The Works of Zwingli (7 Volumes), Logos Bible Software Edition

While he's typically given a significant place in Reformation history, Zwingli's writings have not achieved the same level of popularity as those by Luther and Calvin.  Certainly this is due to the fact that he was not as good a writer and his Reformation career spanned a shorter length of time than Luther and Calvin.

It wasn't all that long ago here in cyberspace that tracking down anything of substance written by Zwingli in any language was futile, let alone English. Now Google books and a few other web sites have helpfully put up some of his works translated into English, most particularly,

The Latin Works and the Correspondence of Huldreich Zwingli, Volume 1

The Latin Works and the Correspondence of Huldreich Zwingli, Volume 2

There is also a third volume to this series, but as of the writing of this blog entry, it isn't available on Google Books. Even when I looked around for a used copy of volume 3, there were only a few I was able to track down. I spent a few minutes trying to determine the contents of Volume 3, and it appears to include at least an English translation of Zwingli's Commentary on True and false Religion. While this treatise isn't online, it still is available in print.

Logos software has recently made available these three volumes with a few others in their recent software package, The Works of Zwingli (7 Vols.). The other four volumes in this set are as follows:

Huldreich Zwingli: The Reformer of German Switzerland (available on Google Books).

Zwingli: The Christian Education of Youth (available on Google Books)

Life of Ulrich Zwingli, the Swiss Patriot and Reformer (available on Google Books)

'Christ Our Captain': An Introduction to Huldrych Zwingli by Jim West (not available on Google Books, but available for a very reasonable price here. The author's blog can be found here, as is his description of working with Logos on this package).

Logos wants $70 for this package, and if you're like me, you're wondering why you would want to spend $70   on 7 books when 5 of them are already readily available for free. I have a fairly large collection of Logos books, and I appreciate the digital format. But, I also appreciate not spending $70 on books I really don't need to spend $70 on. Jim West's book is affordable. The only part of this Logos package that's worth it is Volume 3 of the old Latin Works /Correspondence set. But here's the thing: I've jumped the gun in the past and bought a pricey old book because it wasn't available online, only to find that book free online maybe a few months later.  I won't admit how often I've done this, but let's just say it's been more than once. For me, this Logos Zwingli set just isn't worth it.

An Example of How Zwingli Only Helps Rome When Quoted Out of Context

Here's Protestant Reformer Ulrich Zwingli, coming to the aid of Roman Catholic apologetics, compliments of a Roman Catholic apologist:

It is also not generally known that Luther's celebrated translation of the Bible, famous for the formative influence it had on the German language, may not have been entirely original. The Swiss Reformer, Ulrich Zwingli, is quoted as having declared to Luther:

"You are unjust in putting forth the boastful claim of dragging the Bible from beneath the dusty benches of the schools. You forget that we have gained a knowledge of the Scriptures through the translations of others. You are very well aware, with all your blustering, that previously to your time there existed a host of scholars who, in biblical knowledge and philological attainments, were incomparably your superiors." [Alzog. III, 49, quoted in Patrick F. O'Hare, The Facts about Luther (pictured right) (Rockford, IL: Thomas A. Nelson Publishers, Inc., 1987), p. 191]

I've cut and pasted the above exactly as it's found here. This blog entry appears to be the work of Phillip Blosser. Blosser used the same Zwingli quote in his chapter, "Practical Problems with Sola Scriptura" as found in the book, Not By Scripture Alone (Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Publishing Co., 1998). In this article, Blosser explains how previous to the Reformation there were ample translations of the Bible in German, and this points to the fact that pre-Reformation Catholicism had a high view of Scripture. Blosser then states,

"In fact, little about Luther’s celebrated translation may have been original. The Swiss Reformer, Ulrich Zwingli, is quoted as having declared to Luther: 'You are unjust in putting forth the boastful claim of dragging the Bible from beneath the dusty benches of the schools. You forget that we have gained a knowledge of the Scriptures through the translations of others. You are very well aware, with all your blustering, that previously to your time there existed a host of scholars who, in biblical knowledge and philological attainments, were incomparably your superiors.' "

I've gone into this quote before: "Little about Luther’s celebrated translation may have been original"...so says Philip Blosser. In this earlier entry I discussed Blosser's use of O'Hare, and pointed out the problems with his argumentation.  Blosser's argument here is that there were German Bibles in existence previous to Luther (true enough). The Zwingli quote is presented as icing on the cake, since Zwingli, a Protestant, appears to be stating this as well. Blosser goes a step further stating, "In fact, little about Luther’s celebrated translation may have been original." You see, Luther probably just did a medieval cut-and-paste from these earlier German translations, and even Zwingli knew it. In context though, Zwingli isn't referring to these earlier German translations of the Bible.

The Internet being what it is, I was able to locate an even larger context for Zwingli's remarks.

"When you make the boast that you were the first to lug forth the Bible from under the bench, you go, methinks, too far. If we examine who by their philological acquirements made it first known, we shall find it was, some years ago, Valla, and in our own times, Erasmus, the pious Reuchlin and Pettikan. Without their assistance, neither you nor others had effected what has now been done—I mean in so far as the work may be ascribed to man. But who dare boast himself? Is it not God alone who gives the increase? Are not Paul's words here in their place, 1 Cor. iii. 6, 7: 'I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth anything, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase;' and 'Not unto us, O Lord, but unto thy name be the praise.' On the other hand, I shall gladly recognise your merits. Although there were not a few, my good Luther, who knew the sum and substance of true religion as well as yourself, yet none in all Israel dared to come forward to the fight, so terribly they feared that dreadful Goliath that stood opposed to them in his full panoply and power. Here, here you were the true David, anointed by the Lord for the work. Wherefore, all believing souls will never cease to sing with joy and gladness, 'Saul hath slain his thousands, but David his tens of thousands. Now, as for myself, dear Luther, I have ever reverenced my teachers as fathers. If, then, out of the fulness which God has granted to you, anything had flowed to me, why should I not acknowledge it? Why, above all, if I had learned the contents of the gospel from you, should not I confess it? But I shall candidly tell you how it is. There were many distinguished men, long before the name of Martin Luther became famous, who truly recognised in what the essence of religion consisted, and who were instructed by very different teachers from those whom you suppose. For in respect of myself, I testify before God that I learned the substance and chief contents of the gospel partly by the perusal of John and the writings of Augustine, and partly by the diligent study of the Epistles of Paul in the original Greek, which, with this hand, I copied out eleven years ago, (1516,) eight of which years you have been ruling like a king." [source]

Mark Edwards identifies the treatise this comes from. It's from a lengthy reply of Zwingli to Luther entitled That These Words of Christ "This is My Body Which is Given for You," Will Forever Retain Their Ancient, Single Meaning, and Martin Luther with His Latest Book has by no Means Proved or Established His Own and the Pope's View. The Biblical translating work that Zwingli referred to was more recent work, done by some who were not hook-line-and-sinker in step with Rome. He wasn't referring to all the older German translations. Zwingli was referring to "philological acquirements" that made Luther's Bible translation possible.

America can only survive with old fashioned morals and ethics; but only God's grace saves from sin

A great way to celebrate this 4th of July is to watch the movie, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" with your family, after the cookout and fireworks show.  It is great to watch it again and notice all the biblical references and principles peppered throughout the film.  The character played by Jimmy Stewart read the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and the Bible during his filibuster in the movie.  He quotes Leviticus 19:18 and Jesus, "Love Thy neighbor" (Luke 10:25-37; Matthew 22:39-40) in his speech above.  They don't make films like that anymore.

We are grateful for our political freedom, but the left wing philosophy, socialism, anti-capitalism, the homosexual agenda, the pro-abortionists, so called "same sex marriage", the spread of Islam and those seeking to promote Sharia law and Jihad, Islamic terrorism; immorality; etc. - these things are slowly eroding our great country and political freedom.

False doctrines in the churches, the word of faith movement, greed, celebrity, pragmatism, liberal theology, the emerging church, lack of true love that motivates missions and evangelism, these things have made Evangelicalism loose it's salt. (Matthew 5:13-16)

Biblical morality and ethics thrived when there was a basic Christian cultural worldview, but morality and clean living doesn't save people.  (Ephesians 2:8-9; Galatians 2:16; 2:21; Romans 3:28; 4:1-8; 4:16; 5:1; 10:9-10; John 1:12)  We need the grace of God for that.  Hopefully, the Lord will expose the culture rot and cause more people to seek Him and cry out for grace and salvation.

That we lost our ability to choose good over evil by the wrong use of our free will  - See the article before this one on the issue of our free will and freedom and how that relates to grace and faith by Augustine.

Augustine on the Bondage of the will, Freedom and Free Will

Chapter 30.—Men are Not Saved by Good Works, Nor by the Free Determination of Their Own Will, But by the Grace of God Through Faith.

“But this part of the human race to which God has promised pardon and a share in His eternal kingdom, can they be restored through the merit of their own works? God forbid! For what good work can a lost man perform, except so far as he has been delivered from perdition? Can they do anything by the free determination of their own will? Again I say, God forbid. For it was by the evil use of his free-will that man destroyed both it and himself. For, as a man who kills himself must, of course, be alive when he kills himself, but after he has killed himself ceases to live, and cannot restore himself to life; so, when man by his own free-will sinned, then sin being victorious over him, the freedom of his will was lost. “For of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.”   (2 Peter 2:19)  This is the judgment of the Apostle Peter. And as it is certainly true, what kind of liberty, I ask, can the bond-slave possess, except when it pleases him to sin? For he is freely in bondage who does with pleasure the will of his master. Accordingly, he who is the servant of sin is free to sin. And hence he will not be free to do right, until, being freed from sin, he shall begin to be the servant of righteousness. And this is true liberty, for he has pleasure in the righteous deed; and it is at the same time a holy bondage, for he is obedient to the will of God. But whence comes this liberty to do right to the man who is in bondage and sold under sin, except he be redeemed by Him who has said, “If the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed?”  (John 8:36)  And before this redemption is wrought in a man, when he is not yet free to do what is right, how can he talk of the freedom of his will and his good works, except he be inflated by that foolish pride of boasting which the apostle restrains when he says, “By grace are ye saved, through faith.” (Ephesians 2:8)

Chapter 31.—Faith Itself is the Gift of God; And Good Works Will Not Be Wanting in Those Who Believe.

And lest men should arrogate to themselves the merit of their own faith at least, not understanding that this too is the gift of God, this same apostle, who says in another place that he had “obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful”, (1 Corinthians 7:25) here also adds: “and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9)  And lest it should be thought that good works will be wanting in those who believe, he adds further: “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.” (Ephesians 2:10)  We shall be made truly free, then, when God fashions us, that is, forms and creates us anew, not as men—for He has done that already—but as good men, which His grace is now doing, that we may be a new creation in Christ Jesus, according as it is said: “Create in me a clean heart, O God.”  (Psalm 51:10) For God had already created his heart, so far as the physical structure of the human heart is concerned; but the psalmist prays for the renewal of the life which was still lingering in his heart.”

Augustine, Enchiridion 30-31 (My own emphasis) 

John 8:34 - Jesus said, "Truly I say to you whoever commits sin is the slave of sin."

Romans 6:22 - "But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life." 

"If you abide in My word, then you are truly My disciples, and you will know the truth, and the Truth will set you free" Jesus John 8:31-32

On this Fourth of July, 2012 - we celebrate and are thankful to God for our political freedom, but even more, we believers in Jesus Christ are grateful to God and celebrate our true spiritual freedom from sin and the slavery to sin.  (Romans 6:6-7) 

Matthew 1:18; 25, Mary and "Until"

I was searching the blog, and came across an old post from 2009. It's a humorous response on the Roman Catholic exegesis of Matthew 1:18-25 and their curious interpretation of the word "until." Unfortunately, the link to the the author of the counter-argument below no longer works. Apparently, I found it on the Envoy Forum. It may perhaps originate from this banned person on the Catholic Answers forum.

Matthew 1:18-25
18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. 19 And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly. 20 But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “ Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.” 22 Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: 23 “ Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which translated means, “ God with us.” 24 And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, 25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

Catholic Answers:

Scripture’s statement that Joseph "knew [Mary] not until she brought forth her firstborn" would not necessarily mean they did "know" each other after she brought forth Jesus. Until is often used in Scripture as part of an idiomatic expression similar to our own usage in English. I may say to you, "Until we meet again, God bless you." Does that necessarily mean after we meet again, God curse you? By no means. A phrase like this is used to emphasize what is being described before the until is fulfilled. It is not intended to say anything about the future beyond that point. [source]

Counter-Argument
Are you married? If so, try telling your father-in-law this: "I did not have relations with your daughter until we got engaged." See what he thinks of that. After all, if your father-in-law is as perceptive as you are, there's no way he'll make a spurious assumption about pre-marital relations between the two of you based on such a statement.

It's fun to imagine these kinds of things....This is what it would look like, just for review: In casual conversation with your wife's dad, you mention that you didn't have (relations) with his daughter until you were engaged. After telling him not to read so much into an idiomatic statement and that he should stop being so historically ignorant, tell him your statement had nothing to do with what you guys did after the engagement. See how that flies.

Luther on Water Baptism: Use Milk, Beer, Brandy or Anything?

Here's a reference to an obscure Luther quote (from a Roman Catholic source):

Scripture knows no Baptism but that of which water is the matter, and Luther maintains that you may baptize with beer, milk, brandy, with any liquid whatever. Calvin also believes that the baptismal water is a metaphorical water. [source]

The quote is said to come from the Table Talk. With any obscure quote from the Table Talk, (unfortunately) it always must be pointed out Luther did not write the Table Talk. That said, it's possible this quote does come from that source, but as far as I've been able to surmise, the Roman Catholic author may have embellished a bit by adding milk and brandy, and more often than not, the context for this sort of comment has to do with emergency baptisms rather than simply a flippant "anything goes" method for regular baptism. For Luther, water was the typical means of baptism. Emergencies were something different.

Consider these statements from the current English edition of the Table Talk:

No. 394: Prenatal Baptisms Are Ridiculed December, 1532
“[According to Aristotle] the whole soul is in each and every part of the body. On this basis they [the papists] baptize a fetus which has not yet been fully brought into the world. Augustine treated of this at great length. If I prick my finger, my whole body feels it. Therefore, when I baptize a finger I baptize the whole body.
“I don’t wish to be baptized thus. But I don’t care about the element, whatever one may have. Indeed, it’s enough to speak the words. Let the children be committed to our Lord God. The baptism itself is of no concern to me. Besides, the Word is the principal part of baptism. If in an emergency there’s no water at hand, it doesn’t matter whether water or beer is used.” [LW 54:61]

Dr. Jacob: “Should a child be baptized with wine? I hear that such a thing happened,” etc.
Dr. Luther: “If it’s done, it’s done by accident. So in this instance what happened was that in an emergency the poor women laid hold of wine, thinking it was something else. That child shouldn’t be baptized again because when I take something to be something—when I think it’s water, even if it really is something else—there’s no danger at all. Under the papacy priests often elevated water instead of wine.” [LW 54:425]

Consider as well this letter from Luther, late in his career:

To Nicolas Amsdorf, Concerning the dispensing of unconsecrated wafers.
January 11, 1546.
Grace and peace in Christ! As Dr. Cruciger and Dr. Major are absent, Pommer and I must answer you. First. It is not heedlessness, but rightdown wickedness of that curate to declare that consecrated and unconsecrated wafers (Hostien) are the same. Let him go to his Zwinglians. It is not necessary that a man who is not one of us should be kept in prison, whose word, and even oath, cannot be believed. Further, he who has partaken of an unconsecrated wafer has not sinned; for his faith has saved him, because he believed that he received the true sacrament, and trusted in God's Word, just as he who believes is baptized, although he who baptizes him plays with the ordinance, or uses some other fluid for the purpose. But we need not discuss this so minutely, in case of inflaming unenlightened consciences. It is enough that all is possible to him who believes. Regarding adulterated wafers, it would be well to burn them, although really not necessary, because they are no sacrament except in their actual use.! Even as baptismal water, except in its application in the rite, is no sacrament, even so Christ in this sacrament only operates on those who eat and believe.[source]

Consider though this comment from Martin Brecht:

Certainly in Luther's thought, the main power in baptism was the Word of God, not the water itself:

Similarly, the sophists also talk nonsense when they discuss how Baptism makes righteous. Thomas and Bonaventura think that some power for bringing this about has been given by God to the water when the child is baptized, with the result that the baptismal water brings about justification by its own power. In contrast, we say that the water is water, in no wise better in quality than that which a cow drinks. But we maintain that to the simple water the Word of promise has been added (Mark 16:16): “He that believes and is baptized will be saved”; likewise (John 3:5): “Man must be born again of water and the Spirit.” If someone should want to call this Word or this promise a power that has been given to the water of Baptism, I shall not object. But the idea of the sophists was something different. They do not attribute this power to the Word, but concerning the element they state that it has a special power given to it. Scotus speaks more correctly when he defines Baptism as a divine covenant standing by the element.
Luther, M. (1999, c1958). Vol. 1: Luther's works, vol. 1 : Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 1-5 (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (1:227). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House.

Luther's Small Catechism:

9 How can water produce such great effects?
10 Answer: It is not the water that produces these effects, but the Word of God connected with the water, and our faith which relies on the Word of God connected with the water. For without the Word of God the water is merely water and no Baptism. But when connected with the Word of God it is a Baptism, that is, a gracious water of life and a washing of regeneration in the Holy Spirit, as St. Paul wrote to Titus (3:5-8), “He saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Saviour, so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life. This saying is sure. Tappert, T. G. (2000, c1959). The book of concord : The confessions of the evangelical Lutheran church (349). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Does Paul Refer to Ongoing Authoritative Extra-Biblical Tradition in 2 Timothy?

What constitutes the ongoing infallible authority for the church? Roman Catholic apologists say it consists of Scripture + Tradition +  a Church magisterium (often referred to as"three-legged stool" model of authority).
Protestant  limit the infallible rule of faith to sacred Scripture. Two key passages relied on by Protestants are as follows:

2 Timothy 3:14-17
14 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Romans 16:25-27
25 Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, 26 but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith; 27 to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, be the glory forever. Amen.

In his book, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Volume I: A Biblical Defense of the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura, David King has commented,

Sola Scriptura functions as the authoritative norm for the people of God, and therefore stands as the only existing source of the deposit of faith that special revelation has disclosed. This is one reason why Paul wrote as he did in his closing remarks in Romans. He spoke of 'the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began but now has been made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures has been made known to all nations, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, for obedience to the faith' (Rom 16:25-26). According to the testimony of the Apostle Paul, Scripture has manifested this mystery, and this mystery is authoritatively interpreted by the epistles of the New Testament.

Scripture is therefore authoritatively specified (via apostolic sanction) as the God-ordained means for the manifestation of this mystery, the purpose being 'for obedience to the faith.' If unwritten tradition was to be regarded as a reliable means and/or source for the preservation of binding revelation beyond the time of the apostles, and intended to function perpetually as an authoritative norm alongside Scripture, why did Paul fail to mention such a concept when speaking of 'the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began?' (p.44)

Some Roman apologists claim Paul did not omit ongoling oral tradition as an authoritative norm alongside Scripture that was to function as an infallible rule of faith for the church. The most typical verse cited is 2 Thessalonians 2:14-15. I've dealt with that argument elsewhere, as have much abler writers (see David King's treatment on pages 119-121). I recently saw another proof offered for the Roman "three-legged stool" paradigm coming from one on the chief chapters Protestants rely on for sola scriptura, 2 Timothy 3.

2 Tim. 3:10; 14
10 Now you followed my teaching, conduct, purpose, faith, patience, love, perseverance, 11 persecutions, and sufferings, such as happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium and at Lystra; what persecutions I endured, and out of them all the Lord rescued me! 12 Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. 13 But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them,

Here Paul is said to be teaching an ongoing infallible extra-biblical tradition as a norm along side of sacred Scripture. But, as David King has pointed out above, saying such exists and proving it are two very different things. David rightly asks of any Roman apologist claiming such:

In the end, the matter of authoritative revelation boils down to a question of preservation. Regardless of the assertions of Roman apologists, when the dust settles, there is one question they cannot answer. Can you name one oral, extrabiblical tradition, demonstratively traceable to the apostolic age, which is necessary for the faith and practice of the Church of Jesus Christ? No verifiable example has been or can be offered. We affirm with the Apostle Paul, 'that according to the Way which they call a sect (or heresy), so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets' (Acts 24:14).

Certainly we can agree with Rome's apologists that previous to the completion of the New Testament and the deaths of the apostles and New Testament writers, the Word of God had an oral dimension. We can certainly agree that Paul taught Timothy in an oral nature, and that teaching was the word of God (2 Timothy 1:13-14, What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us). David King though rightly states that "In the end, the matter of authoritative revelation boils down to a question of preservation." It certainly does. If extra-biblical infallible oral revelation intended for the Church exists,  where is it, and what is it? What did Paul teach Timothy other than what we have in the Bible, and where is it? As King said above, "If unwritten tradition was to be regarded as a reliable means and/or source for the preservation of binding revelation beyond the time of the apostles, and intended to function perpetually as an authoritative norm alongside Scripture, why did Paul fail to mention such a concept when speaking of 'the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began?" As the old TV commercial goes, the question Rome's apologists need answer is where's the beef?

Other Spurious Examples of Infallible Extra-Biblical Tradition
Along with 2 Tim. 3:10;14, a Roman apologist may put forth Jannes and Jambres in 2 Timothy 3:8-9 as an example of infallible extra-biblical tradition:

8 Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of depraved mind, rejected in regard to the faith. 9 But they will not make further progress; for their folly will be obvious to all, just as Jannes’s and Jambres’s folly was also.

David King points out,

Roman apologists insist that the names of Jannes and Jambres would be unknown to us had they not been preserved by means of oral tradition. But this does not prove extrabiblical tradition, only inscripturated tradition. More importantly, the knowledge or ignorance of these names has no bearing on one's eternal destiny. This is not a matter of de fide even within the Church of Rome. Additionally, we draw from the witness of the Church father, Chrysostom, who said, 'Who are these [i.e., Jannes and Jambres]? The magicians in the time of Moses. But how is it their names are nowhere else introduced? Either they were handed down by tradition, or it is probable that Paul knew them by inspiration.' Theodore of Mopsuestia (350-428) wrote that, 'A great deal of foolishness has been written about how Paul could have known the names of these two men who resisted Moses.' Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-466) stated that, 'Paul takes the story of Jannes and Jambres not from holy Scripture but from unwritten Jewish tradition.'Instances of Alleged Support for Extra-Biblical Tradition. These examples demonstrate that there was a diversity of opinion among the early Church fathers themselves, thereby proving that there was no objective tradition current in their time. Perhaps, Theodore of Mopsuestia gave the best summation of speculative arguments over Paul's source when he spoke of the 'foolishness' that had been written about it. (p. 123).

Another popular argument using 2 Timothy against sola scriptura comes from 2 Timothy 2:1-2

You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2 And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others.

David King points out,

While the defenders of Rome quote this passage in support of extra-biblical traditions, we know that this was no secret deposit or esoteric oral tradition. Tertullian wrote:

What is this deposit? Is it so secret as to be supposed to characterize a new doctrine? or is it a part of that charge of which he says, 'This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy?' and also of that precept of which he says, 'I charge thee in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Jesus Christ who witnessed a good confession under Pontius Pilate, that thou keep this commandment?' Now, what is (this) commandment and what is (this) charge? From the preceding and the succeeding contexts, it will be manifest that there is no mysterious hint darkly suggested in this expression about (some) far-fetched doctrine, but that a warning is rather given against receiving any other (doctrine) than that which Timothy had heard from himself, as I take it publicly: 'Before many witnesses' is his phrase. Now, if they refuse to allow that the church is meant by these 'many witnesses,' it matters nothing, since nothing could have been secret which was produced 'before many witnesses.' Nor, again, must the circumstance of his having wished him to 'commit these things to faithful men, who should be able to teach others also,' be construed into a proof of there being some occult gospel. For, when he says 'these things,' he refers to the things of which he is writing at the moment. In reference, however, to occult subjects, he would have called them, as being absent, those things, not these things, to one who had a joint knowledge of them with himself. (emphasis mine).

According to Tertullian, Paul committed to 'faithful men,' who in turn passed on this deposit of truth, the things of which 'he is writing at the moment.' It had nothing to do with extrabiblical traditions. It was a succession of apostolic teaching, not a succession of men.

Among the things Paul conveyed, in this epistle, was his own instruction regarding the sufficiency of holy Scripture. Thus, this 'proof' text does not support the Roman contention regarding an oral deposit of doctrine passed down through successive generations in the Church. (pp.122-123).

Conclusion
These few examples demonstrate that David King's book, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Volume I: A Biblical Defense of the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura, is of immense value in dealing with Roman apologists.  To this date, no Roman Catholic apologist has offered any sort of meaningful comprehensive counter-response. Those that have made attempts typically start, but give up. I can think of at least two Roman Catholic apologists that guaranteed full rebuttals, but quickly gave up. Some actually make arguments against King's book, not even realizing he's already answered their argument. For instance, one Roman apologist mentions Jannes and Jambres in 2 Timothy 3:8-9 as an example of infallible extra-biblical tradition that refutes King, apparently not even realizing King's book included a section on Jannes and Jambres.

Roman Catholics and Private Interpretation

The following is a brief excerpt from Eric Svendsen's book, Upon This Slippery Rock, Countering Roman Catholic Claims to Authority (New York: Calvary Press, 2002) pp. 74-76. This is posted because a few Roman Catholic bloggers decided to tell me what they think "private interpretation" means for Roman Catholics. This book can be purchased here.

Appendix B: The Roman Catholic Teaching on Private Interpretation
I INCLUDE this section because there are many Roman Catholics who deny that they argue in the way this book represents. When confronted with these epistemological fallacies, rather than present a defense of the Roman Catholic view, they claim that the fallacies are meaningless since Rome has never condemned private interpretation in the way this book suggests. I have included writings from Trent, Vatican I and Vatican II, to demonstrate the contrary; namely, that Rome really does condemn private interpretation, and that individual Roman Catholics really do commit the epistemological fallacies we have enumerated. I have italicized text within each council's documents to draw attention to the relevant points. Where clarification of a point is necessary, I have interspersed my own comments, offset in bracketed italicized text.

Vatican I Council
"Likewise I [the Bishop of Rome] accept sacred scripture according to that sense which holy mother church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy scriptures; nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers" (Session II, 3).

"Everybody knows that those heresies, condemned by the fathers of Trent, which rejected the divine magisterium of the church and allowed religious questions to be a matter for the judgment of each individual, have gradually collapsed into a multiplicity of sects, either at variance or in agreement with one another; and by this means a good many people have had all faith in Christ destroyed" (Session III, 5).


The Council of Trent
"Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,—in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine,—wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, —whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,—has held and does hold, or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established" (Session IV, "Decree Concerning the Edition, and the Use, of the Sacred Books").

Vatican 11 Council
"But the task of authentically interpreting the Word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church.... It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God's most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls." ("Dogmatic Constitution On Divine Revelation" [Dei Verbum] II, 10).

[The council goes on to assert a contradictory principle]:
"To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to `literary norms.' For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at the period in their everyday dealings with one another." (Ibid., III, 12 ["Sacred Scripture, Its Inspiration and Divine Interpretation"]).

[The principle is contradictory, because those who follow it will invariably depart from the Roman Catholic interpretations on many issues, including Mary's perpetual virginity, Mary's status among the NT writers, Mary's role as mediator, as well as a host of other issues. Predictably, the council is quick to revert back to its original position in the very same section]:

"For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgement of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the Word of God" (Ibid.).

[The council likewise addresses the study and interpretation of the patristic writers as it pertains to private interpretation]:

"The bride of the Incarnate Word, the Church taught by the Holy Spirit, is concerned to move ahead toward a deeper understanding of the sacred Scriptures so that she may increasingly feed her sons with the divine words. Therefore, she also encourages the study of the holy Fathers of both East and West and of the sacred liturgies. Catholic exegetes then and other students of sacred theology, working diligently together and using appropriate means, should devote their energies, under the watchful care of the sacred teaching office of the Church, to an exploration and exposition of the divine writings" (Ibid., VI, 23 ["Sacred Scripture in the Life of the Church"]).

[Contrary to the claims of some modern Roman Catholic apologists, the Roman Catholic church does indeed condemn private interpretation of both the Scriptures and the writings of the churchfathers. "Private interpretation" is defined in these documents as any interpretation that is contrary to what the Roman Catholic church has decided the meaning is. Obviously, any religious system could claim that—and many in fact have. Therefore, individual Roman Catholics do indeed commit the epistemological fallacies presented in this book; for in evaluating the claims of Rome, each and every one of them must interpret the Scriptures and church history for themselves to decide that it is Rome who is the true guardian of the truth, and not some other contender.]

Thank You, Douglas Wilson

Though I confess I don't understand everything about the "Federal Vision" and the Auburn Avenue Controversy; I still think that Dr. James White won the debate vs. Douglas Wilson on "Are Roman Catholics our brothers and sisters in Christ?" ;

And . . .

I really appreciate Douglas Wilson's recent engagement with our culture on the homosexual issue (see below) and his debates with Christopher Hitchens (and also here in book form); and against atheist Dan Barker.  Thank you for those!

Thank You, Douglas Wilson, for, in my opinion, being a real life Daniel and going into the lion's den like I have never seen before.

Wilson's 2 lectures and 2 hours of questions and answer session on the Homosexual issue is probably the best Gospel cultural engagement in today's world that I have ever seen in my life, both in content and tone.  

If you have not watched them yet, I would encourage everyone to watch all three sessions.

Dr. White reviewed some of the Questions and Answers from Douglas Wilson's presentation at Indiana University on the first half of the Dividing Line yesterday, June 29.

Dr. White pointed out the bad and obnoxious behavior of the college students and pro-homosexual folks there; and the lack of a Biblical worldview and lack of ability to think logically and coherently.

The bad behavior of many of the students, and their cussing and yelling is amazing; and it has been exposed for all to see.  I am glad Wilson's film crew (or whoever) took the time to film the protest outside and put that in the presentation and put their obnoxious behavior into sub-titles to fully expose them.  Reminds me of Ephesians 5:11-13.  But beware, if you have not seen it yet; lots of profanity and cursing and nastiness.  The anger of the GLBT crowd is palpable.

Douglas Wilson did a good job, presented God's design in creation for marriage, and preached the gospel, and never got angry back at them.  I don't think I would have been able to keep my cool for so long.  Pastor Wilson did an excellent job of explaining that Christians are not better than anyone and that Pharisee-ism, moralism, hypocrisy is wrong.

Wilson did an excellent job of explaining Genesis and God's creation design of marriage.  He also did an excellent job of exposing the world view of atheism/evolution/materialism and how that results in certain kinds of thinking and behavior; and he had a good application of explaining how the Islamic worldview of Allah as a hermit (all alone) results in lack of love and creates a culture of force and will-power-law in order to make people behave.  Only the Trinity, the God of the Bible, can fill the emptiness of the heart for true love, because God is love. ( 1 John 4:8-10)  The God who is eternally and by nature - lover (Father), beloved (Son), and love (Holy Spirit) from all eternity is amazing, Biblical, True, and satisfying.

I love his expression of the story line drama of the Bible:  "Kill the Dragon; get the girl" = meaning "God is defeating Satan, and will win a bride, the church for His Son, Jesus Christ, the bride was a harlot, a sinner, and Christ is winning her back, cleansing her to be a pure and spotless bride."  See Ephesians 5:21-33 and Revelation chapters 21- 22.

He did an excellent job of explaining Matthew 5:29-30 - your hands or your eyes don't cause you to sin - your heart causes you to sin - the gospel is that you need a heart transplant and that by repenting of your sin and believing in Christ you get a heart transplant.  Jesus did not mean those things literally(pluck out your eye, cut off your hand), because one can still lust in their heart and mind, and kill with their heart and mind, and covet (steal) in their heart and mind, etc.

There is much more that I could comment on, and Lord willing, when I have time, comment on other aspects of Wilson's excellent 2 lectures and Q and A session.

Stuff You Don't See on Catholic Answers or CTC

http://www.cukierski.net/three-days-darkness-package-p-126.html

"A Miracle similar to that at Fatima, a great wonder to convince many, predicted to take place on the Feast Day of a "young martyr" of the "Eucharist" but NOT on a holy day of Our Lady. The miracle will last for about a quarter of an hour and will be visible from Garabandal, Spain, and the surrounding mountains. Our Holy Father will see it no matter where he is at the time. This miracle will take place on a date which will be "announced" eight days BEFORE. Afterwards, God will leave a sign in memory of it."

Reformation Organs

Here's some interesting tidbits for those of you involved in Church music wars:

Historian says organ not always welcome among Mennonites

From this link:

The Anabaptist movement was born in Zurich Switzerland in 1525 during a time of iconoclastic fury (literally, demolishing icons). Conrad Grebel and Felix Mantz’s spiritual mentor, Swiss reformer Ulrich Zwingli led Zurich in its rejection of all things Catholic—ceremonies, rituals, liturgy, images, and instrumental music. Though he was a musician of extraordinary talent, Zwingli said the New Testament taught none of those popish mockeries; thus they were rejected and forbidden. Sharp said a prime example of what was rejected and forbidden was the organ.

The organ was characterized as the “Devil’s Bagpipe,” the “Pope’s Bagpipe,” the “Devil’s Trumpet,” and a “Seducer to the Worship of the Roman Anti-Christ.” Organs in the city’s five churches were silenced, then destroyed. The organ in Zwingli’s Grossmunster, the Cathedral Church, was relatively new. Sharp surmised that this organ was like the grand organ in Lucerne, another Swiss city that remained Catholic—therefore escaping Protestant axes and sledge hammers.

Historian Sharp said eyewitness Gerold Edlibach described the instrument—it was massive, gorgeous, superb, and very expensive with an imposing cluster of registers. Edlibach also described its destruction—it was “ripped down and smashed” while the cathedral’s organist, Pelagius Karlschmid, “stood by, helpless, and weeping.”

Sharp reported that in various cantons of Switzerland, pipes were melted and recast. In Schauffhausen, pipes became wine cans; in Winterthur, a new roof for the prison tower; and in Geneva dinnerware for the city hospital by order of reformer John Calvin.

Update on the Organ Destroyed by Zwingli: Another organ was installed into Zurich’s Grossmünster cathedral in1960 (link).

Addendum
This is a fun little link from the Spurgeon Library:

Against Musical Instruments in Public Worship by R. L. Dabney

"The music of an organ may be appropriate to Popish worship, and may be in good taste in a Popish cathedral; and yet may be in wretchedly ill taste, when applied to Protestant worship."

Does Ephesians 4 Refute Sola Scriptura?

Here's how the argument goes. Protestants say 2 Timothy 3:16-17 teaches that the Scriptures are God breathed and able to "fully equip a man for every good work." The Scriptures do not say an infallible oral Tradition of extra-Biblical information passed down along side of the Scriptures likewise does the same. Nor do the scriptures teach God created an infallible church that is God-breathed that will fully equip a man for every good work... or does it? Consider Ephesians 4:11-16.

11 And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. 14 As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; 15 but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.

Notice that Paul says that leaders of the church play the role of  "equipping of the saints" to eventual maturity. So... the Protestant interpretation of 2 Tim. 3:16-17 is at odds with Eph. 4, because here we see that the church also plays a role in bringing the church and the individual Christian to spiritual maturity. Is this a Refutation of sola scriptura?

No, hardly. Notice the leaders who are in charge of equipping the saints: apostles,  prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. What is the primary tool used by these offices in their respective ministries? That's right, you guessed it,  the Word of God. Notice that in Acts 2:42 the believers devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching. What were they teaching? The Word of God.  During the writing of the New Testament, this Word of God certainly existed in both oral and written form, but it was still... the Word of God.

Every Sunday I sit in church and hear my Pastor preach the Word of God. It exhorts and prepares me for works of service, and it also unifies me with the rest of the church as we work together towards Christian maturity.  We learn about the Son of God, as revealed in the scriptures, and we're instructed in the Word of God so as to not be carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming.

The doctrine of sola scriptura never denies the teaching office of the church. It denies that this office is an infallible office, and it denies the existence of God's special revelation of extra-biblical information apart from the Scriptures.  What's assumed in the argument that pits 2 Tim 3 against Eph. 4 is that the Church stands along side of the Scriptures as an infallible authority, thus the Scriptures are not the sole infallible authority. For the argument to have any merit, the belief that the Roman church is also the infallible voice of God must be read into the text. This is why sola scriptura is sola.  Scripture stands alone as the infallible Word of God.  David King has rightly pointed out,

Sola Scriptura functions as the authoritative norm for the people of God, and therefore stands as the only existing source of the deposit of faith that special revelation has disclosed. This is one reason why Paul wrote as he did in his closing remarks in Romans. He spoke of 'the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began but now has been made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures has been made known to all nations, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, for obedience to the faith' (Rom 16:25-26). According to the testimony of the Apostle Paul, Scripture has manifested this mystery, and this mystery is authoritatively interpreted by the epistles of the New Testament.

Scripture is therefore authoritatively specified (via apostolic sanction) as the God-ordained means for the manifestation of this mystery, the purpose being 'for obedience to the faith.' If unwritten tradition was to be regarded as a reliable means and/or source for the preservation of binding revelation beyond the time of the apostles, and intended to function perpetually as an authoritative norm alongside Scripture, why did Paul fail to mention such a concept when speaking of 'the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began?' Moreover, why would he omit extrabiblical tradition as a norm when addressing Timothy on the sufficiency of Scripture in his second epistle? In his masterful treatise, The Reason of Faith, Puritan divine, John Owen, draws this conclusion:

God hath gathered up into the Scripture all divine revelations given out by himself from the beginning of the world, and all that ever shall be to the end thereof, which are of general use unto the church, that it may be thoroughly instructed in the whole mind and will of God, and directed in all that worship of him and obedience unto him which is necessary [italics added] to give us acceptance with him here, and to bring us unto the eternal enjoyment of him hereafter...When God first committed the law to writing, with all those things which accompanied it, he obliged the church unto the use of it alone, without additions of any kind. Now, this he would not have done had he not expressed therein, - that is, in the books of Moses, - all that was any way needful unto the faith and obedience of the church: for he did not only command them to attend with all diligence unto his word as it was then written, for their instruction and direction in faith and obedience, annexing all sorts of promises unto their so doing, Deut. vi. 6, 7, but also expressly forbids them, as was said, to add any thing thereunto or to conjoin any thing therewith, Deut. iv. 2, xii. 32; which he would not have done had he omitted other divine revelations before given that were any way necessary unto the use of the church. [Notice now carefully what Owen proceeds to say] As he added many new ones, so he gathered in all the old from the unfaithful repository of tradition [italics here added], and fixed them in a writing given by divine inspiration.

In the end, the matter of authoritative revelation boils down to a question of preservation. Regardless of the assertions of Roman apologists, when the dust settles, there is one question they cannot answer. Can you name one oral, extrabiblical tradition, demonstratively traceable to the apostolic age, which is necessary for the faith and practice of the Church of Jesus Christ? No verifiable example has been or can be offered. We affirm with the Apostle Paul, 'that according to the Way which they call a sect (or heresy), so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets' (Acts 24:14).

David King, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Volume I: A Biblical Defense of the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura, pp. 44-45

On the Excommunication of the Reformers

IX. Now although the Reformers were excommunicated from the church of Rome, they cannot on that account be said to have been deprived of the call which they had received. It was unjust and could not deprive them of their right, as the apostles did not lose their call because they were excommunicated by the Jewish synod; nor the orthodox bishops who were excommunicated by the Arians, especially since (on the hypothesis of the Romanists) ordination impresses an indelible mark. This very thing is sanctioned according to Gratian. (Pope) Celestine says, "If anyone was either excommunicated or divested of office or clerical dignity by the Nestorian bishop or by the others who follow him, from whom they began to preach such things, it is manifest that this one both continued and continues in our communion; nor do we consider him removed because he could not by his sentence remove anyone, who had alredy shown that he himself ought to be removed" (`Decreti," Pt. II, Causa XXIV,Q. 1.35 Corpus Iuris Canonici [1959], 1:980). This is confirmed in chapter 36 (ibid: 1.36, pp. 980-81). [Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology Vol. 3, p. 238].

Luther on Women Preaching

Here's an odd little tidbit I came across from Luther:

"...[I]n the matter of preaching we must make selection that order may be preserved. But since all who are Christians have authority to preach, what will be the outcome? for women will also want to preach. Not so. St. Paul forbids women to put themselves forward as preachers in a congregation of men, and says: "They should be subject to their husbands." For when a woman will not submit to being led and governed, the result will be anything but good. These are, however, the words of Paul in 1 Tim 2, 11-12: "Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness." If it happened, however, that no man could be secured for the office, then a woman might step up and preach to others as best she could; but in no other instance." [source]

Hey Reformers: Got Miracles? If Not, You Were Not Called By God

Hey Protestant Reformers: where are your miracles? If you don't have them, you were not called by God... So said Roman Catholic writer Francis de Sales (August 21, 1567 – December 28, 1622).

I  came across this de Sales argument while listening to a CTC podcast of a conversion story. In this conversion story, a former Mid-America Reformed Seminary alumni recounted his journey across the Tiber. I happen to know a little bit about this seminary. I'm fairly sure this convert was provided with a good Reformed education, including solid material against Rome's claims. That's why I find it odd he was persuaded this particular argument from de Sales had merit.

During the interview both he and his wife mentioned de Sales book a number of times. This short mp3 clip highlights their basic point. The basic thrust of what they said was that de Sales asked who sent the Reformers?  Where did their authority come from? If God really raised up the Reformers, they would have miracles to prove they were sent from God. de Sales says:

First, I say then that no one should allege an extraordinary mission unless he prove it by miracles: for, I pray you, where should we be if this pretext of extraordinary mission was to be accepted without proof? Would it not be a cloak for all sorts of reveries? Arius, Marcion, Montanus, Messalius — could they not be received into this dignity of reformers, by swearing the same oath?

Never was any one extraordinarily sent unless he brought this letter of credit from the divine Majesty. Moses was sent immediately by God to govern the people of Israel. He wished to know his name who sent him; when he had learnt the admirable name of God, he asked for signs and patents of his commission: God so far found this request good that he gave him the grace of three sorts of prodigies and marvels, which were, so to speak, three attestations in three different languages, of the charge which he gave him, in order that any one who did not understand one might understand another. If then they allege extraordinary mission, let them show us some extraordinary works, otherwise we are not obliged to believe them. In truth Moses clearly shows the necessity of this proof for him who would speak extraordinarily: for having to beg from God the gift of eloquence, he only asks it after having the power of miracles; showing that it is more necessary to have authority to speak than to have readiness in speaking.

The mission of S. John Baptist, though it was not altogether extraordinary, — was it not authenticated by his conception, his nativity, and even by that miraculous life of his, to which our Lord gave such excellent testimony? But as to the Apostles, — who does not know the miracles they did and the great number of them? Their handkerchiefs, their shadow, served for the prompt healing of the sick and driving away of the devils: by the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were done amongst the people (Acts xix. V.); and that this was in confirmation of their preaching S. Mark declares quite explicitly in the last words of his Gospel, and S. Paul to the Hebrews (ii. 4). How then shall those who in our age would allege an extraordinary mission excuse and relieve themselves of this proof of their mission? What privilege have they greater than an Apostolic, a Mosaic? What shall I say more. If our sovereign Master, consubstantial with the Father, having a mission so authentic that it comprises the communication of the same essence, if he himself, I say, who is the living source of all Ecclesiastical mission, has not chosen to dispense himself from this proof of miracles, what reason is there that these new ministers should be believed on their mere word? Our Lord very often alleges his mission to give credit to his words: — As my Father hath sent me I also send you (John xx. 21); My doctrine is not mine, hut of him that sent me (ibid. vii. 1 6); You doth know me, and you know thence I am; and I am not come of myself (ibid. 28). But also, to give authority to his mission, he brings forward his miracles, and attests that if he had not done among the Jews works which no other man had done, they would not have sinned in not believing him. And elsewhere he says to them: Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? Otherwise believe for the works themselves (ibid. xiv. 11, 12). He then who would be so rash as to boast of extraordinary mission without immediately producing miracles, deserves to be taken for an impostor. Now it is a fact that neither the first nor the last ministers have worked a single miracle: therefore they have no extraordinary mission.

I'm surprised this particular argument had so much weight for these recent Roman Catholic converts. Based on the criteria of miracle = "sent by God", there are a fair amount of Pentecostal folks that are more than willing to claim they have the credentials required. I would be curious as to why these recent converts didn't join up with the people in this videodidn't join up with the people in this video. 

But the choice of who can substantiate their message with an alleged miracle doesn't begin and end with Pentecostals because even non-Christian religions claim miracles. These recent converts could've picked a non-Christian faith to join! The speculative response I can hear in reply is such are not either real miracles or are miracles worked by Satan. Well, how would someone, based on de Sales criteria, determine that? Well, I guess an official guide would need to determine which are (or not) real and God-sent messages accompanied by miracles.   Guess who claims to be able to pick which miracles are real miracles? Why that would be the Roman Catholic Church.  Even if the Reformers had miracles to accompany their message, the Roman church would have to officially say such was the case. In other words, one has to assume the truth of Rome previous to evaluating any sort of "miracle" offered.

Here's an ironic point. Here is the Bull of Canonization of St. Francis de Sales (Rerum Omnium Perturbationem) Encyclical of Pope Pius XI, Promulgated on January 26, 1923. Guess who, according to the Roman Catholic Church, was sent by God? Why, it was none other than Francis de Sales:

The solemn commemoration last year of the third centenary of the canonization of five great saints--Ignatius Loyola, Francis Xavier, Philip Neri, Teresa of Jesus, and Isidore the Farmer-- helped greatly, Venerable Brothers, toward reawakening among the faithful a love for the Christian life. We are now happily called upon to celebrate the Third Centenary of the entrance into heaven of another great saint, one who was remarkable not only for the sublime holiness of life which he achieved but also for the wisdom with which he directed souls in the ways of sanctity. This saint was no less a person than Francis de Sales, Bishop of Geneva and Doctor of the Universal Church. Like those brilliant examples of Christian perfection and wisdom to whom We have just referred, he seemed to have been sent especially by God to contend against the heresies begotten by the Reformation. It is in these heresies that we discover the beginnings of that apostasy of mankind from the Church, the sad and disastrous effects of which are deplored, even to the present hour, by every fair mind. What is more, it appears that Francis de Sales was given to the Church by God for a very special mission.

Now if you're thinking what I'm thinking, you're wondering exactly what miracle accompanied de Sales to prove he was especially sent by God for his special mission.  Well, if you skim through the Bull of Canonization, you'll find all sorts of tidbits about his life and ministry, but nothing all that extraordinary like healing a leper or raising the dead. In other words, there weren't any extraordinary miracles that prove he was sent especially by God of a very special mission. He sort of did stuff like... the early Reformers (he wrote books, ministered, and talked to people, sometimes at great peril). The only thing that proves he was sent especially by God for a very special mission is... the Roman Catholic Church.

I certainly can appreciate that the above quoted excerpt from de Sales relied heavily on Scripture. Here's another writer speaking about miracles from the scripture based on an exposition of Matthew 7:22-23 ("On that day many will say to Me, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and cast out demons in Your name, and do many mighty works in Your name?” And then will I declare to them, “I never knew you; depart from Me, you evildoers.”)

The chief interpretation here is that He is talking about false prophecies and miracles, as He speaks in Matthew 24:24: “False Christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.” In 2 Thessalonians 2:9, 10 St. Paul says that the Antichrist will come “with all sorts of pretended powers and signs and wonders and with all wicked deception for unrighteousness, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.” So it is certain that false signs will happen in Christendom and that the false Christians will look upon them as true and genuine signs. This has really been happening in the papacy, though in Turkey, too, there are many such priests and special saints. You can read about this in the books and legends, especially in what the monks have written. They are all crawling with miracles, though they were really nothing but lies and rascalities. How they have made fools of the people nowadays with all those pilgrimages to the Grym Valley, to the Oak, or to Trier! I myself have seen some monks who were abominable rascals and reckless men, but who expelled the devil and played with him as if he were a child.
Who could recount all the rascality and devilish sorcery they have been practicing under the holy name of Christ, Mary, the holy cross, or St. Cyprian? The monks have been practicing all this mightily, and the whole world has fallen for it, so that no one even dares to peep against it. No pope or bishop ever preached against it, but they all helped it along. If anyone opposed it, he was violently beaten down and crushed. A short time ago Bishop Ernest of Saxony tore down one of these devil’s chapels. But the evil outcome was that it made him ill, and he was only too happy to rebuild it. This sorcery has helped to introduce and confirm things like purgatory, Masses for the dead, the worship of all the saints, pilgrimages, monasteries, churches, and chapels. Many have even prophesied about the future, like Lichtenberg and others. All this has happened through the devil: to substantiate his abominations and his lies, to cast a spell over the people, and to hold them captive in error so that none of them could run away from him.

It is a minor matter for the devil to let himself be expelled even by an evil fellow, if he chooses, and yet to remain unexpelled. By this abominable deception he possesses and traps the people even more completely. Being a clever and experienced spirit, he can also guess at future events. Usually he makes fools of the people with his prophecies, by juggling them in such a way that they can be interpreted to mean various things; whichever way it comes out, he has hit it right. He used to do this long ago through his heathen priests. Then the people go crazy with excitement: “Surely God is dwelling here! You can see and touch the miracles and signs!” They cannot figure out that the devil is doing it to deceive and seduce the people. The fools do not remember that Christ clearly foretold all this and faithfully warned us against it, personally and through His apostles. But this had to be the outcome, and it serves us right for despising the Word of God and for not being concerned about losing Christ and accepting the signs of the devil. For the devil it was a lot of fun, by which he had the complete control over Christendom that he sought.

Once we have seen this and experienced all too often what great damage the devil has done through these lying spirits and false signs, it should bring us to our senses. We should not imitate our predecessors in neglecting Christ’s Word and letting it be spoken in vain, so that we do not end up the way they did. This sermon or prophecy was written as a warning. Unfortunately it comes too late for our predecessors, but early enough for us if we heed it. Then we will not let ourselves be diverted by their claims of the signs and wonders that Mary and other saints have done, nor by the skillful way they throw dust into our eyes to lead us away from the Word. Since we hear this warning that these false signs have to happen, we shall be smart enough not to believe in any mere sign.

When He discussed these miracles in Matthew 24, He warned them faithfully and seriously (Matt. 24:25): “Lo, I have told you beforehand”; as if He wanted to say: “Beware, and cling to My warning, for otherwise you will certainly be seduced. You have My Word, so that you know what the will of My Father is. Contrast these two. Here you have My teaching, which tells you how to live and act. There you see the signs that contradict this teaching.” He wants you to draw this conclusion: “Since I see such wonderful signs over there, while over here I have the teaching as well as the warning, I shall first examine the implication of the signs. I shall test them where they ought to be tested, as to whether they serve to strengthen my faith in the Word: that Christ died for me; that through Him I may obtain piety and salvation in the sight of God; and that I should carry out my station and pay faithful attention to it. I may discover the contrary, that by this they want to strengthen and confirm their own stuff and teach me to run to this or that saint who does so many signs and miracles every day, or to crawl into a hood because this is such a holy order. This would mean being led away from Christ, from my church, pulpit, Baptism, and the Sacrament, and from my station and the works demanded of me—all things with which I should remain. Therefore I refuse to listen or to know any of this though an angel were to come from heaven (Gal. 1:8) and raise the dead before my very eyes. Christ has taught and warned me: ‘Hold on to My Word, pulpit, and Sacrament. Where these are there you will find Me. Stay there, for you do not need to go running or looking any farther. I will never come any nearer to you than where My Gospel, Baptism, and ministry are; through them I come into your heart and talk to you.’ He also says: ‘Be a father or a mother, a prince or a subject, a master or a servant. Remain in your station, where you hear Me speak, where I Myself am present. You silly men, why go running to wood and stone, where no Word of God is preached? Why stare with your eyes wide open at the devil’s signs, as if Christ were somewhere where His Word is not?’

You see, this is the way to beat back the papists, who come crowding around with their “customs, fathers, councils, and so many signs and miracles,” by which they try to substantiate their cause. Just to give them a short answer: “All right, let us contrast the two. Here I have Christ’s Word; of this I am certain, and it has been powerfully substantiated throughout the world. You are showing me, by contrast, your teaching and your signs, which point me to rosaries, pilgrimages, the worship of saints, Masses, monkery, and other special and self-chosen works. There is nothing here about Christ, or about faith, Baptism, and the Sacrament, or about obedience and the good works which Christ teaches me to practice within my station, in my relations with my neighbor. Instead, there is the exact opposite. Hence these cannot be genuine signs, but both the teaching and the signs are the devil’s deception.” This way we could easily recognize and judge all false signs and say: “Let the signs come and go, I do not care, even if you raised the dead before my very eyes. All of this can deceive me, but the Word of God does not deceive me.” The devil can make fools of people and cast a spell over them, so that he makes a man seem dead for a while and then brings him back to consciousness, as if he were raised from the dead. Or he can damage your eye or some other part of your body and then restore it to health, so that you imagine that it was done by a miracle. So God decrees that even genuine miracles happen as a punishment for those who do not pay attention to the truth, as St. Paul says (2 Thess. 2:9–12), and as a warning for the others. People are going to such extremes in their ingratitude and contempt for His Word that wrath is not a sufficient punishment. If the world stands much longer, this will happen to us, too, for sinning so gravely that it has to deteriorate into all sorts of errors and signs.
Because the world simply refuses to listen and wants to despise the Word, yearning for something different, He will send it enough to seduce it into the abyss of all error. This is what happened when nothing else was being preached and taught in all the churches, monasteries, and schools, and all the books were smeared up with these lying signs. The only reason for this was the fact that these signs had taken place—as though it had not been proclaimed often enough that this was going to happen and that the people would be seduced by it, so that even the elect would scarcely be rescued from the error (Matt. 24:24). It serves those people right for so wantonly letting themselves be seduced and refusing to heed this warning. He gave the Word on how people should believe and live, and in addition He confirmed it with plenty of signs. He intends this to be enough, to let it go at that, and to do nothing else. Yet they insist on setting up a different and new teaching and better stations, contrary to the Word of God and the genuine miracles.

Therefore Christ says now: “I will not heed them though they boast: ‘Lord, did we not do many mighty works in Your name?’ I will pronounce a sentence upon them which reads: ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you evildoers.’ ” “How so, dear Lord? After all, the signs and wonders are there, and no one can deny it!” He will say: “Yes, but why have you neglected My Word, which was confirmed by My miracles, setting up something else about which I know nothing, governing the world according to your own ideas, and following these? Since you have despised My Word and have not done My Father’s will, I refuse to know you or to have any grace for you.” They do not pay attention to this on earth nowadays, and they suppose that they will be right next to God. They will find out, and all too suddenly!

So the right interpretation of this text is that He is talking about the miracles which the false teachers perform to confirm their teaching. These He refuses to recognize, on the basis either of their signs or of their prophesying. In this connection, there is a more subtle argument—I do not know whether it belongs here—that God occasionally lets genuine signs take place through wicked people and that God is acting through them. So Caiaphas, the high priest, prophesied (John 11:50). And Balaam delivered a most beautiful sermon about Christ; Moses himself says that the Holy Spirit entered into him (Num. 24:2) and that he had to prophesy against his will, as Caiaphas did also. Nor can it be denied that as an apostle of Christ, Judas performed many signs, just as the other apostles and disciples did. What shall we say to this?

St. John himself gives the answer when he says about Caiaphas (John 11:51): “Being high priest that year, he prophesied.” It can happen that because such a person is in a public office or in the government, he prophesies or does miracles and accomplishes a great deal of good, bringing many people to God. Still he may not be a pious person himself but may be going to the devil. A preacher occupies a public station and is an official person; correctly considered, such a person performs the greatest works, signs, and wonders that take place on earth. Through his office, through the Word and the Sacrament that he administers to you, he brings you to faith, rescues you from the power of the devil and from eternal death, and leads you to eternal life in heaven. This far surpasses all outward signs and wonders. Nevertheless he himself may be an unbelieving and wicked man.

In this issue, therefore, you must always pay attention to the Word of God and guide yourself according to it, not according to the personality. You heard earlier about the signs that take place in order to substantiate something different from the Word of God; about these there is nothing in Scripture. But there are signs which apply to something that God has spoken and substantiated. So the prophecy of the high priest Caiaphas announced that with His death Christ would redeem the world. This was a genuine and precious prophecy, though his motive was venomous and wicked. Although the prophet Balaam was a villain, he prophesied truly as a prophet about the people of God and about Christ; God was speaking through him. Now, if a preacher correctly administers his office and performs signs by its power, he should be listened to. But if he would like to get off the track and go some different way, to establish something different and apart from his office, he would no longer be a genuine prophet but a false one. If the apostle Judas preached and did miracles—though he belonged to the devil, as Christ says (John 6:70)—he did so by the power of the apostolic office, to confirm Christ so that the people would believe in Him. On this basis you judge everyone who occupies an office in Christendom. Not all those who occupy an office and who preach are Christians, or pious people. God does not ask about that. The person may be anything he pleases; but the office is right and good nevertheless, since it does not belong to man but to God Himself. So Caiaphas prophesies, not as Caiaphas, a murderer and a scoundrel, but as a high priest. So the minister or preacher baptizes you and brings you to eternal life, not as Mr. John Pommer, but as a minister. God lets this happen in order to honor and establish the office. Since Judas is in the right public office, the one that Christ has ordained, it is the office that is being honored in him, not the person.

So it is in secular affairs, too, as Solomon says (Prov. 16:10): “Inspired decisions are on the lips of a king”; that is, everything that the government orders is right, and God confirms it. When it performs its office of judging criminals and punishing them, therefore, this is God’s judgment, which He speaks up in heaven and which He wants to be carried out—the same action that is forbidden otherwise, apart from the office. So Scripture makes everyone in the sacred office a prophet or a foreteller, though in his own person he may well be a villain or a tyrant. As Solomon says again (Prov. 8:15): “By Me kings reign”; that is: “Their law and judgment are My law and judgment, along with everything they do according to their office, if they rule properly.” Nevertheless the majority of them in the world are great villains underneath, who have no qualms about abusing the law and their own authority. But when they keep within the limits of their office and do what the law demands, this is all God’s business. Bringing this down to another level: It is as when a prince or a lord gives a command to a servant or sends out his representatives, you listen to them and honor them, though they may be rascals, not for their own sakes, but for the sake of their lord, whose office and command they bring along with them.

Now, since God does this in the secular sphere, He will lay even more emphasis upon it in the spiritual sphere, to make His office and ministry productive and powerful. As we have said, when a minister preaches or baptizes, this is nothing but a miracle, inasmuch as he lets the Gospel and Baptism remain valid regardless of whether he is pious or wicked. And if, as a non-Christian, he does not have the treasure himself, still the one who accepts the Word and believes receives the treasure. Now, if such signs and miracles take place through the office of the ministry, redeeming souls from sin, death, and the devil, how much more can tiny, outward miracles that do not help the soul take place in the physical sphere!

It is necessary here to distinguish between the two things, the office and the person. Because one man is pious and twenty are wicked, you must not reject the office on account of the person, as usually happens. You should investigate whether the tendency and purpose of the office and the miracle is to praise and confirm the doctrine of faith in Christ and whether they harmonize with what He has spoken, commanded, and instituted. If you see that this is so, then you may say: “This sermon is right, though the person may be a good-for-nothing. I will accept the sign, but I will ask no questions about the person.” If it is not so, then you must not accept it or believe it, regardless of how great the sign may be or how saintly and precious the person may be. There are also many bishops, preachers, and others in office who imagine that this entitles them to God’s special favor personally. As I have said above, this is a mistake. It will not help on the Last Day for them to boast and say: “Lord, we did many mighty works in Your name.” God did not give them the power to do this on account of their person but on account of their office; He did not do these things for their sakes personally but for the sake of validating their office.

This applies to people in public office, through whom signs and wonders take place. Some of them are pious and some wicked, but this neither detracts from the office nor adds to it. But what do you say about those who do miracles and foretell the future though they are not in office? In Luke 9:49, 50 we read about some who did miracles though they were not Christ’s disciples. The apostles informed Christ of this and said: “Master, we saw a man casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow You.” But He answered: “Do not forbid him; for he who is not against us is for us.” He was an individual person, whom Christ had not installed into the office, and yet He says that they should not forbid him, adding the reason (Mark 9:39): “No one who does a mighty work in My name will be able soon after to preach evil about Me.”

Answer: It is true, as I have said, that God does not let any signs take place through wicked men unless they are in public office, since God does not grant signs for the sake of their person but of their office. But where genuine signs take place through an individual person, such a person must certainly be pious, as are those who have a special revelation through dreams or visions. But such signs must be aimed at praising Christ and advancing the Gospel. So you have two kinds of signs that are good and legitimate: first, those that are performed by pious persons who are Christians; secondly, those that are performed by evil persons who occupy an office and teach correctly. We should always be guided by this certain standard, which should be applied to every kind of person, whether pious or impious, in office or out of office: Do the signs aim at praising Christ and advancing your faith? If you notice that they are directing you somewhere else, to pilgrimages or to prayers to saints or to the deliverance of souls from purgatory, in other words, to a dependence on your own works and the creation of a righteousness of your own, then you must say: “If you did every possible miracle for me, so that I could see it and touch it, I still would not believe you. For Christ has given me adequate warning about that.”

God Himself set up this rule through Moses (Deut. 13:1–3): “If a prophet arises among you, or a dreamer of dreams, and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder which he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, ‘Let us go after other gods,’ which you have not known, and ‘Let us serve them,’ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or to that dreamer of dreams.” He also indicated the final cause by which you can recognize them and proceed correctly: If they try to make you institute a different worship, that is, to forsake the single pure doctrine and to start something different alongside it, then you should not believe, though it were snowing miracles. He Himself interprets it further and says (Deut. 13:3): “For the Lord, your God, is testing you, to know whether you love the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul.” It is as if He wanted to say: “He wants to try you out, to see how firmly you hold to the teaching that has already been established and is in force.”
In other words, the rule is this: Regardless of their size and number, no wonders or signs are to be accepted contrary to established teaching. We have God’s commandment; He has commanded from heaven (Matt. 17:5): “Listen to Him, Christ is the only one to whom you should listen.” In addition we have this warning, that false prophets will come and do great signs, but that they are all on the wrong track, away from Christ and toward something different. The only preventive is to have a good grasp of the doctrine and to keep it before your eyes continually. You can evaluate everything on this basis: Is this what the Gospel and the Creed teaches, which you pray every day, saying: “I believe in Christ alone, who died for me,” or is it something different? We have had adequate warning, if anyone is willing to heed it. But it does not make much of an impression on the great masses any more than it did before. I am convinced that if someone were to arise here today and perform just one sign, whole crowds would fall for it. That is how the crazy mob behaves. If someone pulls out something new in front of them and makes them stare, they forsake everything, the Word and the doctrine, and go gaping after that. And you can shout yourself to death against it. So they used to let such coarse and obvious lies and brazen fraud make fools of them and lead them around by the nose, following any rascal who arose with a lie about a new relic, new pilgrimages, and the like. The source of this is the shameful curiosity and boredom of our flesh and blood, as well as the devil himself, so that signs and wonders, especially the false ones, always get more of a following than the genuine ones. No one sees or cares that Christ and His apostles and others did miracles. But so soon as someone expels a demon, that beats all. All right, anyone who refuses to take a warning and wants to be seduced, dare not blame us.

Luther, M. (1999, c1956). Vol. 21: Luther's works, vol. 21 : The Sermon on the Mount and the Magnificat (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald and H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (21:271-280). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House.

By the way, for the convert that needs a miracle and looks for that sort of stuff: Here's Saint Luther's legacy of post-life miracles. See this article by Robert Scribner, Incombustible Luther: The Image of the Reformer in Early Modern Germany. Scribner documents the way that many turned Martin Luther into a saint after his death. Stories circulated that paintings of Luther refused to burn (Luther's special saint miracle was his incombustibility). 

Addendum
There are more arguments against the must have a miracle to prove you've been called by God notion. The ones above were tapped out quickly. It certainly is true that miracles accompanied many of those in the Scripture that were given revelation from God.  I have in mind here the argumentation that Richard Gaffin uses in his book, Perspectives on Pentecost. The miracles proved the divine message of the Biblical authors. Keep in mind though, the Reformers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc.), were not receiving new revelation from God. They weren't adding books to the Bible. They were testifying to what was in the Bible. The bottom line is that de Sales argumentation assumes something the Reformers were not doing, and then says their work was not valid. This is a typical Roman Catholic type of argument that assumes their rules are the rules.

revised, February 2026