attested exemplars who receive divine approval in the pages of Scripture”[Ibid., p.319]. It is to the controversial verses that we now turn. Does the writer to the Hebrews abandon the Biblical text, or does he have a different Old Testament than that used by Protestants?
Hebrews 11:35
Hebrews 11:35 states, “Women received back their dead by resurrection; and others were tortured, not accepting their release, so that they might obtain a better resurrection.” Some commentators see “Women received back their dead by resurrection” as an allusion to the widow at Zarephath of Sidon, who saw her dead son come back to life by the faith of Elijah (1 Kings 17:17-24). Jamieson, Fausset and Brown point out the oldest manuscripts read, “They received women of aliens by raising their dead.” They point out “1 Kings 17:24 shows that the raising of the widow’s son by Elijah led her to the faith, so that he thus took her into fellowship, an alien though she was” [Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary on Hebrews (ESword Electronic Edition, 2008)]. Other commentator’s see the verse alluding to the Shunamite in 2 Kings 4:36. William Lane argues the language in 35a parallels that used by the LXX in 2 Kings 4:37 which states, “The woman…received her son.”
“Others were tortured” is the first glimpse of a possible Apocryphal allusion. Barnes notes, “The word which is used here - τυμπανιζω tumpanizo - to “tympanize,” refers to a form of severe torture ” that also is described in 2 Maccabees 6:19-29 [Barnes, pp. 294-295]. Likewise, William Lane sees the word translated as “tortured” as the rack or stake to which people were tied to, as described in 2 Maccabees 6:19, 28. Calvin notes that some have translated the word as “imprisoned,” but likewise agrees, “the simple meaning is, as I think, that they were stretched on a rack, as the skin of a drum, which is distended” [Calvin, The comprehensive John Calvin collection 2.0 (Ages Digital Library, 2002)].
Lane also sees “not accepting their release” as a statement “amply illustrated by the behavior of the ninety-year-old scribe, Eleazar, who refused the pretense of renouncing commitment to God so that he might ‘be released from death’ (2 Macc 6:22). He willingly chose the rack and endured a brutal beating” [Lane, p. 389]. In 2 Maccabees 6:30 Eleazar states, “But when he was ready to die with stripes, he groaned, and said, It is manifest unto the Lord, that hath the holy knowledge, that whereas I might have been delivered from death, I now endure sore pains in body by being beaten: but in soul am well content to suffer these things, because I fear him.” Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, John Gil, state a similar opinion. John Calvin comes close to locating the allusion away from the Apocrypha, but likewise states, “Now though they say that Jeremiah was stoned, that Isaiah was sawn asunder, and though sacred history relates that Elijah, Elisha, and other Prophets, wandered on mountains and in caves; yet I doubt not but he here points out those persecutions which Antiochus carried on against God’s people, and those which afterwards followed” [Calvin, The comprehensive John Calvin collection 2.0 (Ages Digital Library, 2002)].
“So that they might obtain a better resurrection” is best understood as a contrast with those children restored to their mothers mentioned in verse 35. The “better resurrection” is one in which death does not return as it did to those sons given back those their mothers. Lane states, “The reference to the refusal of release and the enduring of torment in the context of a firm expectation of attaining the resurrection shows unmistakably that the allusion in v 35b is to 2 Macc 6:18-7:42, where the Jewish historian recounts the martyrdom of Eleazar and of a mother and her seven sons at the hands of Antiochus IV Epiphanes and his officers. Specific reference is made to the hope of the resurrection in the account of the sufferings endured by three of the seven brothers, as well as in the encouragement offered to them by their mother (2 Macc 7:9, 11, 14, 22-23, 29)” [ Lane, p.389]. On this phrase, Albert Barnes comments that, “No particular instance of this kind is mentioned in the Old Testament; but amidst the multitude of cases of persecution to which good men were subjected, there is no improbability in supposing that this may have occurred. The case of Eleazer, recorded in 2 Macc. 6, so strongly resembles what the apostle says here, that it is very possible he may have had it in his eye” [Barnes, pp. 294-295].
Hebrews 11:36
The phrase, “and others experienced mockings and scourgings, yes, also chains and imprisonment” can find support for the abusive persecution of the prophets documented in 2 Chronicles 36:23; Jeremiah 20:7-8; 37:15-16, 18-20; 38: 6-13. John Gill notes “As Samson by the Philistines; Elisha by the children, whom the bears devoured; Jeremiah by Pashur, and others; the Jews by Sanballat and Tobiah, when building the temple; the prophets, whom God sent to the Jews, as his messengers, and scourgings; or smitings, as Jeremiah and Micaiah, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment; as Joseph, Samson, and Jeremiah, Gen 39:20. Now of these things they had trial, or experience; their graces were tried by them, and they patiently endured them” [John Gil , The Collected Works of John Gil (electronic edition) (Baptist Standard Bearer, 2002)]. The abuse described does again find support from 2 Maccabees 7:1.
Hebrews 11:37
“They were stoned,” finds mention of Biblical support from 2 Chronicles 24:20-21 in which the prophet Zechariah was killed in such a way. The New Testament though infers Jerusalem used this method against God’s prophets often in the past (Matt 23:27; Luke 13:34). Jewish tradition gives various accounts of the stoning of the prophet Jeremiah in the Midrash Aggadah and 4 Baruch, a theme picked up on by the early church in The Lives of the Prophets, a work attributed to Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis (315-403 C.E.).
“They were sawn in two” could refer to the tradition about the death of Isaiah in which he was found hiding in a tree trunk, and thus killed by a saw for taking refuge in a tree. The Ascension of Isaiah was well known in the early church. It had wide circulation, with manuscripts extant in Ethiopic, Coptic, Slavonic, Latin and also, some segments of it can be found in Greek. The tradition concerning Isaiah’s dreadful death by Manasseh was popular in Jewish, Christian, and Gnostic circles. John Gill reviews different versions of the story found in Jewish tradition, and then notes how widely accepted it was in the early church by Justin Martyr, Origen, Tertullian, Lactantius, Athanasius, Hilary, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nyssene, Jerome, Isidorus Pelusiota, Gregentius, Procopius Gazaeus, and others.
The phrase “they were tempted” could allude to many different biblical personages, like Job, tempted by Satan. John Gill sees Eleazar and the seven brethren with their mother tempted to deny the faith and renounce the worship of God in 2 Maccabees 6:7. Albert Barnes likewise locates one of the descriptions of those tempted in the Apocrypha: “Amidst the sorrows of martyrs, therefore, it was not improper to say that they were tempted, and to place this among their most aggravated woes. For instances of this nature, see 2 Macc. 6:21, 22; 7:17, 24” [Barnes, pp. 295-296].
“They were put to death with the sword” presents the opposite of those who, in verse 34, “escaped the edge of the sword.” Eighty-five priests were slain by Doeg 1Sa_22:18. Lane points out, “Elijah escaped the wrath of Jezebel, but other prophets had not been so fortunate (1 Kgs 18:4, 13; 19:10). The prophet Uriah…was ‘struck down by the sword’”[Lane ,p. 391]. Lane though adds, “The fate of being murdered by the sword was certainly not an isolated experience in the OT or in the post-biblical period (cf. 1 Macc 1:30; 2:9, 38; 5:13; 7:15-17, 19; 2 Macc 5:24-26) [Ibid., p, 391].
Elijah and Elisha certainly “went about in sheepskins, in goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, ill-treated.” Zechariah 13:4 infers that this was the standard garb of a prophet. Within the early church, 1 Clement urged believers to imitate “those who went about in goatskins and sheepskins, heralding the coming of Christ; we mean Elijah and Elisha, and moreover Ezekiel, the prophets” (1 Clement 17:1).
Hebrews 11:38
1 Kings 18:4 records prophets hiding in caves. Certainly the biblical prophets fit the description “men of whom the world was not worthy.” 2 Maccabees 10:6 records, "And they kept the eight days with gladness, as in the feast of the tabernacles, remembering that not long afore they had held the feast of the tabernacles, when as they wandered in the mountains and dens like beasts'' Albert Barnes likewise finds Apocryphal allusion: “Compare 1 Macc. 1:53; 2 Macc. 5:27; 6:7. The instances mentioned in the books of Maccabees are so much in point, that there is no impropriety in supposing that Paul referred to some such cases, if not these very cases. As there is no doubt about their historic truth, there was no impropriety in referring to them, though they are not mentioned in the canonical books of Scripture. One of those cases may be referred to as strikingly illustrating what is here said. “But Judas Maccabeus with nine others or thereabout, withdrew himself into the wilderness, and lived in the mountains after the manner of beasts, with his company, who fed on herbs continually lest they should be partakers of the pollution;” 2 Macc. 5:27” [Barnes, pp. 296-297].
Conclusion
It seems highly probable the writer to the Hebrews alluded to the Apocrypha in chapter 11. The parallels Catholic apologists suggest particularly in verse 35 and 2 Maccabees seem likely. “Others were tortured,” “not accepting their release” and “so that they might obtain a better resurrection” appear to be the closest points of contact with 2 Maccabees. As noted above, other vague points of contact could be inferred, but not with the same level of certitude of these three statements. Within the arena of rhetoric and polemics, the above study demonstrates that Protestant exegetes do not disagree with the possibility of Apocryphal allusions in Hebrews 11. Thus, Protestants are not hiding the fact that 2 Maccabees may be what the writer to the Hebrews has in mind.
Did the writer of Hebrews therefore implicitly consider the Apocrypha as God inspired scripture, and quote it as such in Hebrews 11? This does not necessarily follow. Other non-biblical books are quoted in scripture, but not treated as Scripture. Jude quotes from the Apocryphal Book of Enoch in Jude 14, and some see a possible allusion to the Assumption of Moses in Jude 1:9. Paul quotes pagan poets and philosophers on Mars Hill, and an allusion to the Penitence of Jannes and Jambres may be found in 2 Timothy 3:8.
Even within Hebrews, the writer may be alluding to spurious accounts concerning Jeremiah and Isaiah in 11:37. Sensing the weight of such a criticism, Catholic apologist Gary Michuta states, “The reference to the noncanonical book, The Ascension of Isaiah, in Heb 11:37 does not negate my point. It is not my contention that Heb 11 used only information supplied by Scripture, but that it uses only biblical figures to illustrate supernatural faith. That is clear from the preceding context. The reference to those who were ‘sawn in two’ is an expansion on the biblical figure of the prophet Isaiah. One can find numerous expansions of biblical figures in the New Testament from apocryphal sources, but none introduces new biblical characters”[Michuta, 41]. Does such an explanation satisfy? No, for it is an invention of Catholic apologetics to weave around an obvious flaw in argumentation. On what basis does one decide that expansion is an allowable method in the usage of non-biblical material for the inspired writers? It is a created distinction. There is nothing within the dogmatic statements from Rome noting this as an accepted method of biblical interpretation.
Roman Catholics argue that since the Septuagint contained Apocryphal books, they were considered scripture. This argument fails for a number of reasons. First, it is not certain that simply because an Apocryphal book was found in an LXX that the Jews considered it scripture. Like the early church, the books could have been included to be used for reading and edification but not considered inspired scripture. Second, the extant evidence shows different Apocryphal books are included in different early manuscripts. That is, no early manuscript contains all the apocryphal books argued for by Rome. Some of the early manuscripts actually contain 3 and 4 Maccabees, writings not considered canonical by Rome.
Contrary to Catholic claims, it does not follow that Protestant Bibles are missing inspired God-breathed books. Rather, the writer to the Hebrews included both heroes of faith from the Bible and Jewish tradition. For the writer of Hebrews, the word of God is living and active, sharper than any double- edged sword, penetrating even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; judging the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. This did not mean for the writer that God’s hand cannot be seen in extra-biblical history. As in our own day, the promises of Scripture are to be clung to as God’s hand of providence directs history. Since each ounce of history is directed by God, the lives of his people both from the Bible and those outside the Bible, can be seen as examples of those who live by faith, and referred to for encouragement.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Is the Council of Trent’s teaching on justification the church’s final word?
" The question before us is this: Is the Council of Trent’s teaching on justification the church’s final word? Emphatically not. Rome has developed its doctrine of justification, and it will doubtless continue to do so. None of the ecumenical councils, not even Chalcedon or Nicea, is terminal in the sense that it ends all possible development.They are not terminal, but they are decisive. Rome can indeed develop the views expressed at Trent. What it cannot do without radically altering its view of itself is repudiate or “correct” Trent. Those who look for such a repudiation, or who think they have already found it, are whistling in the dark.
Source: Sproul, R.C., Faith Alone : The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995) pp.120-121
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Addendum: Luther, Are You Alone Wise?
This is an addendum to my previous blog entry, "Luther, Are You Alone Wise?" Here's a snippet from the late Fr. William Most, "Luther Writes Obituary Of His Own Church," found on the EWTN website. Most states,
In the dedication to his work, (De abroganda missa privata) of 1521 (Grisar, p. 531) the very year in which he wrote that letter cited above saying even 1000 fornications and murders a day would not separate a man from Christ, we read: "Are you alone wise and all others mistaken? Is it likely that so many centuries were all in the wrong? Suppose, on the contrary, you were in the wrong and were leading so many others with you into error and to eternal perdition?"
We comment: How right! If the promises of Christ were so empty that He permitted the Church to teach the wrong way to salvation for most of 15 centuries, then Christ Himself would be a faker.
First, Father Most misunderstands Luther's statement, "1000 fornications and murders a day" which I have addressed here.
Second, he admits he didn't even read the quote in context (he cited Hartmann Grisar). Luther's primary concern is with changes in the Mass- Is Most really suggesting that the Church celebrated the Mass in exactly the same way for 15 Centuries? If so, was the cup always denied to the common people? The cup was a strong concern of Luther's. Where did Jesus, Peter or Paul teach transubstantiation? Luther didn't have a problem with the bread and wine being the body and blood of Jesus, but he did have a problem with Aristotelian metaphysics. Where did the Apostles teach the church to give the Eucharist adoration?
Third, Father Most left off the next sentence from Luther in which the Reformer stated what did make him sure of himself: "Finally, Christ with his clear, unmistakable Word strengthened and confirmed me, so that my heart no longer quails, but resists the arguments of the papists, as a stony shore resists the waves, and laughs at their threats and storms!"
Fourth, Father Most engages in the typical Catholic mis-truth that Rome has consistently taught one thing for 15 centuries concerning salvation, when in fact, Rome did not formulate a dogmatic statement on justification until the 16th century. Even with transubstantiation, Rome had no consensus on this issue until 1215 AD.
Fifth, he assumes that if (as Luther asserts) Rome taught error, this makes Christ's promises "empty." Well, Rome admits that their were abuses with indulgences, so does this make Christ's promises empty? Rome admits some of its leaders have been corrupt while in Papal office, does this negate Christ's promises? Have not the gates of Hell prevailed over the church when a corrupt Pope holds the most holy office, representing Christ on earth?
In the dedication to his work, (De abroganda missa privata) of 1521 (Grisar, p. 531) the very year in which he wrote that letter cited above saying even 1000 fornications and murders a day would not separate a man from Christ, we read: "Are you alone wise and all others mistaken? Is it likely that so many centuries were all in the wrong? Suppose, on the contrary, you were in the wrong and were leading so many others with you into error and to eternal perdition?"
We comment: How right! If the promises of Christ were so empty that He permitted the Church to teach the wrong way to salvation for most of 15 centuries, then Christ Himself would be a faker.
First, Father Most misunderstands Luther's statement, "1000 fornications and murders a day" which I have addressed here.
Second, he admits he didn't even read the quote in context (he cited Hartmann Grisar). Luther's primary concern is with changes in the Mass- Is Most really suggesting that the Church celebrated the Mass in exactly the same way for 15 Centuries? If so, was the cup always denied to the common people? The cup was a strong concern of Luther's. Where did Jesus, Peter or Paul teach transubstantiation? Luther didn't have a problem with the bread and wine being the body and blood of Jesus, but he did have a problem with Aristotelian metaphysics. Where did the Apostles teach the church to give the Eucharist adoration?
Third, Father Most left off the next sentence from Luther in which the Reformer stated what did make him sure of himself: "Finally, Christ with his clear, unmistakable Word strengthened and confirmed me, so that my heart no longer quails, but resists the arguments of the papists, as a stony shore resists the waves, and laughs at their threats and storms!"
Fourth, Father Most engages in the typical Catholic mis-truth that Rome has consistently taught one thing for 15 centuries concerning salvation, when in fact, Rome did not formulate a dogmatic statement on justification until the 16th century. Even with transubstantiation, Rome had no consensus on this issue until 1215 AD.
Fifth, he assumes that if (as Luther asserts) Rome taught error, this makes Christ's promises "empty." Well, Rome admits that their were abuses with indulgences, so does this make Christ's promises empty? Rome admits some of its leaders have been corrupt while in Papal office, does this negate Christ's promises? Have not the gates of Hell prevailed over the church when a corrupt Pope holds the most holy office, representing Christ on earth?
Roman Catholics are allowed to hold their own interpretations until dogmatic definition, does this make Christ's promises "empty" until that dogmatic definition? No, Christ's promises are exactly where they are, in Scripture, and His sheep hear his voice.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Luther, "Are You Alone Wise"?
Over on the CARM boards and lengthy discussion on Luther and "authority" has been going on for a while. I've dabbled in the discussion every so often (time allowing), but for the most part I've watched from the sidelines. Here's a recent snippet (directed toward me) from a Roman Catholic:
Luther DID have doubts about what he had done as related by James M. Kittleson, a distinguished Professor of Church History and Director of the Lutheran Brotherhood Foundation Reformation Research Program at Luther Seminary. His academic credentials far exceed those of anyone here and given that he is ACTUALLY A LUTHERAN, he should have a better understanding of Luther than do those who are NOT.
“In this work (On the Misuse of the Mass) he (Luther) confessed that he had often asked himself, “Are you alone wise” Can it be that everyone else is in error and has been in error for so long? What if you are wrong and lead into error so many people who might then be eternally damned?” James M. Kittelson, “Luther the Reformer, the Story of the Man and His Career.”, pg 170, Augsburg Publishing House, 1986
Barring the inevitable charges of this quote being taken out of context and the personal attacks on me for my “bias” and my lack of various “stuff”, it is pretty clear that Luther DID doubt Himself “often”, and therefore it would be STUPID of us to PRESUME that he was “right” and that he did NOT “lead into error so many people who might then be eternally damned?”
Well, immediately, it does not logically follow that because Luther had "doubts" as to his Reforming endeavours against the majority he therefore was wrong in attempting to reform the church, or that his theological opinions were wrong. This Catholic has committed the errors that a consensus of opinion equals absolute truth, and second, that a person must have absolute certainty of his actions in order to be a leader or reformer. That Luther had a particular level of fear or doubt as he progressed against a majority, and that he admitted it... is... well, very human.
Interestingly, Luther actually gives an antidote to his doubts, found in the very next line, that the "Word" took away his doubt and fear:
"Are you the only wise man? Can it be that all the others are in error and have erred for so long a time? What if you are mistaken and lead so many people into error who might all be eternally damned? Finally, Christ with his clear, unmistakable Word strengthened and confirmed me, so that my heart no longer quails, but resists the arguments of the papists, as a stony shore resists the waves, and laughs at their threats and storms!"
This particular Roman Catholic also dislikes that I actually check the sources and quotes he uses- and more often than not, the sources he puts forth are being misused, or the quotes say something quite different in context than what is being alleged. Let's take a look then at James M. Kittelson, Luther the Reformer, the Story of the Man and His Career, pg 170. That page can be found here. Kittelson explains the context is in regard to changes in the Mass, not Luther's entire reforming endeavour:
[Luther] knew that far-reaching changes in the Mass would be deeply unsettling to people who had been taught to find their salvation in it. He also knew that those who made the changes could suffer from grave doubts about what they were doing. In this work he confessed that he had often asked himself, “Are you alone wise” Can it be that everyone else is in error and has been in error for so long? What if you are wrong and lead into error so many people who might then be eternally damned?”
Kittleson goes on to explain that Luther wrote On the Misuse of the Mass (from which the Luther quote in question comes from) for this very purpose. It was to give his colleagues "solid arguments so that they might be confident in their actions." That is, Luther considered that those who attempted to institute changes in the Mass would likewise feel the weight of peer and public pressure as to the validity of their actions. That is, the statement, "Are you alone wise... Can it be that everyone else is in error and has been in error for so long? What if you are wrong and lead into error so many people who might then be eternally damned?" ...has to do primarily with changes in the Mass.
The editors of Luther's Works explain that Luther was "strongly opposed to the withholding of the cup from the laity, the doctrine of transubstantiation, and the idea of sacrifice in the mass." "If the idea of a sacrifice is removed from the mass, so that the mass is no longer a good work which avails for the reconciliation of the sinner with God, then the private mass, said without the presence of a worshiper, is a veritable abomination." They then go on to give a brief outline of Luther's argumentation:
The treatise is divided into three parts. The first part points out that the false conception of the mass is built on a false conception of the priesthood. According to the New Testament every Christian is a priest; and the priestly office is one of preaching, not of making sacrifice. The second part discusses the mass itself. The Words of Institution, examined individually and collectively, forbid any interpretation of the mass as a sacrifice; they speak rather of a promise given by God, to be received in faith by men. In refuting the arguments of his opponents Luther expresses himself plainly on the subjects of the canon of the mass, saints, purgatory, and spirits of the dead. The wholly polemic third part contrasts the papal priesthood with the priesthood of Christ. The former, with its laws, has extinguished the gospel, and actually perverted each of the Ten Commandments to mean exactly the opposite of what God intended. An avowedly allegorical comparison of church and synagogue is made, not to buttress, but pointedly to illumine the argument.
With this background in mind, here is the quote in context, which comes from the introduction to the Misuse of the Mass (1521) from LW 36:133-137 :
To my dear brethren, the Augustinians at Wittenberg, I, Martin, wish the grace and peace of our Lord Jesus Christ.
I have been informed both orally and in writing, my dear brethren, that you are the very first to have taken steps to do away with the abuse of the mass in your assembly. Although it has pleased me greatly, because I regard it as evidence that the word of Christ is at work in you and that you have not received it in vain, nevertheless, out of Christian love, which leaves nothing undone, I am deeply concerned that not all of you have taken such a great and noteworthy step with equal steadfastness and good conscience. I will not mention how the bishops and priests of Baal daily terrify the consciences of those who are weak in faith, now with papal bulls, now with indulgences, now with brotherhoods; one arrests the married priests; one does this and the other that miracle, and everyone does the most terrible things he can.
But what will happen when throughout the world you suffer all kinds of derision, insults, viciousness, and dishonor from everyone, even from the pious, clever, holy, and wise; and are regarded as blasphemers because you alone, and so few of you at that, have dared to change the whole spiritual and human order contrary to all human reason? It is indeed an extremely great undertaking to resist such a long-established custom and the opinion of all men, to suffer patiently their accusation, judgment, and condemnation, and to stand immovable in the face of such a storm of winds and waves. I know well that if you are built on the rock no violence of water and wind can harm you, but if you stand upon the sand a great and speedy fall will overtake you [Matt. 7:24-27].
I myself experience daily how extremely difficult it is to lay aside a conscience of long standing, one that has been fenced in by man-made ordinances. O with how much greater effort and labor, even on the basis of the Holy Scriptures, have I been barely able to justify my own conscience; so that I, one man alone, have dared to come forward against the pope, brand him as the Antichrist, the bishops as his apostles, and the universities as his brothels! How often did my heart quail, punish me, and reproach me with its single strongest argument: Are you the only wise man? Can it be that all the others are in error and have erred for so long a time? What if you are mistaken and lead so many people into error who might all be eternally damned? Finally, Christ with his clear, unmistakable Word strengthened and confirmed me, so that my heart no longer quails, but resists the arguments of the papists, as a stony shore resists the waves, and laughs at their threats and storms!
Because I felt and considered these things within me, I wanted to write this letter to you for the comfort and strengthening of the weak, those who cannot bear the storm and violence of the opponent and of their own despairing consciences. For such consciences must be treated with faith and trust, so that we not only look upon the judgment of the whole world as straw and chaff, but also that in death we may be adept in lighting against the devil and all his might, even against the judgment of God, and with Jacob prevail against God [Gen. 32:28] through such a strong faith. The weak in faith may indeed disregard the derision and ridicule of the world and pretend not to hear it; but who can so protect himself against the devil and the stern judgment of God that he does not feel them? The world can do no more than denounce us as heretics and unbelievers; it cannot make us heretics. Our consciences will make us sinners before God in many ways and damn us eternally unless they are well guarded and protected at every point by the holy, mighty, and true Word of God-that is, built on the only rock [Matt. 7:24-25]. Whoever does that is sure of his cause and cannot fail, nor waver, nor be betrayed. Such a sure, impregnable fortress we seek and desire.
For these reasons I will prepare a special little book on the mass which should be useful to everyone who wishes it. For I can well see that the books which I have written on the subject so far4 have not yet made a sufficient impact because the bishops oppose them; so that as often as the word of truth is renewed, exalted, and repeated, so often the paperhangers condemn and suppress it. We ought also to pray the Lord to send out laborers into his harvest [Matt. 9:38], and his angels to gather out of the kingdom of God all causes of sin [Matt. 13:41], which are now very many. This one great cause of sin is now at hand; if we could remove it, then we should have removed not only one, but all, because this is the foundation and fountainhead of all the rest. May the Lord Jesus strengthen and keep your hearts and minds [Phil. 4:7] in a true, right, unsimulated faith and divine love, amen. From my wilderness, on St. Catherine’s Day [November 25], 1521.
I stipulate publicly that I wish neither to hear nor to see the foolish senseless persons who will cry out, saying that I write and teach against the ordinances of the church, against the doctrines of the fathers, against old and proven traditions and the long-standing customs, usages, and practices of the church. Likewise I despise all human teaching and the precepts of the Parisian Sodom, which, as Peter says, are none other than destructive heresies [II Pet. 2:1]. If only the lunacy would cease to plague them for one hour, they would themselves recognize (since they prove their whole case without the Word of God) that they are not depending upon divine sayings, but only upon human ones.
Thus it is contrary to human reason, not to mention the divine Scriptures, to found and build an article of faith on human fancies, for the holy sacraments and articles of faith rightly demand that they be founded and preserved only through the divine Scriptures, as Moses abundantly testifies in Deuteronomy. Why then do they think that they can alienate me from the divine Word with their own fancies, that is, human laws and teachings; as if they did not know that the saints had often sinned during their lifetime and erred in their writings? They are even so foolish as to set up and accept the words and deeds of the saints as a sure, unfailing rule of faith. In addition, their own law, which is really no law at all, makes such human sayings suspect when it says: "Whoever is once found to be wrong will always be regarded and considered to be wrong."
Since the fathers have often erred, as you yourself confess, who will make us certain as to wherein they have not erred, assuming their reputation is sufficient and should not be weighed and judged according to the divine Scriptures? They have (you say) also interpreted the Scriptures. What if they erred in their interpretation, as well as in their life and writings? In that way you make gods of all that is human in us, and of men themselves; and the word of men you make equal to the Word of God.
For these reasons the stupid sophists, the unlearned bishops, monks and priests, and the pope with all his Gomorrah8 should know that we are not baptized in the name of Augustine, Bernard, Gregory, Peter or Paul [I Cor. 1:13] nor yet in the name of the Parisians, but in the name of Jesus Christ, him alone. Only the crucified one and none other do we acknowledge as our master. Paul does not wish that we believe him or an angel, unless Christ lives and speaks in him [Gal. 1:8, 12]. We know indeed what the fathers, the decrees, the customs, and the folly of the people include and contain. What need have we in addition for the masters of Paris to write and say: "Such an article is an abomination. This one is contrary to the faculty of Paris, that one is contrary to their established articles," and more of the like-a boast that only female children and rude blockheads can make?
We will not listen to this: "Bernard lived and wrote thus"; but only to this: "He was supposed to live and write according to the Scriptures." We are not asking how the saints lived and wrote. They were all preserved through this prayer: "Forgive us our debts" [Matt. 6:12]; as Ps. 31[:6] says: "For this shall every saint pray at the opportune time." We refuse to concede as true and just, that the saints were forgiven by means of a prayer which was itself sinful and in error; which is what the papists are doing when, as Ps. 60 [62] says, they support themselves upon a leaning and tottering wall [Ps. 62:3], whereas God alone should be a support, as the same Psalm testifies so often [Ps. 62:1-2, 5-7].
I have stated, that one does not ask how the saints have lived and written, but how the Scriptures indicate that we ought to live. The question is not about what has been done, but about how it is supposed to be done. The saints could err in their writings and sin in their lives, but the Scriptures cannot err, and whoever believes them cannot sin in his life. We accept indeed those saints whose praise comes not from men but from God [Rom. 2:29]; not those whom the pope raises up, but those whom God raises up, Whose oxen and birds they are, killed and made ready for the marriage feast of Christ, his son [Matt. 22:2-4]; that is, those whose life and teaching the divine Scriptures praise, such as the patriarchs, prophets, and apostles. Them alone and no others can we surely believe and cling to, and thus be preserved.
Luther DID have doubts about what he had done as related by James M. Kittleson, a distinguished Professor of Church History and Director of the Lutheran Brotherhood Foundation Reformation Research Program at Luther Seminary. His academic credentials far exceed those of anyone here and given that he is ACTUALLY A LUTHERAN, he should have a better understanding of Luther than do those who are NOT.
“In this work (On the Misuse of the Mass) he (Luther) confessed that he had often asked himself, “Are you alone wise” Can it be that everyone else is in error and has been in error for so long? What if you are wrong and lead into error so many people who might then be eternally damned?” James M. Kittelson, “Luther the Reformer, the Story of the Man and His Career.”, pg 170, Augsburg Publishing House, 1986
Barring the inevitable charges of this quote being taken out of context and the personal attacks on me for my “bias” and my lack of various “stuff”, it is pretty clear that Luther DID doubt Himself “often”, and therefore it would be STUPID of us to PRESUME that he was “right” and that he did NOT “lead into error so many people who might then be eternally damned?”
Well, immediately, it does not logically follow that because Luther had "doubts" as to his Reforming endeavours against the majority he therefore was wrong in attempting to reform the church, or that his theological opinions were wrong. This Catholic has committed the errors that a consensus of opinion equals absolute truth, and second, that a person must have absolute certainty of his actions in order to be a leader or reformer. That Luther had a particular level of fear or doubt as he progressed against a majority, and that he admitted it... is... well, very human.
Interestingly, Luther actually gives an antidote to his doubts, found in the very next line, that the "Word" took away his doubt and fear:
"Are you the only wise man? Can it be that all the others are in error and have erred for so long a time? What if you are mistaken and lead so many people into error who might all be eternally damned? Finally, Christ with his clear, unmistakable Word strengthened and confirmed me, so that my heart no longer quails, but resists the arguments of the papists, as a stony shore resists the waves, and laughs at their threats and storms!"
This particular Roman Catholic also dislikes that I actually check the sources and quotes he uses- and more often than not, the sources he puts forth are being misused, or the quotes say something quite different in context than what is being alleged. Let's take a look then at James M. Kittelson, Luther the Reformer, the Story of the Man and His Career, pg 170. That page can be found here. Kittelson explains the context is in regard to changes in the Mass, not Luther's entire reforming endeavour:
[Luther] knew that far-reaching changes in the Mass would be deeply unsettling to people who had been taught to find their salvation in it. He also knew that those who made the changes could suffer from grave doubts about what they were doing. In this work he confessed that he had often asked himself, “Are you alone wise” Can it be that everyone else is in error and has been in error for so long? What if you are wrong and lead into error so many people who might then be eternally damned?”
Kittleson goes on to explain that Luther wrote On the Misuse of the Mass (from which the Luther quote in question comes from) for this very purpose. It was to give his colleagues "solid arguments so that they might be confident in their actions." That is, Luther considered that those who attempted to institute changes in the Mass would likewise feel the weight of peer and public pressure as to the validity of their actions. That is, the statement, "Are you alone wise... Can it be that everyone else is in error and has been in error for so long? What if you are wrong and lead into error so many people who might then be eternally damned?" ...has to do primarily with changes in the Mass.
The editors of Luther's Works explain that Luther was "strongly opposed to the withholding of the cup from the laity, the doctrine of transubstantiation, and the idea of sacrifice in the mass." "If the idea of a sacrifice is removed from the mass, so that the mass is no longer a good work which avails for the reconciliation of the sinner with God, then the private mass, said without the presence of a worshiper, is a veritable abomination." They then go on to give a brief outline of Luther's argumentation:
The treatise is divided into three parts. The first part points out that the false conception of the mass is built on a false conception of the priesthood. According to the New Testament every Christian is a priest; and the priestly office is one of preaching, not of making sacrifice. The second part discusses the mass itself. The Words of Institution, examined individually and collectively, forbid any interpretation of the mass as a sacrifice; they speak rather of a promise given by God, to be received in faith by men. In refuting the arguments of his opponents Luther expresses himself plainly on the subjects of the canon of the mass, saints, purgatory, and spirits of the dead. The wholly polemic third part contrasts the papal priesthood with the priesthood of Christ. The former, with its laws, has extinguished the gospel, and actually perverted each of the Ten Commandments to mean exactly the opposite of what God intended. An avowedly allegorical comparison of church and synagogue is made, not to buttress, but pointedly to illumine the argument.
With this background in mind, here is the quote in context, which comes from the introduction to the Misuse of the Mass (1521) from LW 36:133-137 :
To my dear brethren, the Augustinians at Wittenberg, I, Martin, wish the grace and peace of our Lord Jesus Christ.
I have been informed both orally and in writing, my dear brethren, that you are the very first to have taken steps to do away with the abuse of the mass in your assembly. Although it has pleased me greatly, because I regard it as evidence that the word of Christ is at work in you and that you have not received it in vain, nevertheless, out of Christian love, which leaves nothing undone, I am deeply concerned that not all of you have taken such a great and noteworthy step with equal steadfastness and good conscience. I will not mention how the bishops and priests of Baal daily terrify the consciences of those who are weak in faith, now with papal bulls, now with indulgences, now with brotherhoods; one arrests the married priests; one does this and the other that miracle, and everyone does the most terrible things he can.
But what will happen when throughout the world you suffer all kinds of derision, insults, viciousness, and dishonor from everyone, even from the pious, clever, holy, and wise; and are regarded as blasphemers because you alone, and so few of you at that, have dared to change the whole spiritual and human order contrary to all human reason? It is indeed an extremely great undertaking to resist such a long-established custom and the opinion of all men, to suffer patiently their accusation, judgment, and condemnation, and to stand immovable in the face of such a storm of winds and waves. I know well that if you are built on the rock no violence of water and wind can harm you, but if you stand upon the sand a great and speedy fall will overtake you [Matt. 7:24-27].
I myself experience daily how extremely difficult it is to lay aside a conscience of long standing, one that has been fenced in by man-made ordinances. O with how much greater effort and labor, even on the basis of the Holy Scriptures, have I been barely able to justify my own conscience; so that I, one man alone, have dared to come forward against the pope, brand him as the Antichrist, the bishops as his apostles, and the universities as his brothels! How often did my heart quail, punish me, and reproach me with its single strongest argument: Are you the only wise man? Can it be that all the others are in error and have erred for so long a time? What if you are mistaken and lead so many people into error who might all be eternally damned? Finally, Christ with his clear, unmistakable Word strengthened and confirmed me, so that my heart no longer quails, but resists the arguments of the papists, as a stony shore resists the waves, and laughs at their threats and storms!
Because I felt and considered these things within me, I wanted to write this letter to you for the comfort and strengthening of the weak, those who cannot bear the storm and violence of the opponent and of their own despairing consciences. For such consciences must be treated with faith and trust, so that we not only look upon the judgment of the whole world as straw and chaff, but also that in death we may be adept in lighting against the devil and all his might, even against the judgment of God, and with Jacob prevail against God [Gen. 32:28] through such a strong faith. The weak in faith may indeed disregard the derision and ridicule of the world and pretend not to hear it; but who can so protect himself against the devil and the stern judgment of God that he does not feel them? The world can do no more than denounce us as heretics and unbelievers; it cannot make us heretics. Our consciences will make us sinners before God in many ways and damn us eternally unless they are well guarded and protected at every point by the holy, mighty, and true Word of God-that is, built on the only rock [Matt. 7:24-25]. Whoever does that is sure of his cause and cannot fail, nor waver, nor be betrayed. Such a sure, impregnable fortress we seek and desire.
For these reasons I will prepare a special little book on the mass which should be useful to everyone who wishes it. For I can well see that the books which I have written on the subject so far4 have not yet made a sufficient impact because the bishops oppose them; so that as often as the word of truth is renewed, exalted, and repeated, so often the paperhangers condemn and suppress it. We ought also to pray the Lord to send out laborers into his harvest [Matt. 9:38], and his angels to gather out of the kingdom of God all causes of sin [Matt. 13:41], which are now very many. This one great cause of sin is now at hand; if we could remove it, then we should have removed not only one, but all, because this is the foundation and fountainhead of all the rest. May the Lord Jesus strengthen and keep your hearts and minds [Phil. 4:7] in a true, right, unsimulated faith and divine love, amen. From my wilderness, on St. Catherine’s Day [November 25], 1521.
I stipulate publicly that I wish neither to hear nor to see the foolish senseless persons who will cry out, saying that I write and teach against the ordinances of the church, against the doctrines of the fathers, against old and proven traditions and the long-standing customs, usages, and practices of the church. Likewise I despise all human teaching and the precepts of the Parisian Sodom, which, as Peter says, are none other than destructive heresies [II Pet. 2:1]. If only the lunacy would cease to plague them for one hour, they would themselves recognize (since they prove their whole case without the Word of God) that they are not depending upon divine sayings, but only upon human ones.
Thus it is contrary to human reason, not to mention the divine Scriptures, to found and build an article of faith on human fancies, for the holy sacraments and articles of faith rightly demand that they be founded and preserved only through the divine Scriptures, as Moses abundantly testifies in Deuteronomy. Why then do they think that they can alienate me from the divine Word with their own fancies, that is, human laws and teachings; as if they did not know that the saints had often sinned during their lifetime and erred in their writings? They are even so foolish as to set up and accept the words and deeds of the saints as a sure, unfailing rule of faith. In addition, their own law, which is really no law at all, makes such human sayings suspect when it says: "Whoever is once found to be wrong will always be regarded and considered to be wrong."
Since the fathers have often erred, as you yourself confess, who will make us certain as to wherein they have not erred, assuming their reputation is sufficient and should not be weighed and judged according to the divine Scriptures? They have (you say) also interpreted the Scriptures. What if they erred in their interpretation, as well as in their life and writings? In that way you make gods of all that is human in us, and of men themselves; and the word of men you make equal to the Word of God.
For these reasons the stupid sophists, the unlearned bishops, monks and priests, and the pope with all his Gomorrah8 should know that we are not baptized in the name of Augustine, Bernard, Gregory, Peter or Paul [I Cor. 1:13] nor yet in the name of the Parisians, but in the name of Jesus Christ, him alone. Only the crucified one and none other do we acknowledge as our master. Paul does not wish that we believe him or an angel, unless Christ lives and speaks in him [Gal. 1:8, 12]. We know indeed what the fathers, the decrees, the customs, and the folly of the people include and contain. What need have we in addition for the masters of Paris to write and say: "Such an article is an abomination. This one is contrary to the faculty of Paris, that one is contrary to their established articles," and more of the like-a boast that only female children and rude blockheads can make?
We will not listen to this: "Bernard lived and wrote thus"; but only to this: "He was supposed to live and write according to the Scriptures." We are not asking how the saints lived and wrote. They were all preserved through this prayer: "Forgive us our debts" [Matt. 6:12]; as Ps. 31[:6] says: "For this shall every saint pray at the opportune time." We refuse to concede as true and just, that the saints were forgiven by means of a prayer which was itself sinful and in error; which is what the papists are doing when, as Ps. 60 [62] says, they support themselves upon a leaning and tottering wall [Ps. 62:3], whereas God alone should be a support, as the same Psalm testifies so often [Ps. 62:1-2, 5-7].
I have stated, that one does not ask how the saints have lived and written, but how the Scriptures indicate that we ought to live. The question is not about what has been done, but about how it is supposed to be done. The saints could err in their writings and sin in their lives, but the Scriptures cannot err, and whoever believes them cannot sin in his life. We accept indeed those saints whose praise comes not from men but from God [Rom. 2:29]; not those whom the pope raises up, but those whom God raises up, Whose oxen and birds they are, killed and made ready for the marriage feast of Christ, his son [Matt. 22:2-4]; that is, those whose life and teaching the divine Scriptures praise, such as the patriarchs, prophets, and apostles. Them alone and no others can we surely believe and cling to, and thus be preserved.
Sunday, November 09, 2008
The Reformer's Rubbish:Archaeologists Unveil Secrets of Luther's Life
"The dig behind the Wittenberg house that Luther shared with his wife and six children. The German State Museum of Prehistory is opening an exhibition that presents the results of the digs to coincide with Reformation Day."I was sent a link to this article: Archaeologists Unveil Secrets of Luther's Life. I've known about this dig for a while, it appears they've found some interesting things in the trash pit.
As to the link article- it includes some of the typical Luther myths presented as historical fact- like the famous "inkwell thrown at the Devil" story, as well as giving credence to the cloaca/tower bathroom myth. It also includes a version of the myth of Luther's fear of demon possession. Overall, the article was poorly documented and poorly researched, but it does at least explain the dig. A pictorial of the dig can be found here.
The only factoid that did interest me was the theory that Luther entered the monastery to avoid a forced marriage:
But the tale of a sign from above coming to Luther in the form of a lightning strike is greatly exaggerated. In truth Luther, who was 21 at the time, was fleeing from an impending forced marriage. "Newly discovered archive records show that the father had already married off three of his daughters and one son to the children of wealthy foremen," explains expert Schlenker. Apparently it was now Martin's turn. Instead of submitting to his father's will, the young man went to the monastery of the Augustinian hermits near Erfurt. The 50 monks living there wore black robes and the circular tonsure. They rose at two in the morning for the first Divine Office of the day.
I've not heard this one before! Poor Luther- he picked the most strict monastery to hide in. As to the truth of it? Well, only "expert Schlenker" (whoever that is) knows for certain.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
I've been preoccupied with other things lately, and haven't had a chance to update the blog as often.
I have though been working on the context of a Luther quote- you know, one of those tidbits quoted in the service of pop-Catholic apologetics- cited with a secondary source rather than the readily available context, a few lines from one page, separated with "..." and then one line from 2 pages later.
This morning I found this blog page, and I had a brief chuckle over this:
Possibly Polemical Patristics: This section has the caveat lector entries, where the posts are in some ways incendiary, polemical, or otherwise calculated to provoke, but may still contain material of interest for carnival readers.
Beggars All, possibly in preparation for Reformation Day, shows Luther's respect for the church fathers and his disrespect for the way he viewed his opponents' use of them in Opponents Using the Early Church Fathers.
You got me! I was caught with a devious citation from Luther in order to stir up trouble for Reformation day. The post was supposed to stir up the few of you reading this blog to run out and nail complaints to the door of your local Roman Catholic Church.
Actually, the truth is, anyone even remotely familiar with Luther's battles with Catholic apologists knows they threw citations from the "Fathers" at him, and he either threw them right back, or evaluated the form of argumentation being used. Hey, that seems a lot like....what has been going on for a long time. My intent was not to provoke, but to show that the same type of argumentation in these pop-Catholic apologists vs. the separated brethren has as much of a history as that being documented on the web site critiquing me. I also found it interesting as to Luther's assessment of the value of such endeavours.
I have though been working on the context of a Luther quote- you know, one of those tidbits quoted in the service of pop-Catholic apologetics- cited with a secondary source rather than the readily available context, a few lines from one page, separated with "..." and then one line from 2 pages later.
This morning I found this blog page, and I had a brief chuckle over this:
Possibly Polemical Patristics: This section has the caveat lector entries, where the posts are in some ways incendiary, polemical, or otherwise calculated to provoke, but may still contain material of interest for carnival readers.
Beggars All, possibly in preparation for Reformation Day, shows Luther's respect for the church fathers and his disrespect for the way he viewed his opponents' use of them in Opponents Using the Early Church Fathers.
You got me! I was caught with a devious citation from Luther in order to stir up trouble for Reformation day. The post was supposed to stir up the few of you reading this blog to run out and nail complaints to the door of your local Roman Catholic Church.
Actually, the truth is, anyone even remotely familiar with Luther's battles with Catholic apologists knows they threw citations from the "Fathers" at him, and he either threw them right back, or evaluated the form of argumentation being used. Hey, that seems a lot like....what has been going on for a long time. My intent was not to provoke, but to show that the same type of argumentation in these pop-Catholic apologists vs. the separated brethren has as much of a history as that being documented on the web site critiquing me. I also found it interesting as to Luther's assessment of the value of such endeavours.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
RC's Sproul's "Renewing Your Mind" radio show recently did two broadcasts entitled "Profiles of the Reformation." The shows featured discussion on some of the lesser known Protestant Reformers, like Beza, Bullinger, Bucer, Farel, etc.:
MP3 for Part one [Backup MP3 link]
MP3 for Part two [Backup MP3 link]
Neither broadcast has Dr. Sproul, but his guests do an excellent job giving basic overviews of some of the less known Protestant Reformers.
"We all know about Reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin, but who else do you know? What other brothers in the faith do know you who passed on to us our Protestant tradition?
This special series is dedicated to some of the lesser known reformers and liberating contributions of the Protestant Reformation.
Joining moderator John Duncan, vice president of ministry outreach and executive producer at Ligonier Ministries, are Drs. J. Ligon Duncan III and Derek Thomas. Among their many roles and accomplishments, both Drs. Duncan and Thomas serve together at the historic First Presbyterian Church, in Jackson, Mississippi, and have joined Dr. Sproul during our Ligonier conferences."
MP3 for Part one [Backup MP3 link]
MP3 for Part two [Backup MP3 link]
Neither broadcast has Dr. Sproul, but his guests do an excellent job giving basic overviews of some of the less known Protestant Reformers.
"We all know about Reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin, but who else do you know? What other brothers in the faith do know you who passed on to us our Protestant tradition?
This special series is dedicated to some of the lesser known reformers and liberating contributions of the Protestant Reformation.
Joining moderator John Duncan, vice president of ministry outreach and executive producer at Ligonier Ministries, are Drs. J. Ligon Duncan III and Derek Thomas. Among their many roles and accomplishments, both Drs. Duncan and Thomas serve together at the historic First Presbyterian Church, in Jackson, Mississippi, and have joined Dr. Sproul during our Ligonier conferences."
Saturday, November 01, 2008
Matatics On the Road Again
For those who enjoy the wandering ramblings of Gerry Matatics, here is a recent email from him about a new opportunity. I cut out the middle which is primarily about donations.
Dear Friends:
One of the foremost traditional Catholic educational leaders in our country has presented me with a unique opportunity to make the Biblical case for Catholicism to a Baptist group in Albuquerque, New Mexico in the next month or two. But if things go right, this can rapidly mushroom into a six-state speaking tour of Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, west Texas, and Oklahoma. Please keep reading.
A God-sent evangelistic opportunity
As a former Protestant myself, I'm always thrilled with such opportunities to lay out the Scriptural, historical, and logical arguments for the Catholic Faith being the one true Faith and the Catholic Church being the one true Church, outside of which there is no salvation. I've been doing this full-time for 22 years now.
I know the mindset of these folks very well. As you may know, I myself was a convinced Baptist for many years -- throughout my high school, university, and graduate school years -- before finally embracing Presbyterianism while completing my Master of Divinity degree at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and becoming an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church in America.
From first-hand personal experience I readily understand Baptist misconceptions and prejudices. I know how their mind works and how they handle Scripture. And, by God's grace, I've been very blessed to successfully persuade many Baptists over the years to embrace the Catholic Faith, in the hundreds of cities and towns I've spoken in so far.
… [donations requested]
Whichever way you choose to donate, I look forward to hearing from you if you can help make this trip a reality. I honestly don't know anyone else who travels all across the country as I do, from Alaska to Florida, from Maine to Hawaii, bringing the hard-hitting traditional Catholic message that I do. Despite my unworthiness, I truly believe that, by God's grace, this apostolate is unique, and uniquely deserves your prayerful support and the support of every clear-minded Catholic in this age of inconsistency, doctrinal confusion, and near-universal apostasy.
Thank you for keeping me going in this crusade to bring the unadulterated Catholic Faith to every man, woman, and child in America before it's too late. Please feel free to forward this e-mail to anyone you think might be interested in helping. Thanks, and may God richly bless you and your family! You already know, I'm sure, that we remember all our donors and all their loved ones in our family rosary every evening. God be with you, now and forever.
Your servant in Christ Our King and Mary Our Queen Mother,
Gerry Matatics, Founder & President
Biblical Foundations International
Friday, October 31, 2008
The Counsels for the Perfect
"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." [Matthew 5:38-42]
I came across an introductory note in a book I was reading that mentioned confusion by early 16th century Protestants over exactly how texts like Matthew 5:39 and Romans 12:19 should be understood. The problem was how far Protestants should go to obey secular authorities. Confusion arose because Roman Catholics typically interpreted these texts as "counsels for the perfect," and not precepts for all Christians. This intrigued me, and I searched around to find out what all this was about.
The Catholic Encyclopedia explains:
Christ in the Gospels laid down certain rules of life and conduct which must be practiced by every one of His followers as the necessary condition for attaining to everlasting life. These precepts of the Gospel practically consist of the Decalogue, or Ten Commandments, of the Old Law, interpreted in the sense of the New. Besides these precepts which must be observed by all under pain of eternal damnation, He also taught certain principles which He expressly stated were not to be considered as binding upon all, or as necessary conditions without which heaven could not be attained, but rather as counsels for those who desired to do more than the minimum and to aim at Christian perfection, so far as that can be obtained here upon earth.
I wouldn't normally quote Wikipedia, but they actually were one of the few sources I found that explained this:
The Double Standard View is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church. It divides the teachings of the Sermon [on the mount] into general precepts and specific counsels. Obedience to the general precepts is essential for salvation, but obedience to the counsels is only necessary for perfection. The great mass of the population need only concern themselves with the precepts; the counsels must be followed by only a pious few such as the clergy and monks. This theory was initiated by St. Augustine and later fully developed by St. Thomas Aquinas, though an early version of it is cited in Did. 6:2, "For if you are able to bear the entire yoke of the Lord, you will be perfect; but if you are not able to do this, do what you are able" (Roberts-Donaldson), and reflected in the Apostolic Decree of the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:19-21). Geoffrey Chaucer also did much to popularize this view among speakers of English with his Canterbury Tales (Wife of Bath's Prologue, v. 117-118)
And also, this source states:
In the Middle Ages twelve counsels were commonly enumerated, which were found especially in the Sermon on the Mount; and after the aforesaid three general heads, which concerned the religious orders, there were recommended, for instance, the injunctions " love your enemies " (Matt. v. 44), " resist not evil " (Matt. v. 39-41), etc.
And this source states:
"Commandments are given ' about those things which are necessary to attain the end of eternal felicity,' but the counsels ' about those things by which one may obtain this end better and sooner.' In general the counsels deal with poverty, chastity, and obedience, but there was an enumeration of twelve culled from the Sermon on the Mount, including, e.g., the injunctions 'Love your enemies' and 'Resist not evil.'"
It appears a typical Roman Catholic needs to try and at LEAST keep the outward law. But, if you'd like to go a bit further, then work a little bit on your heart.
Happy Reformation Day.
I came across an introductory note in a book I was reading that mentioned confusion by early 16th century Protestants over exactly how texts like Matthew 5:39 and Romans 12:19 should be understood. The problem was how far Protestants should go to obey secular authorities. Confusion arose because Roman Catholics typically interpreted these texts as "counsels for the perfect," and not precepts for all Christians. This intrigued me, and I searched around to find out what all this was about.
The Catholic Encyclopedia explains:
Christ in the Gospels laid down certain rules of life and conduct which must be practiced by every one of His followers as the necessary condition for attaining to everlasting life. These precepts of the Gospel practically consist of the Decalogue, or Ten Commandments, of the Old Law, interpreted in the sense of the New. Besides these precepts which must be observed by all under pain of eternal damnation, He also taught certain principles which He expressly stated were not to be considered as binding upon all, or as necessary conditions without which heaven could not be attained, but rather as counsels for those who desired to do more than the minimum and to aim at Christian perfection, so far as that can be obtained here upon earth.
I wouldn't normally quote Wikipedia, but they actually were one of the few sources I found that explained this:
The Double Standard View is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church. It divides the teachings of the Sermon [on the mount] into general precepts and specific counsels. Obedience to the general precepts is essential for salvation, but obedience to the counsels is only necessary for perfection. The great mass of the population need only concern themselves with the precepts; the counsels must be followed by only a pious few such as the clergy and monks. This theory was initiated by St. Augustine and later fully developed by St. Thomas Aquinas, though an early version of it is cited in Did. 6:2, "For if you are able to bear the entire yoke of the Lord, you will be perfect; but if you are not able to do this, do what you are able" (Roberts-Donaldson), and reflected in the Apostolic Decree of the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:19-21). Geoffrey Chaucer also did much to popularize this view among speakers of English with his Canterbury Tales (Wife of Bath's Prologue, v. 117-118)
And also, this source states:
In the Middle Ages twelve counsels were commonly enumerated, which were found especially in the Sermon on the Mount; and after the aforesaid three general heads, which concerned the religious orders, there were recommended, for instance, the injunctions " love your enemies " (Matt. v. 44), " resist not evil " (Matt. v. 39-41), etc.
And this source states:
"Commandments are given ' about those things which are necessary to attain the end of eternal felicity,' but the counsels ' about those things by which one may obtain this end better and sooner.' In general the counsels deal with poverty, chastity, and obedience, but there was an enumeration of twelve culled from the Sermon on the Mount, including, e.g., the injunctions 'Love your enemies' and 'Resist not evil.'"
It appears a typical Roman Catholic needs to try and at LEAST keep the outward law. But, if you'd like to go a bit further, then work a little bit on your heart.
Happy Reformation Day.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
MARTIN LUTHER: MADMAN, HERETIC, PROPHET, OR REFORMER?
Today at 3PM I will be on Chris Arnzen's Iron Sharpens Iron show. The show can be heard live over the Internet, and the MP3 will be available for download around 4:30 PM.
MP3 Available Here
JAMES SWAN, who is involved in teaching ministry at the Pompton Plains Reformed Bible Church in New Jersey, will address "MARTIN LUTHER: MADMAN, HERETIC, PROPHET, OR REFORMER?"
October 31 marks the 491st anniversary of Martin Luther nailing the 95 Theses to the castle church door in Wittenberg Germany. Protestants all over the world mark this as the birth of the Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther is celebrated as a hero who stood alone against the tyranny of the Roman Catholic Church. Luther is heralded as a mighty voice proclaiming salvation by faith alone and scripture alone!
But who exactly was Martin Luther? A Madman? Modern-day psychologists speculate he was a man with mental disorders. They speculate Luther’s psychosis was inherent lust, secret vices, an overpowering sex drive, and an opposition to celibacy. These were Luther’s psychological reasons to abandon the Roman Church in his “attempt” to destroy her. Some see him as manic-depressive a product of an alcoholic parent, or a sufferer of the Oedipus complex that unknowingly pushed the reform movement forward.
Many Roman Catholics still view him as the great heretic who split the church, not only in half, but by his heresy created thousands of Protestant denominations. In his proclamation of sola fide and sola scriptura, Luther has lead countless lives away from the Roman Catholic Church. They claim God would never use such a sinful man to "reform" the Church which the gates of Hell can never prevail against.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, others have claimed Luther was a prophet. Some of the later generation Lutherans looked to him as an infallible authority in spiritual matters. Some like the Seventh Day Adventists insist Luther claimed himself to be a prophet. If Luther can claim to be a prophet, and be treated as a hero by Protestants, why can't Adventist founder Ellen White be a prophet of similar respect?
Was Luther a Reformer? Are Protestants correct when they extol the importance of his work in the 16th Century? How does one decide who exactly Luther was? Today James Swan will attempt to look at the many historical "Luthers", and give an overview of how worldviews effect historical analysis.
James is also a member of "Team Apologian", contributing articles to the blog on the web site of renowned Bible scholar Dr. James R. White's Alpha and Omega Ministries , contributes Reformation articles for Christian apologist Dr. Eric Svendsen's New Testament Research Ministries' website, and has had articles published in the Reformed periodical, The Outlook . He also runs his own daily blog, Beggars All: Reformation and Apologetics , dedicated to historical and Biblical research on the Protestant Reformation.
MP3 Available Here
JAMES SWAN, who is involved in teaching ministry at the Pompton Plains Reformed Bible Church in New Jersey, will address "MARTIN LUTHER: MADMAN, HERETIC, PROPHET, OR REFORMER?"October 31 marks the 491st anniversary of Martin Luther nailing the 95 Theses to the castle church door in Wittenberg Germany. Protestants all over the world mark this as the birth of the Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther is celebrated as a hero who stood alone against the tyranny of the Roman Catholic Church. Luther is heralded as a mighty voice proclaiming salvation by faith alone and scripture alone!
But who exactly was Martin Luther? A Madman? Modern-day psychologists speculate he was a man with mental disorders. They speculate Luther’s psychosis was inherent lust, secret vices, an overpowering sex drive, and an opposition to celibacy. These were Luther’s psychological reasons to abandon the Roman Church in his “attempt” to destroy her. Some see him as manic-depressive a product of an alcoholic parent, or a sufferer of the Oedipus complex that unknowingly pushed the reform movement forward.
Many Roman Catholics still view him as the great heretic who split the church, not only in half, but by his heresy created thousands of Protestant denominations. In his proclamation of sola fide and sola scriptura, Luther has lead countless lives away from the Roman Catholic Church. They claim God would never use such a sinful man to "reform" the Church which the gates of Hell can never prevail against.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, others have claimed Luther was a prophet. Some of the later generation Lutherans looked to him as an infallible authority in spiritual matters. Some like the Seventh Day Adventists insist Luther claimed himself to be a prophet. If Luther can claim to be a prophet, and be treated as a hero by Protestants, why can't Adventist founder Ellen White be a prophet of similar respect?
Was Luther a Reformer? Are Protestants correct when they extol the importance of his work in the 16th Century? How does one decide who exactly Luther was? Today James Swan will attempt to look at the many historical "Luthers", and give an overview of how worldviews effect historical analysis.
James is also a member of "Team Apologian", contributing articles to the blog on the web site of renowned Bible scholar Dr. James R. White's Alpha and Omega Ministries , contributes Reformation articles for Christian apologist Dr. Eric Svendsen's New Testament Research Ministries' website, and has had articles published in the Reformed periodical, The Outlook . He also runs his own daily blog, Beggars All: Reformation and Apologetics , dedicated to historical and Biblical research on the Protestant Reformation.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
WAS MARTIN LUTHER AN ANTI-SEMITE?
Today at 3PM I will be on Chris Arnzen's Iron Sharpens Iron show. The show can be heard live over the Internet, and the MP3 will be available for download around 4:30 PM.
MP3 Available Here
JAMES SWAN, who is involved in teaching ministry at the Pompton Plains Reformed Bible Church in New Jersey, will address "WAS MARTIN LUTHER AN ANTI-SEMITE?"
October 31 marks the 491st anniversary of Martin Luther nailing the 95 Theses to the castle church door in Wittenberg Germany. Protestants all over the world mark this as the birth of the Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther is celebrated as a hero who stood alone against the tyranny of the Roman Catholic Church. Luther is heralded as a mighty voice proclaiming salvation by faith alone and scripture alone!
But did Martin Luther have a dark side? Many who oppose the Reformation today say that Martin Luther was not the "great Reformer" but actually a "great anti-Semite." Far from being a champion of human freedom, Luther preached hate against the Jewish people. Luther stated:
“Let their houses also be shattered and destroyed . . . Let their prayer books and Talmuds be taken from them, and their whole Bible too; let their rabbis be forbidden, on pain of death, to teach henceforth any more. Let the streets and highways be closed against them. Let them be forbidden to practice usury, and let all their money, and all their treasures of silver and gold be taken from them and put away in safety. And if all this be not enough, let them be driven like mad dogs out of the land.”
Those who oppose the Reformation wonder how Protestants can claim Luther was a hero of freedom and human dignity and neglect to mention such blatant hatred for an entire group of people! They question whether or not the Reformation Luther started against the Roman Catholic Church was a movement really interested in freedom and human dignity. They posit that perhaps Luther has been overly romanticized: the Church he fought against really wasn’t as bad as portrayed. Luther’s anti-Semitic statements prove unhesitatingly he could not have been a “Reformer” in any sense of the word. A true man of God could never say such awful things.
Today, James Swan tackles this controversial subject head on, as he discusses his paper Luther and the Jews, hosted on Christian apologist Dr. Eric Svendsen's New Testament Research Ministries' website. Luther and the Jews is one of the most in-depth treatments of this subject available on the Internet.
James is also a member of "Team Apologian", contributing articles to the blog on the web site of renowned Bible scholar Dr. James R. White's Alpha and Omega Ministries , contributes Reformation articles for Christian apologist Dr. Eric Svendsen's New Testament Research Ministries' website, and has had articles published in the Reformed periodical, The Outlook . He also runs his own daily blog, Beggars All: Reformation and Apologetics , dedicated to historical and Biblical research on the Protestant Reformation.
MP3 Available Here
JAMES SWAN, who is involved in teaching ministry at the Pompton Plains Reformed Bible Church in New Jersey, will address "WAS MARTIN LUTHER AN ANTI-SEMITE?"October 31 marks the 491st anniversary of Martin Luther nailing the 95 Theses to the castle church door in Wittenberg Germany. Protestants all over the world mark this as the birth of the Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther is celebrated as a hero who stood alone against the tyranny of the Roman Catholic Church. Luther is heralded as a mighty voice proclaiming salvation by faith alone and scripture alone!
But did Martin Luther have a dark side? Many who oppose the Reformation today say that Martin Luther was not the "great Reformer" but actually a "great anti-Semite." Far from being a champion of human freedom, Luther preached hate against the Jewish people. Luther stated:
“Let their houses also be shattered and destroyed . . . Let their prayer books and Talmuds be taken from them, and their whole Bible too; let their rabbis be forbidden, on pain of death, to teach henceforth any more. Let the streets and highways be closed against them. Let them be forbidden to practice usury, and let all their money, and all their treasures of silver and gold be taken from them and put away in safety. And if all this be not enough, let them be driven like mad dogs out of the land.”
Those who oppose the Reformation wonder how Protestants can claim Luther was a hero of freedom and human dignity and neglect to mention such blatant hatred for an entire group of people! They question whether or not the Reformation Luther started against the Roman Catholic Church was a movement really interested in freedom and human dignity. They posit that perhaps Luther has been overly romanticized: the Church he fought against really wasn’t as bad as portrayed. Luther’s anti-Semitic statements prove unhesitatingly he could not have been a “Reformer” in any sense of the word. A true man of God could never say such awful things.
Today, James Swan tackles this controversial subject head on, as he discusses his paper Luther and the Jews, hosted on Christian apologist Dr. Eric Svendsen's New Testament Research Ministries' website. Luther and the Jews is one of the most in-depth treatments of this subject available on the Internet.
James is also a member of "Team Apologian", contributing articles to the blog on the web site of renowned Bible scholar Dr. James R. White's Alpha and Omega Ministries , contributes Reformation articles for Christian apologist Dr. Eric Svendsen's New Testament Research Ministries' website, and has had articles published in the Reformed periodical, The Outlook . He also runs his own daily blog, Beggars All: Reformation and Apologetics , dedicated to historical and Biblical research on the Protestant Reformation.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
We still don't know to whom to turn
The fun continues in the "...we will not know to whom to turn" combox. Thanks to GeneMBridges who has stepped in to provide some timely thoughts. Here are mine in regard to the last two Romanist comments.
TheDude,
I'd like you to imagine a context in which the declaration to Mary: "If you will not help us because we are ungrateful and unworthy children of your protection, we will not know to whom to turn" would be comparable to a Reformed pastor saying "Christ died for all men". Limited Atonement is not a necessary article of faith to be saved, and besides that I don't think a seriously Reformed pastor would ever say that anyway. But recourse to CHRIST for forgiveness of sin IS a necessary article of faith, at least biblically. Apparently not in modern RC theology.
So make it as rosy and sunny as you can for your position. Create a scenario in which:
1) the Pope would actually be presenting Christ as the Savior, and
2) this statement would fit and make sense.
Similarly for de Liguori - in what kind of scenario is it permissible to ask for recourse to someone else to rescue you from Jesus? Let's make this a little more practical, more hands-on.
All this sounds suspiciously like you are trying to insert your individual interpretations in place of actual statements from a Pope and from a doctor of the church. It's very Protestant of you. Are you sure you don't want to visit my church this week?
I pray to all three persons of the Trinity, depending. What I don't do is tell a human that I have no hope if I disappoint that human.
Daniel Montoro said a few interesting things. Unfortunately, in none of them did he provide any evidence of an attack on his church in the post. I'm usually happy enough to attack the RCC, but I didn't do so in the post.
Montoro, ironically enough, attacks the church well enough in his acting like a Protestant all thru his comment. What an example for all Prots and Romanists alike to follow! If you don't like what the Magisterium says, just reinterpret it. Of course, isn't that what we Prots get accused of all the time, with regard to the Scr and patristic writings?
She leads people to Christ. Period.
Then why didn't the Pope say that? You sound like a Protestant too.
I'm not quite certain that the Pope would appreciate you correcting him. It appears to be the Protestants here who are taking the Pope at his word, and the Romanists who hasten to change his words.
Now you have to have a disgusting hatred of Mary, and in turn Jesus
B/c I speak up when someone says that there is no recourse if she is no recourse, I hate Mary?
May I honestly recommend you read Svenden's Who Is My Mother?
The short answer is that you are full of it - we don't hate Mary but rather love her and more pointedly her Son enough to want to keep them both in their proper places - Mary as a worshiper and disciple, Jesus as the only true God and Savior. What a disgusting thing to say!
these satanic comments
Nice.
You seem to me to be just like those holocaust deniers over there in Jersey.
Your blood be on your own hands, man.
still believe that Jesus will let you into Heaven?
Let's grant your point for a second. Where does Scr define demotion of Mary as a damnable offense? Where does Scr define mortal sin? How dare you judge my sin as mortal? How do you know that I have sufficient knowledge of the situation to make it a mortal sin, rather than a venial?
What about honoring your father and mother?
I thought Jesus didn't have any siblings. Mary is not my mother.
I think that this is what it means for you to be a separated brethern
Yes, that's what we need - a profane Roman layman to tell us what the Magisterium meant when it called Prots "separated brethren". I think I'll let the Catechism and the Pope do the talking, thank you.
TheDude,
I'd like you to imagine a context in which the declaration to Mary: "If you will not help us because we are ungrateful and unworthy children of your protection, we will not know to whom to turn" would be comparable to a Reformed pastor saying "Christ died for all men". Limited Atonement is not a necessary article of faith to be saved, and besides that I don't think a seriously Reformed pastor would ever say that anyway. But recourse to CHRIST for forgiveness of sin IS a necessary article of faith, at least biblically. Apparently not in modern RC theology.
So make it as rosy and sunny as you can for your position. Create a scenario in which:
1) the Pope would actually be presenting Christ as the Savior, and
2) this statement would fit and make sense.
Similarly for de Liguori - in what kind of scenario is it permissible to ask for recourse to someone else to rescue you from Jesus? Let's make this a little more practical, more hands-on.
All this sounds suspiciously like you are trying to insert your individual interpretations in place of actual statements from a Pope and from a doctor of the church. It's very Protestant of you. Are you sure you don't want to visit my church this week?
I pray to all three persons of the Trinity, depending. What I don't do is tell a human that I have no hope if I disappoint that human.
Daniel Montoro said a few interesting things. Unfortunately, in none of them did he provide any evidence of an attack on his church in the post. I'm usually happy enough to attack the RCC, but I didn't do so in the post.
Montoro, ironically enough, attacks the church well enough in his acting like a Protestant all thru his comment. What an example for all Prots and Romanists alike to follow! If you don't like what the Magisterium says, just reinterpret it. Of course, isn't that what we Prots get accused of all the time, with regard to the Scr and patristic writings?
She leads people to Christ. Period.
Then why didn't the Pope say that? You sound like a Protestant too.
I'm not quite certain that the Pope would appreciate you correcting him. It appears to be the Protestants here who are taking the Pope at his word, and the Romanists who hasten to change his words.
Now you have to have a disgusting hatred of Mary, and in turn Jesus
B/c I speak up when someone says that there is no recourse if she is no recourse, I hate Mary?
May I honestly recommend you read Svenden's Who Is My Mother?
The short answer is that you are full of it - we don't hate Mary but rather love her and more pointedly her Son enough to want to keep them both in their proper places - Mary as a worshiper and disciple, Jesus as the only true God and Savior. What a disgusting thing to say!
these satanic comments
Nice.
You seem to me to be just like those holocaust deniers over there in Jersey.
Your blood be on your own hands, man.
still believe that Jesus will let you into Heaven?
Let's grant your point for a second. Where does Scr define demotion of Mary as a damnable offense? Where does Scr define mortal sin? How dare you judge my sin as mortal? How do you know that I have sufficient knowledge of the situation to make it a mortal sin, rather than a venial?
What about honoring your father and mother?
I thought Jesus didn't have any siblings. Mary is not my mother.
I think that this is what it means for you to be a separated brethern
Yes, that's what we need - a profane Roman layman to tell us what the Magisterium meant when it called Prots "separated brethren". I think I'll let the Catechism and the Pope do the talking, thank you.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Luther's Statement Concerning Roman Catholic Authorities: "Why do we not rather assault them with arms and wash our hands in their blood?" (Part Three)
"It seems to me that if the Romanists are so mad the only remedy remaining is for the emperor, the kings, the princes to gird themselves with force of arms to attack these pests of all the world and fight them, not with words, but with steel. If we punish thieves with the yoke, highwaymen with the sword, and heretics with fire, why do we not rather assault these monsters of perdition, these cardinals, these popes, and the whole swarm of the Roman Sodom, who corrupt youth and the Church of God? Why do we not rather assault them with arms and wash our hands in their blood?"- Martin Luther June 25, 1520
Previously, I looked briefly at the bibliographic way this Luther quote has been documented. Then I pointed out the numerous interpretations given to this quote. Finally, let's address interpreting this Luther quote in its context.
This quote comes from the document entitled, Epitoma Responsionis ad Marinum Lutherum. It was originally a book published by one of Luther's Roman Catholic opponents, Sylvester Prierias. As a response to it, Luther republished it with his own annotations, introduction and conclusion. The quote in question comes from Luther's conclusion.
In the conclusion, Luther notes Priarias was unwilling to concede that a council should be called to address his concerns. Prierias had argued for the primacy of the Pope, and only a pope could call a council. The position held by Prierias was papal absolutism: the Pope had absolute power, not only over the Roman church, but all churches worldwide, and his power was absolute over non-Christians as well. All those within the church that held an office derived their power from the Pope (rather than the apostles). He saw the Pope as the "sole arbiter and infallible judge of the truth in matters regarding faith and morals" (Epitoma, WA 6:330.16.-18, as per David Bagchi).
One needs to consider what it would mean to be faced with such an argument of papal absolutism, particularly if the papacy was unwilling to even consider the charges Luther was concerned with. In the indulgence controversy, the Roman papacy simply ordered Luther to recant, despite the fact that the entire scope of exactly what indulgences meant was not dogmatically defined. Luther was being forced to recant of "heretical" positions without dialog, council, or even a Roman dogma by which to judge his opinions against.
Prierias was a high official in the Roman Church. He charged Luther with offending the Pope's majesty in questioning indulgence preaching, because this was akin to questioning the authority of the one who granted indulgence preaching (the Pope). The battle over indulgences quickly moved to Luther questioning the very office of the Papacy and exactly what extent of power such an office held. Controversialists like Prierias responded that the Papacy had naked authority to silence criticisms like those Luther was putting forth. Luther argued in his conclusion to the Epitoma this type of position on papal authority held by Prierias was unbiblical. It goes against Matthew 18:15-17, for the Pope, according to the position held by Prierias, could never fall under its order of discipline. If the Pope refused to listen, he should be treated as a heathen and a publican.
The entire tone of Prierias' work provoked Luther, particularly since Prierias was such a high ranking official. Against this position of papal absolutism Luther declares:
Luther explained not to long afterward exactly what he meant by his violent outburst in response to another Roman controversialist. Luther's violent words were cited by Jerome Emser: "Luther has heretofore, in his other books, exhorted the common people most diligently to wash their hands in the blood of the priests" (Emser, as cited in Works of Martin Luther III, p. 343). Let's let Luther explain what he meant. In response to Jerome Emser, In LW 39: 172-174, Luther states:
Previously, I looked briefly at the bibliographic way this Luther quote has been documented. Then I pointed out the numerous interpretations given to this quote. Finally, let's address interpreting this Luther quote in its context.
This quote comes from the document entitled, Epitoma Responsionis ad Marinum Lutherum. It was originally a book published by one of Luther's Roman Catholic opponents, Sylvester Prierias. As a response to it, Luther republished it with his own annotations, introduction and conclusion. The quote in question comes from Luther's conclusion.
In the conclusion, Luther notes Priarias was unwilling to concede that a council should be called to address his concerns. Prierias had argued for the primacy of the Pope, and only a pope could call a council. The position held by Prierias was papal absolutism: the Pope had absolute power, not only over the Roman church, but all churches worldwide, and his power was absolute over non-Christians as well. All those within the church that held an office derived their power from the Pope (rather than the apostles). He saw the Pope as the "sole arbiter and infallible judge of the truth in matters regarding faith and morals" (Epitoma, WA 6:330.16.-18, as per David Bagchi).
One needs to consider what it would mean to be faced with such an argument of papal absolutism, particularly if the papacy was unwilling to even consider the charges Luther was concerned with. In the indulgence controversy, the Roman papacy simply ordered Luther to recant, despite the fact that the entire scope of exactly what indulgences meant was not dogmatically defined. Luther was being forced to recant of "heretical" positions without dialog, council, or even a Roman dogma by which to judge his opinions against.
Prierias was a high official in the Roman Church. He charged Luther with offending the Pope's majesty in questioning indulgence preaching, because this was akin to questioning the authority of the one who granted indulgence preaching (the Pope). The battle over indulgences quickly moved to Luther questioning the very office of the Papacy and exactly what extent of power such an office held. Controversialists like Prierias responded that the Papacy had naked authority to silence criticisms like those Luther was putting forth. Luther argued in his conclusion to the Epitoma this type of position on papal authority held by Prierias was unbiblical. It goes against Matthew 18:15-17, for the Pope, according to the position held by Prierias, could never fall under its order of discipline. If the Pope refused to listen, he should be treated as a heathen and a publican.
The entire tone of Prierias' work provoked Luther, particularly since Prierias was such a high ranking official. Against this position of papal absolutism Luther declares:
"If these opinions and this teaching prevail at Rome, with the knowledge of the Pope and the Cardinals, I pronounce that Antichrist sits in the temple of God, and that the Roman Court is the synagogue of Satan. If the Pope and the Cardinals do not demand a retraction of these opinions,I declare that I dissent from the Roman Church, and cast it off as the abomination standing in the holy place."
"When the Romanists see that they cannot prevent a Council, they feign that the Pope is above a Council, is the infallible rule of truth, and the author of all understanding of Scripture. There is no remedy, save that Emperor, Kings, and Princes should attack these pests and settle the matter, not by words but by the sword. If we punish thieves by the gallows, and heretics by fire, why not attack Pope, Cardinals, and the brood of the Roman Sodom with arms, and wash our hands in their blood?" [source]Read with this background, one sees Luther's anger and frustration. To cite the quote without explaining why Luther would've been provoked to such a violent outburst is to ignore history: it is to ignore the historical polemic context in which Luther found himself, in heated dialogue with high ranking Roman apologists that could influence his very life or death. He was in a battle against those who simply declared and defended the power of the Pope. How could one engage in a life threatening situation against an absolute power that refused to even admit its wrongdoings and abuses with indulgences? Luther responds harshly that the Emperor, kings, and princes should treat such an abuse of power in the same way thieves and heretics are treated by the state. Keep in mind, Roman contoversialists would have no problem likewise having Luther fall into the hands of the state to be punished with the same severity.
Luther explained not to long afterward exactly what he meant by his violent outburst in response to another Roman controversialist. Luther's violent words were cited by Jerome Emser: "Luther has heretofore, in his other books, exhorted the common people most diligently to wash their hands in the blood of the priests" (Emser, as cited in Works of Martin Luther III, p. 343). Let's let Luther explain what he meant. In response to Jerome Emser, In LW 39: 172-174, Luther states:
Emser’s second lie is that I wanted the hands of the laymen washed in the blood of the priests. His holy priesthood and Christian love seek nothing but fire. If I were dead he could spread such lies as truth, just as happened to Huss. This is the way I have written against Sylvester, “in contrast,” as this noble poet and rhetorician well knows: if heretics are burned, why should we not much rather attack the pope and his sects with the sword and wash our hands in their blood, if he teaches what Sylvester writes, namely, that Holy Scripture has its power from the pope. But since I dislike burning heretics, or killing even a single Christian, and since I know full well it is against the gospel, I merely indicated what they deserve if heretics deserve the fire. Nor is it necessary to attack you with the sword. The nobility and worldly powers, if they just despise your tyrannical shamming and false ban, can certainly advise you womanish and childish people with a single letter and command. They can say to you, “This is the way it must be,” and you have no choice but to obey. The way you react to it, with burning, banning, raging, and raving against the clear truth, it seems you would really like to have a Bohemian example made of yourselves and fulfil the prophecy which says that the priests should be slain. If this should happen to you, you cannot blame me. Just continue as you are, you are on the right track! Where advice is not possible, help is not possible. You will very soon find out if you can end the game in that way, even if it rains and snows nothing but bishops, Emsers, Ecks, and popes. I trust you have foreseen that no one will destroy the pope but you yourselves, his own creatures, as the prophet says.
But tell me, dear Emser, if you may write that it is necessary and right to burn heretics and think you do not thereby soil your hands with Christian blood, why should it not also be right to strangle you, Sylvester, the pope, and all your sects in the most scandalous way? For not only do you write in the manner of a heretic and of the Antichrist, but you also say what all the devils are not allowed to say, namely, that the gospel is confirmed by the pope, its power is dependent on the pope’s power, and the church has done what the pope does? What heretic has ever so completely condemned and destroyed God’s word in one stroke? That is why I still say, “If heretics have deserved the fire, you and the pope should be killed a thousand times.” Still I do not want it to happen. Your judge is not far off. He will find you in good health and nimble. Do not get bored in the meantime. Yet I would prefer you to come before him with remorse and penance. God help you to do this, Amen. Nevertheless, I would like the Roman courtiers to be repelled with force just like other thieves and robbers, if they cannot be stopped in any other way.
So that I may not be ridiculed along with you I shall ignore your babbling that I put the priesthood to shame and your claim that St. Paul was consecrated by the apostles and St. Peter had a tonsure; I shall also ignore all the useless talk you spew forth about consecration and priestly estate and the threefold meaning of “spiritual”-spirituale, ecclesiasticum, religiosum-and that not all Christians are spiritual, spirituales. You probably also would like to say that the laying on of hands on the head meant more than consecration. Who can stop you if you intend to do nothing but lie and preach, as some do, that St. Bartholomew prayed the rosary and the psalter of our dear lady? I do not need any logic here: I call spiritual spirituales, devout Christians ecclesiasticum, and do not know religiosum in this context. I thought that for once the naked sword would strike me with the blade, but neither sheath nor sword nor man is at hand. You also lie that I have made all laymen bishops, priests, and spiritual in such a way that they may exercise the office without a call. But, as godly as you are, you conceal the fact that I added that no one should undertake this office without a call unless it be an extreme emergency. And what shall I say, since there is almost one lie after another in your book? I am afraid you will lie, blaspheme, hate, and rave yourself to death. In previous times it was easy to write against heretics. For even though they erred, as honest people they did not need to lie and stuck to the heart of the matter. My persecutors let the matter drop and, like knaves, rely solely upon lies. But to keep you from being displeased at hearing nothing but your lies, let us deal again with something good-the Spirit and the letter, which is the main theme of your book.Luther's famous biographer, Roland Bainton states in Here I Stand,
In one unguarded outburst he incited to violence. A new attack by Prierias lashed Luther to rage. In a printed reply he declared:
"It seems to me that if the Romanists are so mad the only remedy remaining is for the emperor, the kings, and princes to gird themselves with force of arms to attack these pests of all the world and fight them, not with words, but with steel. If we punish thieves with the yoke, highwaymen with the sword, and heretics with fire, why do we not rather assault these monsters of perdition, these cardinals, these popes, and the whole swarm of the Roman Sodom, who corrupt youth and the Church of God? Why do we not rather assault them with arms and wash our hands in their blood?"
Luther explained afterwards that he really did not mean what the words imply.
I wrote "If we burn heretics, why do we not rather attack the pope and his followers with the sword and wash our hands in their blood?" Since I do not approve of burning heretics nor of killing any Christian this I well know does not accord with the gospel I have shown what they deserve if heretics deserve fire. There is no need to attack you with the sword.
Despite this disclaimer Luther was never suffered to forget his incendiary blast. It was quoted against him in the Edict of the Diet of Worms.
The disavowal was genuine. His prevailing mood was expressed in a letter of October to a minister who was prompted to leave his post. Luther wrote:
Our warfare is not with flesh and blood, but against spiritual wickedness in the heavenly places, against the world rulers of this darkness. Let us then stand firm and heed the trumpet of the Lord. Satan is fighting, not against us, but against Christ in us. We fight the battles of the Lord. Be strong therefore. If God is for us, who can be against us?
You are dismayed because Eck is publishing a most severe bull against Luther, his books, and his followers. Whatever may happen, I am not moved, because nothing can happen save in accord with the will of him who sits upon the heaven directing all. Let not your hearts be troubled. Your Father knows your need before you ask him. Not a leaf from a tree falls to the ground without his knowledge. How much less can any of us fall unless it be his will.
If you have the spirit, do not leave your post, lest another receive your crown. It is but a little thing that we should die with the Lord, who in our flesh laid down his life for us. We shall rise with him and abide with him in eternity. See then that you do not despise your holy calling. He will come, he will not tarry, who will deliver us from every ill. Fare well in the Lord Jesus, who comforts and sustains mind and spirit. Amen.Bainton helpfully points out that Luther's words were cited against him in the Edict of the Diet of Worms. This document states:
Item. As for the holy order of the priesthood (through which the precious body and blood of our Lord is consecrated) and the power and authority of the keys of our Holy Mother Church: not only does Luther despise them by saying that they are common to all men, children, and women, but in addition, he provokes the seculars to wash their hands in the blood of the priests.The Edict was issued on May 25, 1521. Luther's explanation to Emser was in print by the end of March 1521. It may be the case that Luther's explanation was not consulted in the drafting of the Edict- but at least it should be clear Luther's explanation to Emser was not motivated by fear of, or embarrassment of the statement in the Edict of the Diet of Worms. What the Edict does show though is the way in which Catholics read Luther. Luther's arguments were taken to be words written to incite the people to violence against the Church. David Bagchi has pointed out that many of the Catholics responding to Luther early on,
"...displayed an attitude toward the people that revealed not simply disdain of social inferiors but also a deep fear of a potential source of violent revolution. For a religious and a priest to take the complaints of lay people seriously and on this basis to criticize a practice of the church (in the medieval sense of the 'clergy') was to commit class treason. It is well known that in years to come Luther was to use inflammatory language urging the laity to 'reform' the cardinals with cold steel; it is not so well known that his Catholic opponents first put these words into his mouth" (Luther's Earliest Opponents, p. 42).Later Bagchi explains that it was Luther's early opponents that first kept bringing up the possibility that Luther's arguments first against indulgences, and then (by forced implication) the power and validity of the Papacy, that were eventually going to lead to revolution. It was their continued counter-argument against him. Rather than call a church council to discuss and define indulgences, the early Catholic apologists sought to silence him for fear of revolt! Bagchi concludes it was Luther's opponents that eventually "gave him the idea of a reformation conducted by the laity." "The Catholic fear of insurrection indicated to Luther the vast reservoir of power, and it was through this power that he now saw a way of bringing about that reformation of the church he felt so necessary if God's teachings were to prevail against men's" (pp. 259-260).
Saturday, October 25, 2008
MP3 Debate: The Case For / Against God 1991
Here's an MP3 I found on a Catholic apologetics website (and moved over to another sever):
Greg Bahnsen vs. George H. Smith The Case For / Against God 1991
For those of you not familiar with presuppositional apologetics, this free-form discussion between the late Greg Bahnsen and atheist George Smith will give you a good taste of the method of argumentation. Try not to be doing anything distracting while listening to this show.
Greg Bahnsen vs. George H. Smith The Case For / Against God 1991
For those of you not familiar with presuppositional apologetics, this free-form discussion between the late Greg Bahnsen and atheist George Smith will give you a good taste of the method of argumentation. Try not to be doing anything distracting while listening to this show.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
"...we will not know to whom to turn."
Hat tip to TurretinFan, who pointed out this article, and I'd like to focus on a different statement from Pope Benedict.
Not much to say, actually...
No wonder he should say that:
My gracious, it is so sad.
Act 16:29 And he called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas,
Act 16:30 and after he brought them out, he said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"
Act 16:31 They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
Not much to say, actually...
With the words of Bartolo, the Pontiff turned to Mary, saying: "If you will not help us because we are ungrateful and unworthy children of your protection, we will not know to whom to turn."
No wonder he should say that:
...For, if Thou protect me, dear Mother, I fear nothing; not from my sins because Thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because Thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my Judge, because by one prayer from Thee, He will be appeased. But one thing I fear, that in the hour of temptation, I may through negligence fail to have recourse to Thee and thus perish miserably...(Alphonsus de Liguori, Our Lady of Perpetual Help)
My gracious, it is so sad.
Act 16:29 And he called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas,
Act 16:30 and after he brought them out, he said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"
Act 16:31 They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
