Martin Luther: The Story of Jesus' Birth

I. The Birth of Jesus

Christmas Text: Luke 2:1-14

The Story of Jesus' Birth

1. It is written in Hag 2:6-7, that God says, "I will shake the heavens; and the precious things of all nations shall come." This is fulfilled today, for the heavens were shaken, that is, the angels in the heavens sang praises to God. And the earth was shaken, that is, the people on the earth were agitated; one journeying to this city, another to that throughout the whole land, as the Gospel tells us. It was not a violent, bloody uprising, but rather a peaceable one awakened by God who is the God of peace.

It is not to be understood that all countries upon earth were so agitated; but only those under Roman rule, which did not comprise half of the whole earth. However, no land was agitated as was the land of Judea, which had been divided among the tribes of Israel, although at this time the land was inhabited mostly by the race of Judah, as the ten tribes led captive into Assyria never returned.

2. This taxing, enrollment, or census, says Luke, was the first; but in the Gospel according to Matthew, 17:24, and at other places we read that it was continued from time to time, that they even demanded tribute of Christ, and tempted him with the tribute money, Matt 22:17. On the day of his suffering they also testified against him, that he forbade to give tribute to Caesar. The Jews did not like to pay tribute, and unwillingly submitted to the taxing, maintaining that they were God's people and free from Caesar. They had great disputes as to whether they were obliged to pay the tribute, but they, could not help themselves and were compelled to submit. For this reason they would have been pleased to draw Jesus into the discussion and bring him under the Roman jurisdiction. This taxing was therefore nothing else but a common decree throughout the whole empire that every individual should annually pay a penny, and the officers who collected the tribute were called publicans, who in German are improperly interpreted notorious sinners.

3. Observe how exact the Evangelist is in his statement that the birth of Christ occurred in the time of Caesar Augustus, and when Quirinius was governor of Syria, of which the land of Judea was a part, just as Austria is a part of the German land. This being the very first taxing, it appears that this tribute was never before paid until just at the time when Christ was to be born. By this Jesus shows that his kingdom was not to be of an earthly character nor to exercise worldly power and lordship, but that he, together with his parents, is subject to the powers that be. Since he comes at the time of the very first enrollment, he leaves no doubt with respect to this, for had he desired to leave it in doubt, he might have willed to be born under another enrollment, so that it might have been said it just happened so, without any divine intent.

4. And had he not willed to be submissive, he might have been born before there was any enrollment decreed. Since now all the works of Jesus are precious teachings, this circumstance can not be interpreted otherwise than that he by divine counsel and purpose will not exercise any worldly authority; but will be subject to it. This then is the first rebuke to the pope's government and every thing of that character, that harmonizes with the kingdom of Christ as night does with day.

5. This Gospel is so clear that it requires very little explanation, but it should be well considered and taken deeply to heart; and no one will receive more benefit from it than those who, with a calm, quiet heart, banish everything else from their mind, and diligently look into it. It is just as the sun which is reflected in calm water and gives out vigorous warmth, but which cannot be so readily seen nor can it give out such warmth in water that is in roaring and rapid motion.

Therefore, if you would be enlightened and warmed, if you would see the wonders of divine grace and have your heart aglow and enlightened, devout and joyful, go where you can silently meditate and lay hold of this picture deep in your heart, and you will see miracle upon miracle. But to give the common person a start and a motive to contemplate it, we will illustrate it in part, and afterwards enter into it more deeply.

6. First, behold how very ordinary and common things are to us that transpire on earth, and yet how high they are regarded in heaven. On earth it occurs in this wise: Here is a poor young woman, Mary of Nazareth, not highly esteemed, but of the humblest citizens of the village. No one is conscious of the great wonder she bears, she is silent, keeps her own counsel, and regards herself as the lowliest in the town. She starts out with her husband Joseph; very likely they had no servant, and he had to do the work of master and servant, and she that of mistress and maid, They were therefore obliged to leave their home unoccupied, or commend it to the care of others.

21. This has been considered sufficiently for plain people. Every one should ponder it further for himself. If every word is properly grasped, it is as fire that sets the heart aglow, as God says in Jer 23:29, "Is not my Word like fire?" And as we see, it is the purpose of the divine Word, to teach us to know God and his work, and to see that this life is nothing. For as he does not live according to this life and does not have possessions nor temporal honor and power, he does not regard these and says nothing concerning them, but teaches only the contrary. He works in opposition to these temporal things, looks with favor upon that from which the world turns, teaches that from which it flees and takes up that which it discards.

22. And although we are not willing to tolerate such acts of God and do not want to receive blessing, honor and life In this way, yet it must remain so. God does not change his purpose, nor does he teach or act differently than he purposed. We must adapt ourselves to him, he will not adapt himself to us. Moreover, he who will not regard his word, nor the manner in which he works to bring comfort to men, has assuredly no good evidence of being saved. In what more lovely manner could he have shown his grace to the humble and despised of earth, than through this birth in poverty, over which the angels rejoice, and make it known to no one but to the poor shepherds?
(Sections taken from A Sermon by Martin Luther, from his Wartburg Church Postil, 1521-1522)

Happy Anniversary ....To Beggars All

I missed the two year anniversary of this blog, which happened about 2 weeks ago. Thanks to everyone who stops by.

Special thanks of course to John Mark, Alan, and Carrie for providing such great entries!

Personal Encounters and Lourdes

Looking at some of the statements of Rome, it is easy to see how some Protestants could be confused and feel obligated to consider Roman Catholics fellow christians. Consider this quote of the Pope from Catholic News:

"The pope's speech Dec. 21 focused in large part on his trip last May to Brazil, where he inaugurated a major meeting of Latin American bishops.

The theme of that encounter was "Disciples and Missionaries of Jesus Christ."

...In response, he emphasized a point that has become a touchstone of his pontificate: the Gospel cannot be implemented without a personal encounter with Christ.

Becoming a "disciple," he said, means getting to know Christ -- through Scripture, participation in prayer and the sacraments, and learning about the witness of saints.

"One can never know Christ only theoretically," he said.

That, in fact, was a key point in Pope Benedict's best-selling book, "Jesus of Nazareth," published last spring."

Of course,"a personal Encounter with Christ" is a very evangelical-sounding phrase. That must be good, right?

But when considering Rome one must consider all of Rome, and I offer this recent article on indulgences highlighted by Irish Calvinist:

"Pope Benedict is seemingly trying to get ahead of the vacation planning for the upcoming year. According to this article, the Pope is offering “relief from purgatory to Roman Catholics who travel to Lourdes over the next year”."

When you have "a personal encounter with Christ" you do not travel to a place where Mary has supposedly appeared to pray at the feet of her statue in order to earn a reduced sentence in purgatory for yourself and/or others.

(For more details on the Lourde's Indulgence, see here)

"This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men." Matthew 15:8-9

HT: Gene for the Lourdes post

Quote Hunting...Continued.

I'm still looking through my library for any information on the oft-quoted saying from Luther:

"If the world lasts for a long time, it will again be necessary, on account of the many interpretations which are now given to the Scriptures, to receive the decrees of councils, and take refuge in them, in order to preserve the unity of faith." Epis. ad. Zwingli (ap. Balmes, p. 423)"

Here are just a few quick tidbits of what I've uncovered so far.

1. As far as I've been able to determine, there are not any letters from Luther to Zwingli. If anyone comes across even a secondary reference to such a letter, I'd like to see it. I'm actually quite amazed at this, considering both men met in person, and did compose writings directed toward each other. I'm still looking, but the more sources I check, the more I'm dissuaded as to such existing. Note also, in this earlier blog entry, none of the citations provided seem to refer to a letter, but rather to a treatise.

2. Luther wrote many pages against Zwingli, but didn't seem to write many treatises specifically against Zwingli. I was looking through The Life Of Luther by Julius Kostlin (1911). Kostlin notes Luther's first writing against Zwingli was in 1526 in Luther's preface to the Syngramma or treatise of the fourteen Swabian ministers. This was followed up by the treatise I mentioned a few days ago, That These Words Of Christ, “This Is My Body,” etc., Still Stand Firm Against The Fanatics(1527). Lastly, Luther published Confession concerning the Lord's Supper in 1528. Kostlin notes, "Luther, after reading the last-mentioned treatise of Zwingli and Oecolampadius, resolved to publish one answer more, the last; for Satan, he said, must not be suffered to hinder him further in the prosecution of other and more important matters" (p.382). Of course, Luther mentioned Zwingli throughout his writings, even after these main writings. I will continue to look for more on this- as I've always assumed much more was written by Luther against Zwingli.

3. If no such letter from Luther to Zwingli exists, The quote in question then, probably comes from one of these writings mentioned above. I'm of the opinion that I'm correct in asserting the Luther quote used by those dedicated to Rome is from That These Words Of Christ, “This Is My Body,” etc., Still Stand Firm Against The Fanatics(1527). What appears to have happened is the Latin translation of the earlier German has rendered the quote somewhat different, yet making the same point.

4. I checked my saved computer files of Catholic apologist Hartmann Grisar's books on Luther. Even Grisar states Luther was trying to "...plead the cause of the Catholic principle of authority" in That These Words Of Christ, “This Is My Body,” etc., Still Stand Firm Against The Fanatics. Well, Grisar is wrong, for reasons I've already noted earlier this week. Here is what Grisar states:

"In his controversy with Zwingli, Luther even came to plead the cause of the Catholic principle of authority. In his tract of 1527, " Das diese Wort Christi, Das ist mein Leib noch fest stehen," he declared that Zwingli s interpretation of the Bible had already given rise to " many opinions, many factions and much dissension." Such arbitrary exegesis neither can nor may go any further. " And if the world is to last much longer, we shall on account of such dissensions again be obliged, like the ancients, to seek for human contrivances and to set up new laws and ordinances in order to preserve the people in the unity of the faith. This will succeed as it succeeded before. In fine, the devil is too clever and powerful for us. He hinders us and stops the way everywhere. If we wish to study Scripture he raises up so much strife and dissension that we tire of it. ... He is, and is called, Satan, i.e. an adversary." He here attributes to the devil the defects of his own Scriptural system, and puts away as something wrong even the very thought that it contained faults, another trait to his psychological picture : " The devil is a conjurer." " Unless God assists us, our work and counsel is of no avail. We may think of it as we like, he still remains the Prince of this world. Whoever does not believe this, let him simply try and see. Of this I have experienced something. But let no one believe me until he has himself experienced it." There is no doubt, that, in 1527, Luther did have to go through some severe struggles of conscience."

Source: Grisar, Luther Volume IV, p.410.

It has been suggested that the burden of proof to provide a context for this "shock" quote lies on me. I would like to point out, if my reasoning above is cogent, I have met that demand. What we have here is a few hundred years of Catholic apologists mis-citing Luther, even smart ones like Grisar. Stay tuned.

Never Mind.

Last night I read the following over on Steve Ray's blog:

"Also, after the dust settles, I intend to revise my response to James Swan about the Luther quote he is researching–when I have time. I will post my edited response in the near future. I am actually grateful for his research. My original response can be read here. In my revised response I intend to thank him for his research since we all want to be accurate and thorough. "

This is from the same blog entry which earlier alerted Steve's readers to his response. I didn't save a copy of it, but I think it's been edited a bit, which is fine. I was going to post this over on AOMIN, but I'll wait for whatever revision Steve puts forth of his rebuttal (this will be revision #3, and my apologies to Mr. Ray, I haven't thoroughly read #2 yet).

At this point I'm more interested in an actual context rather than how and for what purpose Mr. Ray utilized Luther. I really am very curious as to the history of this particular Luther citation, and I'm hopeful Mr. Ray can provide a context, or at least provide some helpful documentation so I can dig into it. I have some of my own avenues of research I'm going to check (probably mid-January when I get some time). Tracing quotes, while some may think it is a burden, is actually enjoyable. It's very interesting to trace how different Luther citations are used through the years.

But wait, never mind.

This morning, Turretinfan sent me a link to a recent Steve Ray blog article. Mr. Ray says,

"DA has posted a blog entry explaining how one anti-Catholic operates as he criticizes Catholics. Interesting read! Guys like this really ought to fix the real holes in his own bucket before trying to find perceived holes in someone else's (Matt 7:3-5). An earlier post by DA on the same topic can be read here."


So, to aid Mr. Ray, the Catholic-apologetic-Knight-in-Shining-Armor has arrived! Three Cheers!And here for a brief moment, I thought Steve Ray could actually rise above the silliness that goes along with the pop-Catholic apologetic approach.

By the way, despite what the latest round of kindness states, I still recommend Paul Althaus, The Theology Of Martin Luther, and Ewald Plass, What Luther Says. Both are excellent systematic treatments of Luther's writings giving one an excellent overview of Luther's theology. The Althaus book was required reading in a class I took specifically on Luther's theology. If you want to research Luther in a systematic way, these are two excellent resources.

As to my use of secondary sources for Luther quotes, I use them as a last resort, and likewise will seek to produce the context rather than run away or create smoke without fire. Note specifically, the mode I'm critiquing of secondary source usage perpetuated by those like Mr. Ray, is the use of the OUTRAGEOUS quote: those quotes that sound shocking, or completely non-congruent with what one knows about the Reformers. These are the quotes that create caricature rather than historical fact. When I cite a secondary source, you can probably count on it not being some outrageous fact about Luther that can't be cross-referenced with contexts that can be checked to prove the point. For example, you can read through my paper, A Look at Justification By Faith Alone and Good Works in Luther’s Theology . See section VI. Quotations From Luther on Faith and Works. I utilized secondary sources and primary English sources. All saying (guess what) the SAME THING.

For instance, with this latest use of a Luther quote used by Steve Ray, I challenge anyone to read through Luther's writings against Zwingli (and the Swiss) in LW 37, and then ask one simple question: Would Luther really "concede" or say that a Church Council will be, or needs to be, the deciding voice on the controversy between them? Absolutely not! This is why I'm so vehement in pointing out these "type" of quotes perpetuated by pop-Catholic apologetics- people like Mr. Ray neglect hundreds of pages of easily checked contexts, and systematic treatments of Luther, and put forth, in their place, obscure quotes that say the opposite to what Luther actually held.

I'm going to specifically e-mail this blog entry to Mr. Ray, in the hopes that he understands my concern. He can be part of the mud-slinging, or he can revise his methods. Simply go back and check DA's earlier Luther "work" of poor documentation and reliance on "shock" sources, and his recent efforts to document information more helpfully. If these men wish to be taken seriously, I suggest they do serious work.

Interview with an SBC Pastor

johnMark

Again so as to not clog James' meta with too much SBC type stuff I have an interview with a young SBC pastor over at my blog here.

On the outside this is not your typical SBC church. These guys could use some help if you feel so led.

Thanks,
Mark

The Wild Goose Chase Continued...

[Updated 11:30 P.M. 12/21/07]

While digging around in my own library, I came across yet another version of the Luther quote I've been looking for:

"If the world is to last much longer, I do declare, considering all these different interpretations of the scripture, there is no other means remaining for us to preserve the unity of faith, than that of receiving the decrees of the councils and taking refuge under their authority." [Luther against Zwinglius and Oecolampadius]

This version of the quote comes from J.F.M. Trevern, An Amicable Discussion of the Church of England and on the Reformation in General (Baltimore: Lucas Brothers, 1856], p. 96.

Trevern's book was (you guessed it), a book of Catholic apologetics. Last time I checked a few months back, it was not yet on Google Books.

I now have a growing collection of this quote:

"If the world last long, said Luther once by good hap (Contr. Zwin. et. Oecol)”, “it will be again necessary, on account of the different interpretations of Scripture which now exist, that to preserve the unity of the faith we should receive the Councils and decrees and fly to them for refuge." [St. Francis de Sales'(1567-1622) Catholic Controversy]

"If the world lasts for a long time, it will again be necessary, on account of the many interpretations which are now given to the Scriptures, to receive the decrees of councils, and take refuge in them, in order to preserve the unity of faith." Epis. ad. Zwingli (ap. Balmes, p. 423)"

"If the world lasts much longer, men will, as the ancients did, once more turn to human schemes on account of this dissension, and again issue laws and regulations to keep the people in the unity of the faith." [LW 37- "THAT THESE WORDS OF CHRIST, “THIS IS MY BODY,” ETC., STILL STAND FIRM AGAINST THE FANATICS]

"Luther contra Zuinglium et Oecolampadium, 1. i. "If the world is to last much longer, I do declare, considering all these different interpretations of the Scriptures, that there is no other means remaining for us to preserve the unity of the faith, than that of receiving the decrees of the Council, and taking refuge under her authority." [source]

Here one can find the quote in Latin, documented as "De Veritate Corporis Christi Contra Zwinglium." Here is the quote via de Sales.

As I continue to do the work that my Catholic apologist friends should be doing, I think what I'm eventually going to find is that the quote as I've cited it from LW 37 is a translation from the German original, whereas the quote, as it is being used by the Catholic apologists is from a Latin source. That is, somewhere along the way, the treatise in LW 37, originally written in German, was subsequently translated into Latin. This is only a hypothesis [update: quite possibly, a Latin translation was made, entitled, "Contra Fanaticos Sacramentariorum Spiritus."

I think it's safe to say, a letter from Luther to Zwingli, as Steve Ray claims, is not the source for this quote. I think it's also safe to say, the book by Jaime Luciano Balmes cited by Mr. Ray, has an ambiguous use of the quote in which a reader, not careful, would assume Balmes quoted a letter from Luther to Zwingli. Balmes' documentation is also more vague than helpful, though many books from previous centuries were similar.

By the way, here is a sample of Luther's actual handwriting of "THAT THESE WORDS OF CHRIST, “THIS IS MY BODY,” ETC., STILL STAND FIRM AGAINST THE FANATICS"

Context:

In my recent evaluation of Steve Ray's use of a Luther quote, I worked from a particular text. I thought it would be helpful to provide the section of that text from Luther that I worked from.

If you choose to read through this text, pay attention to Luther's description of the way councils arose within Christianity, and their value. I think any fair-minded reader will come to the same conclusion I did on what value Luther places on a council. One will not come to the conclusion that Luther "conceded" the need for a council, as Mr. Ray claims. It is my contention Luther does no such thing, but is rather describing exactly what men do when faced with dissension within the church.

Keep in mind also, this particular tract was Luther's major work against Zwingli and the Swiss.

THAT THESE WORDS OF CHRIST, “THIS IS MY BODY,” ETC., STILL STAND FIRM AGAINST THE FANATICS

How very true is the proverb that the devil is master of a thousand arts! This he proves beyond question in all the stratagems by which he rules his world, as in outward, palpable deeds of guile, intrigues, wickedness, sins, murder, destruction, etc. But especially and supremely does he demonstrate his craftiness in spiritual, inward matters which concern the glory of God and conscience. How he can slither and squirm, twist and turn in all directions, and hinder and thwart us on all sides, that no one may be saved and persevere in the Christian truth. As an example of the devil’s work let us take the history of Christianity (I shall not mention the ancient fathers and the Jews). In the beginning of the gospel, when God’s Word was preached by the apostles purely and clearly, and no human commandments but simply the holy Scriptures were set forth, it seemed as if there would never be any trouble, since holy Scripture was the empress among the Christians.

But what could the devil not do? He finally permitted the Scriptures to be the sole authority, and allowed no pharisaical, Jewish commandments or laws concerning works to prevail any longer. But he also had some of his followers in the Christians’ schools, and through them he stealthily sneaked and crept into the holy Scriptures. Once he had wormed his way in and had things under control, he burst out on all sides, creating a real brawl over Scripture and producing many sects, heresies, and factions among Christians. Since every faction claimed Scripture for itself and interpreted it according to its own understanding, the result was that Scripture began to lose its worth, and eventually even acquired the reputation of being a heretics’ book and the source of all heresy, since all heretics seek the aid of Scripture. Thus the devil was able to wrest from the Christians their weapons, armor, and fortress (i.e. Scripture), so that it not only became feeble and ineffective against him, but even had to fight against the Christians themselves. He got Christians to become suspicious of it, as if it were plain poison against which they had to defend themselves. Tell me, wasn’t that a clever scheme of the devil?

Once Scripture had become like a broken net and no one would be restrained by it, but everyone made a hole in it wherever it pleased him to poke his snout, and followed his own opinions, interpreting and twisting Scripture any way he pleased, the Christians knew no other way to cope with these problems than to call many councils. In these they issued many outward laws and ordinances alongside Scripture, in order to keep the people together in the face of these divisions. As a result of this undertaking (though they meant well), arose the sayings that the Scriptures were not sufficient, that we also needed the laws and the interpretations of the councils and the fathers, and that the Holy Spirit did not reveal everything to the apostles but reserved certain things for the fathers. Out of this finally developed the papacy, in which there is no authority but man-made laws and interpretations according to the “chamber of the holy father’s heart.”

When the devil saw this he jeered and thought: now I have won! Scripture lies prostrate, the fortress is destroyed, the weapons are beaten down. In their place they now weave walls of straw and make weapons of hay, i.e. they intend now to array themselves against me with man-made laws. Ah, this is serious! What shall I do? I shall not fight against this, but pitch in and help them build so that they remain nicely united, and help them gather enough straw and hay. It serves my purpose well that they should neglect the Word and not dispute over the Scriptures, but that at this very point they should be at peace and believe what the councils and the fathers say. But within this peace and unity I shall stir up many another controversy and quarrel, so that the pope will contend against emperor and kings, bishops against princes and lords, scholars against scholars, clerics against clerics, and everyone against the other, for the sake of temporal honor, possessions, and pleasure, yet leaving untouched their unity of belief in the holy fathers. The fools! What can they expect to accomplish with quarrels over the Scriptures and the things of God they do not understand? It is better for them to quarrel over honor, kingdoms, principalities, property, pleasure, and bodily needs, which they do understand, and meanwhile remain faithful Christians united in the glossed faith of the fathers, i.e. a flimsy faith.

This is the way the plot worked out for the fathers: Since they contrived to have the Scriptures without quarreling and dissension, they thereby became the cause of men’s turning wholly and completely away from the Scriptures to mere human drivel. Then, of course, dissension and contention over the Scriptures necessarily ceased, which is a divine quarrel wherein God contends with the devil, as St. Paul says in Ephesians 6[:12], “We have to contend not against flesh and blood, but against spiritual wickedness in the air.” But in place of this, there has broken out human dissension over temporal honor and goods on earth, yet there remain a united blindness and ignorance of the Scriptures and a loss of the true Christian faith, i.e. a united obedience to the glosses of the fathers and to the holy see at Rome. Isn’t this also a piece of devilish craftiness? No matter what play we make, he is a master and an expert at the game.
Now in our day, having seen that Scripture was utterly neglected and the devil was making captives and fools of us by the mere straw and hay of man-made laws, we have tried by God’s grace to offer some help in the matter. With immense and bitter effort indeed we have brought the Scriptures to the fore again and released the people from man-made laws, freed ourselves and escaped the devil, although he stubbornly resisted and still continues to do so. However, even though he has had to let us go, he does not forget his tricks. He has secretly sown his seed among us so that they may take hold of our teachings and words, not to aid and assist us in fostering the Scriptures, but, while we were leading in the fight against human drivel, to fall upon our host from the rear, incite rebellion and raise an uproar against us, in order that caught between two enemies, we may be more easily destroyed. This is what I call throwing quicksilver into the pond!

However, he does not leave the matter there, but quick as a flash goes to work on the sacraments, although in this respect he has already tom at least ten rips and loopholes in the Scriptures. I have never read of a more shameful heresy, which from the outset has gathered to itself so many heads, so many factions and dissensions, although on the main point, the persecution of Christ, they are united. But he will keep on and attack still other articles of faith, as he already declares with flashing eyes that baptism, original sin, and Christ are nothing. Once more there will arise a brawl over the Scriptures, and such dissension and so many factions that we may well say with St. Paul, “The mystery of lawlessness is already at work” [II Thess. 2:7], just as he also saw that many more factions would arise after him.

If the world lasts much longer, men will, as the ancients did, once more turn to human schemes on account of this dissension, and again issue laws and regulations to keep the people in the unity of the faith. Their success will be the same as it was in the past.

In short, the devil is too clever and too mighty for us. He resists and hinders us at every point. When we wish to deal with Scripture, he stirs up so much dissension and quarreling over it that we lose our interest in it and become reluctant to trust it. We must forever be scuffling and wrestling with him. If we wish to stand upon the councils and counsels of men, we lose the Scriptures altogether and remain in the devil’s possession body and soul. He is Satan, and Satan is his name, i.e. an adversary. He must obstruct and cause misfortune; he cannot do otherwise. Moreover, he is the prince and god of this world, so that he has sufficient power to do so. Since he is able and determined to do all this, we must not imagine that we shall have peace from him. He takes no vacation and he does not sleep. Choose, then, whether you prefer to wrestle with the devil or whether you prefer to belong to him. If you consent to be his, you will receive his guarantee to leave you in peace with the Scriptures. If you refuse to be his, defend yourself, go at him! He will not pass you by; he will create such dissension and sectarianism over the Scriptures that you will not know where Scriptures, faith, Christ, and you yourself stand.
Woe betide all our teachers and authors, who go their merry way and spew forth whatever is uppermost in their minds, and do not first turn a thought over ten times to be sure it is right in the sight of God! These think the devil is away for a while in Babylon, or asleep at their side like a dog on a cushion. They do not consider that he is round about them with all his venomous flaming darts which he puts into them, such superlatively beautiful thoughts adorned with Scripture that they are unaware of what is happening. Here no admonition, no warnings, no threats are of any avail. The devil is master of a thousand arts. If God does not defend and help us, all our actions and counsels are nothing. No matter which way you look at it, the devil is the prince of this world. He who does not know this, let him try and see. I have had some experience in this matter. But no one will believe me until he experiences it also.

It is precisely the same devil who now assails us through the fanatics by blaspheming the holy and venerable sacrament of our Lord Jesus Christ, out of which they would like to make mere bread and wine as a symbol or memorial sign of Christians, in whatever way their dream or fancy dictates. They will not grant that the Lord’s body and blood are present, even though the plain, clear words stand right there: “Eat, this is my body.” Yet those words still stand firm and invulnerable against them. Now, I dealt with this subject carefully in my attack against Karlstadt, in such a way that anyone who did not take pleasure in erring could find guidance against this specter of the devil. But my dear fanatics despise me so haughtily that they do not consider me worthy of a careful answer. It is enough for them to look at my book and turn up their noses at it and say, “It lacks Spirit.” What good is it now for me to write a great deal? They scorn my book, and if they just babble a few words about it, without touching a single argument correctly, they consider it refuted. They rest their case simply upon the production of many books and the soiling of much paper.

One of the reasons I have hesitated until now to write further against them is that I have sensed such arrogance and contempt beneath their celebrated humility. Secondly, their fanaticism is such sheer, empty prattle that it amazes me how these fine, erudite people ever got entangled with it. They proceed, moreover, with such a timorous, tremulous conscience, that it appears to me they wish the beer were back again in the keg. Had they not started the affair, I believe, they would have let well enough alone.

I see in this affair nothing else than the wrath of God, who gives the devil free rein to produce crude, clumsy errors and thick darkness to punish our shameful ingratitude for having treated the holy gospel as so wretchedly despicable and worthless—to make us, as St. Paul says, “believe what is false, since we have not received the love of truth” [II Thess. 2:10 f.]. This fanaticism, moreover, lacks nothing but being new. For we Germans are the kind of fellows who pounce upon anything new and cling to it like fools, and if anyone restrains us, he only makes us more crazy for it; but if no one restrains us, we will soon on our own become fed up and bored with it, and soon chase after something else that is new. Thus the devil has the advantage that no teaching or fancy so clumsy can arise but he can find disciples for it, and the clumsier the more quickly.

But “God’s word alone endures forever” [Isa. 40:8]; errors always spring up by its side and pass away again. For this reason I am not worried that this fanaticism will last long. It is much too crude and impudent, and it does not attack obscure and uncertain Scripture but clear, plain Scripture, as we shall hear. So I shall once more set myself against the devil and his fanatics, not for their sake, but for the sake of the weak and simple. For I have no hope that the teachers of a heresy or fanaticism will be converted. Indeed, if that were possible, so much has already been written that they would have been converted. It has never been reported that an author of false doctrine was converted. For this sin is too great, because it blasphemes God’s Word and sins against the Holy Spirit. Therefore God lets it become hardened, with the result, according to the word of Isaiah 6[9 f.], “With seeing eyes you shall not see and with hearing ears you shall not hear, for this people’s heart is hardened.”

Christ converted no high priest, but their disciples were converted, such as Nicodemus, Joseph, Paul, and the like. The ancient prophets converted no false prophets. Paul, too, was not able to convert false apostles, but laid down the teaching: “When one has been admonished twice or three times, avoid him and dismiss him as a perverted man” [Titus 3:10]. So too the holy doctors have never converted an arch-heretic; not because they had not sufficiently opposed and confuted all the heretics’ errors with the truth, but their hearts were obsessed with their own fancies, and they fared the same way as the person who looks through a colored glass: place before him whatever color you will, he sees no other color than that of his glass. The fault is not that you have placed the wrong color before him but that his glass has a different color, as the same passage in Isaiah [6:9] also puts it, “You shall see,” he says, “and yet not see.” What is this but to say: It will appear before your eyes quite clearly enough for you to see, and others will see it, but you will not. This is the reason, says John 12[:40], that one cannot convert such people. The proffered truth does not do it. God must take away the colored glass; this we cannot do.

Phillips, Craig & Dean: Modalism Revisted

johnMark

This probably hasn't been a hot topic lately, but there is some new (to me at least) and concrete information on Phillips, Craig and Dean's position on their position on the Trinity. If you search and read the various apologetic websites you'll find how tough it was for many to get straight answers to their position on the doctrine of the Trinity. Their website, for example, doesn't have a statement of faith.

Taking a look at their church websites doesn't make finding their beliefs too much easier. On Dan Dean's The Heartland Church I can find no statement of faith. At Shawn Craig's church South County Christian Center under "about us" you actually can read their statement of faith. It says this about God:

We believe in one God revealed as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. (Matthew 28:19; John 1:14; Acts 5:3-4; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Colossians 1:15-20; Hebrews 1:1-3; Revelation 1:4-6) [emphasis mine]

Lastly, at Randy Phillips' church Promise Land West under "About Us" then "Belief Statement" under the heading "The Godhead" reads:

(I John 5:7; Matthew 28:19; 1 Tim 3:16) We believe in one God who is eternal in His existence, Triune in His manifestation, being both Father, Son and Holy Ghost AND that He is Sovereign and Absolute in His authority. We believe in the Father who is God Himself, Creator of the universe. {Gen 1:1; John 1:1} We believe that Jesus is the Son of God. (Col 2:9) [emphasis mine, underline in original]

The red flags are the words "revealed as" and "manifestation" that have caused folks to question whether or not these guys are non-Trinitarian. But without coming right out and denying it it's possible though not accurate to use a play on words and skirt the issue. At least skirting the issue in so far as to satisfy someone who has not really looked into modalism or much theology. None of the above information is really new though.

Promise Land church which is pastored by Randy Phillips' father (I believe) which birthed Phillips' current church Promise Land West has finally given a definitive position. You can read their "What We Believe" page and get similar texts like the ones I mentioned above.

So here's the kicker. If you go to "Resources" then to the "Enquirer's Handbook" link at the Promise Land church site you'll find that handbook which is a 100+ page pdf file very helpful. Finally, a direct answer. Now, we can't necessarily apply these beliefs to the other two members since they are not part of that church, but it's very telling.

Let's look at some quotes from the handbook.

Since the death of John and the other eleven original apostles, many concepts and teachings have arisen that do not necessarily coincide with the "one God" teaching of the early church. In the year A.D. 180, Tertullian began using the term "trinity" from which was born the Catholic doctrine of three Gods, co-equal, co-existent and co-eternal. The Roman Emperor Constantine in the year A.D. 325 incorporated the "doctrine of the trinity" into the Catholic Church where it has remained ever since, and most Protestant churches have accepted this doctrine without thorough examination. The "trinity", however, generates confusion and is not in total harmony with the Scriptures. To say that there are three separate persons who somehow comprise "one God" is like trying to connect opposing sides of two magnets. When you add 1+1+1, it must equal three; and there cannot, under any circumstances, be more than one God.

One of the primary sources of confusion in this matter is related to the word "persons." The doctrine of the trinity states that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three "persons" who make up one God. In actuality, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three manifestations of one God. This word manifestation means "to appear", and it is quite scriptural. The Bible tells us that, "God was manifest in the flesh . . ." (I Timothy 3:16). In other words, God appeared in the flesh (as a son). [emphasis mine] Pg. 60

It also looks like there is a problem of separating Christ's natures. This must go along with the modalism so certain Scriptures can be explained.

On the other hand, it was His human nature which required Him to eat, to sleep and to pray. As a human being (flesh), Jesus Christ was basically weak. Jesus made this clear when He spoke to Peter saying: ". . . The spirit truly is ready, but the flesh [human nature] is weak" (Mark 14:38).

The flesh, as a result of its sinful tendencies, is constantly warring with and resisting the Spirit. But despite these facts, Jesus came ". . . in the likeness of sinful flesh . . ." (Romans 8:3). He did not create a super body, so to speak, that would protect Him from sin and weakness; He was human flesh just as you and I are.

It was for this reason that Jesus had to pray. If this is confusing, remember that it was the flesh (human nature) praying to the omnipresent Spirit. In one incident, Jesus had to lay His hands upon a man the second time in order for the man to be healed (Mark 8:23-25). This was due to the weakness of the flesh; otherwise, one time would have been sufficient. Without prayer and fasting, His flesh, is human nature, would never have remained sinless and pure or have been strong enough to die on Calvary (Hebrews 5:7). His need for prayer was made evident in the garden of Gethsemane (Mark 14:32-42; Luke 22:44-46).

The dual nature of Jesus is puzzling to some because they view the two natures as two persons. As a man, Jesus was the Son of God; He was flesh. But as God Almighty, Jesus was Spirit robed in flesh and existing everywhere else at once. There are two natures and not two persons. For example, you possess a human nature (your body) and a spiritual nature (your spirit). Whether your flesh and spirit remain intact or are separated, you are still only one person. The same is true of God. Pg. 63

I just pulled a few quotes out, but there are more in the book. I'm actually glad that the issues are finally spelled out so clearly. I wonder if the rest of the band agrees?

Mark

The Chase Goes On....

I noticed Paul Hoffer has been researching the Luther quote I'm looking for. He's also taken the effort to thank me for my research (in the style that only those dedicated to Catholic apologetics can). Earlier this week he speculated the quote was from a letter (as Steve Ray claims):

"I have found the same quote on French apologetics website pertaining to the writings of St. Francis de Sales. The Latin quote here is attributed to Luther as a "Letter Contra Zwingli and Oecolampadius." Thus, this quote perhaps could be found in one of St. de Sales' writings as well."

Well, I've already posted the de Sales quote, and it doesn't appear to be a letter de Sales mentions, but if Hoffer can produce this letter against Zwingli and Oecolampadius in Latin, French or Swahili, I'd like to see it. Hoffer then seems to have abandoned the french letter quest:

"The Luther quote that Mr. Swan attacks Mr. Ray for using may be found in St. Francis de Sales' "The Catholic Controversy, Part II, Article III, Chapter 1. You can read it in the 1989 TAN Book and Publishers ed. on page 155 in English. To make sure that this was not a mistranslation and knowing how Mr. Swan likes ad fontes research, I found de Sales work in the original French (not easy since the language has changed a bit in 500 years) and lo and behold, the quote can be found there, too, albeit only in Latin. The quote is attributed to Luther in a work titled "Contr. Zuing. et OEcol."

Well, so much for the French version of de Sales. Hoffer then states,

"One would think that someone would have noticed that the good saint was misquoting Luther in the last 500 years and make mention of it if that were actually the case. Of course, while Mr. Swan can speculate as to whether Catholic apologists should read Luther in German, one must wonder if Mr. Swan or Mr. White, for that matter since he has jumped on the Catholic-apologists-engage-in-shoddy-scholarship bandwagon, has read any of the works of de Sales, a Catholic Doctor of the Church and one the principal figures of the Counter-Reformation, in any language."

It is indeed possible for Luther to be misquoted by Catholic apologists for 500 years, or anyone for that matter. Now, lets stop all this and work together to help Mr. Ray regain credibility for his research. Mr. Hoffer doesn't have to write me a 60 page response, or create 60 pages of attack and insult. I simply want a context for a quote. If after producing the context, he feels compelled to write 60 pages about this, we'll cross that bridge when we get there.

In case this wasn't clear enough, it's a context I'm looking for. Maybe I'm wrong about this quote. That would be fine. The only way to find out is by getting a context. Just think of the party that could be had by proving Steve Ray's quote was accurate, and think of how many new insults and attacks can be made about me as well. That should motivate Mr. Hoffer to continue his research on this.

Update: Mr. Ray and Paul Hoffer may be joining forces:

"Paul Hoffer. Can you get in touch with me? My email is sray@rc.net. I'd like to make your acquaintance. Steve Ray Homepage 12.19.07 - 10:23 am # "

I wish them all the best!

More On Steve Ray's Luther Quote & Luther's Letter To Zwingli

"To be deep in history as put forth by Catholic apologists, is to engage in wild goose chases."

The wild goose chase continues. I should have kept a record of how many of these Roman Catholic-used Luther quotes I've tried to track down over the years.

I wish these guys would just read a context and cite from a context. When we cite one of their popes saying something outrageous the cry is "Show me the context!" When the question is reversed, well, one gets back an eleven page PDF file or a blog entry on typos. "To be deep in history is to cease being Protestant!" Yet, when I go check their historical claims, none of them (so far) will do anything to help.

This is from St. Francis de Sales'(1567-1622) Catholic Controversy:

"The Scriptures," says S. Jerome, ( Adv. Lucif. 28. ) "consist not in the reading but in the understanding:" that is, faith is not in the knowing the words but the sense. And it is here that I think I have thoroughly proved that we have need of another rule for our faith, besides the rule of Holy Scripture. 'If the world last long, said Luther once by good hap (Contr. Zwin. et. Oecol)”, “it will be again necessary, on account of the different interpretations of Scripture which now exist, that to preserve the unity of the faith we should receive the Councils and decrees and fly to them for refuge." He acknowledges that formerly they were received, and that afterwards they will have to be." [source]

Well, here we have an even earlier source for this Luther quote. de Sales documents it as "Contr. Zwin. et. Oecol". I don't own this book, so I have to get it and check it to see if the web page I used as a source got it right. The source as Balmes quotes it is "Luther writing to Zwinglius.... "He never says "letter". In the 1ate 1800's, Henry George Ganss cites it as "Epist. ad Zuingl. ap. Balmes, p. 423." Well, it seems relatively plausible Ganss used Balmes as his source.

The more I study this quote, the more it may not be from a letter to Zwingli (as Steve Ray claims). The main writing from Luther against Zwingli and Oecolampadius is the one I've been referring to all along, That These Words Of Christ, “This Is My Body,” etc., Still Stand Firm Against The Fanatics (1527) [LW 37]. This was Luther's first main work against the Swiss, and, it was not an obscure work. I find it much more plausible that de Sales would have a version of this popular treatise, rather than a book of Luther's letters. I'd have to check to see when Luther's letters first were published (I checked: early sparse versions of Luther's letters were indeed available in the late 16th Century, but did not sell well. See Robert Kolb's Martin Luther as Prophet, Teacher, and Hero, pp.151-152).

If indeed the quote turns out to be from a letter, and the letter dates from around the same time as That These Words Of Christ, “This Is My Body,” etc., Still Stand Firm Against The Fanatics (1527), and a context can be found, It will probably be the case that the letter context states the same thing that the treatise context states, in which case, Luther was cited out of context, saying something much different than Ray claims.

By the way, anyone with some free time today who would like to help out, can check this source for the quote, or check if Luther wrote any letters to Zwingli. I don't have the time to do it today.

Eat on $32 a month!

johnMark

Can you eat on only $32 a month? "Impossible," you say? It may not be possible for you, but let me tell you about a some people for whom it is possible. The children that you can sponsor at Compassion is who they are.

This is not about what just over $1 a day gets you. It's about what it can get a child in need.

Educational opportunities

Health care and supplemental nutrition, if necessary

Church-sponsored activities that build social skills

Most important of all, the opportunity to hear the gospel, receive Christ, and grow in faith.

Disclosure: We sponsor a child, but receive no compensation for people signing up or anything of the sort. As my wife and I prayed about this before sponsoring a child she told me of her time in Nicaragua. She spent two weeks there while finishing her Masters degree living among the people. What really hit her when she got home was the first time she went to the grocery store. She was simply overwhelmed by the abundance of food we have in this country. She told some touching stories about her time there. That was certainly some food for thought for us.

If you're skeptical of this organization you can check them out on Charity Navigator. In the grand scheme of things it's not much money. In most places it's probably cheaper than cable/satellite TV. My intention is not to make you feel guilty (maybe convicted), but do pray and consider if God would have you sponsor a child.

Sign-up here if you're ready.

Thanks,

Mark

Update on Steve Ray's Luther Quote

I put together a concise response to Catholic apologist Steve Ray's 11 page PDF of a "few words" over on the aomin blog: A Response To Steve Ray On "When Footnotes Attack!" . As is usually the case, responses and counter-responses tend to inflate, and each installment grows in content and length. I try to avoid this as much as possible, so my response was probably about half the length of Ray's 11 page PDF document, if that. To read Ray's article, see his blog entry: Critics Of My Books. I just noticed Ray "updated" the article. I should point out, I responded to the earlier version, and I'll have to re-check this newer version to see if any of the main issues were responded to, or if the update was just a lot more smoke without any fire. Maybe he corrected his calling me "Swam," or maybe he meant this, so no need to fix it.

As to the entry I wrote, the picture included is Indiana Jones with Luther's face. Before any of you think that I have any sort of skill to create something like that, I don't. I rely on Carrie to put things like this together. She also did the new blog header above, as well as the old blog header. She also put together the Iron Sharpens Iron header. Thanks again Carrie for all your work!

Another Mailbox

Since James shared his email I thought I would share two of mine.

First, I also got an email from "Michael the Theologian In Training" which was also addressed to "Luther" which asked

I am in need of aid with your theology. You claim that we, human beings, are saved by faith alone. Please, define for me "saved".

I wasn't planning on answering Michael because I suspected a baiting, but what the heck. I'll give you the answer I would give my five year old - "go to heaven when we die". If you need more detail Michael, please ask. But don't call me Luther, you can save that for James.

A more interesting email is from a fiesty Catholic:

It is good to see a little light being shone on a blogsite which seems to thrive on existing in perpetual darkness.

For an appreciation of the Role of Mary in God's Plan for Redemption you should read the Book of Ecclesiasticus.

Oops! Sorry! You don't have that book in your so-called Bible do you?

Are Protestants really Christian?

For the answer to this why not access [snip] If you dare!

I did dare and managed to survive. I am leaving out the link to his site as he could just be a link troll (he appears to be selling materials). The site wasn't overally interesting, it seemed to be targeted to pushing the Traditionalist viewpoint.

Mailbox

Today's Mailbox:

I get a lot of e-mail. I get a lot of things from people thankful for something I've written, and I do get critiques as well. I get people writing with genuine questions, and I also get people near exam time needing a paper on Luther. Here are some recent letters:

My friend Turretinfan sent me the following "heads up" which gave me such a chuckle I had to share it-

TQuid, Steve Ray's got an insult-riddled response to your critique of his citation in his book Crossing the Tiber, posted. I noted with amusement his claim: "It seems he is a James White wanna-be, though he’s no where near as clever." It's funny because he's trying to insult your intelligence and poison the well, while misspelling "nowhere." It's hard to take that guy seriously, but lots of people read his stuff. Ah well. May God be glorified, -Turretinfan

Mr. Ray's response was only an 11 page PDF file. I'm very flattered Mr. Ray took time away from his pilgrimages and promotional work to compose such a heart felt response [by the way, the Roman Catholic typo-police got me on that one]. I will deal with Mr. Ray this weekend.

And here's another letter from my mailbox, in which the writer thinks my name is "Luther":

Luther, perhaps you could help me with one of my many theological inquiries. When it comes to Sola Scriptura, I have my doubts towards its dependability ever since I read Bart Ehrman's book, Misquoting Jesus. The book has leads me to believe that the Scriptures are flawed because of human error. Also there is the matter of interpretation. Is the Bible to be taken literally or metaphorically? How am I to interpret meaning from a source of authority which is flawed? Theologian In Training

Well, the premise of Ehrman is flawed. Because there is not a perfect original copy of each book of the Bible does not mean we do not have reliable text. I suggest an in-depth study of textual criticism.

Finally, Carrie has sent me a recent batch of e-mails filled with research that I've thought about all day, and will think about the rest of the week. They were TRUE blessings! Thanks Carrie!

Vote for Pedro!

johnMark

Okay, not really Pedro, but for Timmy Brister's question to Mark Driscoll. I've all ready asked on my blog. I believe it's a good and interesting question that would be interesting to hear the answer from a former emergent type.

The question is:

Do you believe that the Scripture not only regulates our theology but also our methodology? In other words, do you believe in the regulative principle? If so, to what degree? If not, why not?

Vote here!

No, it's not going to change the theological world to get Driscoll's answer, but right now he is very influential and it may give some folks exposure to a part of theology to consider they may not otherwise get.

Besides being a fair question which is much better than the rapture question, I like Timmy and the stuff he blogs about. And you only have four more days to vote and you can vote 10 times per day on the same topic.

Please and thank you,

Mark

I just skimmed through a very interesting posting on Steve Ray mis-citing Chrysostom on the authority of the papacy, posted by, well.... someone from an orthodox perspective, go figure.

The Facts About Luther: 1916 Edition

"This is a sobering, eye-opening, record-straightening analysis of the life, the thought, and the work of Martin Luther...The author states that "We would willingly allow him (Luther) to remain in his grave, but as his friends insist on resurrecting him, we have no alternative but to show the disciples of a system which is the child born of a great lie and nursed and fostered in heresy and infamy that Luther by his own works and teachings was a malicious falsifier of God's truth, a blasphemer, a libertine, a revolutionist, a hater of religious vows, a disgrace to the clerical calling, an enemy of domestic felicity, the father of divorce, the advocate of polygamy, and the propagator of immorality and open licentiousness. These charges are serious, but we beg to remind you that we have not interpreted or edited Luther as he took the liberty to do with the scriptures. We have merely quoted him from reliable sources and made him his own accuser and judge." Wow!"- Catholic Treasures Website

"Wow" indeed.

A few years back, I invested in a 1916 copy of The Facts About Luther (At the bottom, the price says "25 Cents"...my price paid was considerably more). Pictured above, is my scan of my copy's front cover. I sought out the earlier edition because I wanted to check the differences between earlier versions and the later TAN reprint. It is very similar. One helpful feature of the older edition is the topic index. It's easier to navigate around the book with this feature.

Google books continues to make buying old books a thing of the past. They have put up a complete view version of this book. I must say Google books has made a lot of what I've done over the years much easier to do. Now, I don't have to spend $$$$ to buy old books to do research. In fact, I would go further to point out that misquoting, or poorly quoting Luther (or whoever) can be researched with more ease for...anybody. I have compiled a blog entry of quotes from O'Hare's book. Now, anyone can search the text and find where a lot of these "rough" Luther quotes come from.

One thing I've always wanted to do with O'Hare, is check the quotes of the Protestant "scholars" he cites. The books and sources he refers to typically date from the 1800's. some of these books I've actually purchased, like Trevern's Amicable Discussion. When I get some time, I'm going to dig through some of O'Hare's citations to see if I can find them via Google books.

Some may wonder why I've spent so much time with this book. I was reminded recently of the impact this text has had on current trends in popular Catholic apologetics. I found Steve Ray citing it in his book, Crossing the Tiber: Evangelical Protestants Discover the Historical Church. It used to be quite common for Catholics to cite this text. If I recall, it was reading Catholic apologetic websites that intrigued me enough to purchase this book. Now, some of those apologists that did appeal to this text no longer do. On the other hand, while reading the Amazon review page of the book, people are still reading it as if it is actually accurate. A recent reviewer stated,

"Not long ago, we heard an excellent lecture by Brother Francis Maluf, wherein the learned and saintly monk averred that, had there been no Luther, there would have been no Hitler. We must admit that we did not then comprehend the true meaning of Brother's assertion. But, having finished Monsignor O'Hare's most excellent book on the "reformer", we now understand its intent quite clearly."

One other thing that intrigues me is to find out about the author Patrick O'Hare. I would be really interested in finding out any background information on him. I haven't found all that much. I've not found anything else he's written, not have I been able to find any background material on him.

Discussions with Catholics

Pilgrimsarbour has made a good comment on a previous post that I thought should be highlighted:

My friends,

I confess to being more than a bit confused by the mix of Catholic teaching I find online. Like Carrie, I am constantly being told that the Catholic Church is exactly the same Church that was given to the apostles, that its doctrines have not changed, nor will they in the future. There is this real push to show an outward and inward unity and even unanimity of doctrine and practice which is designed to give evidence that the Catholic Church is the "one true Church." It's a real "selling point" that Catholics don't have thousands of confused denominations. "Put forty Protestants in a room and you'll get forty interpretations. They can't agree on anything." This is the mantra I hear every day, and it's mighty tiresome for any Protestant who longs to have a fruitful and productive discussion with Catholics.

However, I often find what appear to be contradictory doctrinal statements from online Catholics. For example, I have never received a good explanation for the contradictions I see in Trent's condemnation of the Reformers and the more recent "separated brethren" language. Perhaps Catholics think that Protestants should be happy about being called "separated brethren" now as opposed to "cursed," but the truth is, we just scratch our heads and wonder what in the world is going on. The same is true for teachings I've read on purgatory. It's confusing, at least to me, and I don't know where to turn to get "the real skinny." Everybody has an angle, it seems.

I am encouraged by reading the comments of Pontificator and Mateo. I thank God that, from what I can tell, at least these two appear to have the integrity to not repeat bogus mantras such as the "30,000 Protestant denominations" argument. It makes me think, "now here are a couple of folks who are interested in having a reasonable discussion without all the rancour." And I truly appreciate the significant and thoughtful comments I have found here from these Catholic friends.

Some Catholics are not afraid to say that they may view things somewhat differently at certain points than official teachings would dictate. Nor do they see this, I suppose, as disqualifying themselves from their faith, nor compromising the "one Church, semper eadem" mandate. However, my impression is that Catholics think we Protestants should somehow know intuitively just who the best Catholic writers are and who we should stay away from both online and in books. Now I am not an academic (obviously). But I am a reader. How am I, as a Protestant, to know who is "good" to read and who is not? Frankly, it shouldn't be up to me to decide. I cannot know intuitively who is "good" and who is not, nor do I have the time to research it fully and decide for myself. So I rely on others to make their cases for the best source materials. Obviously, I get differing opinions from different groups. The traditionalists want me to read Gerry Matatics because he represents "true Catholicism." The e-pologists want me to read Steve Ray and Scott Hahn because Matatics is a heretic. I am not in a position to know whose advice to take, who is right. Each group claims the other is "not part of the true Catholic faith."

I submit that there is enough confusion out there amongst the Catholic rank and file that Catholics should cut Protestants a little slack regarding the official teachings of the Catholic Church, and not just assume that Protestants only want to mischaracterise Catholic teaching. I think I can speak confidently for myself and for most of the other Protestants here that the last thing we want is to misrepresent Catholic doctrine in our dialogue. If I can get just one Catholic to understand that many Protestants have a legitimate complaint regarding our confusion about Catholic doctrine, then I think we have grounds to move forward in truly productive discussion.

Having said all this, as I prepared this comment on Wordpad before coming here to post it, I see that Pontificator has made some specific reading recommendations. Thank you, Pontificator, for those recommendations. Now how do I know you're steering me in the right direction?! ;)

I would like to add my own thoughts to what Pilgrimsarbour has said but don't have time right now. I will try to post something later today/tonight.

UPDATE (made "later tonight"): I will post my thoughts in the near future.

Sufficient Atonement

"Can the Romanist view that Christ rendered only a partial satisfaction for sin be proven from the Bible? No. The Bible clearly teaches that the satisfaction for sin that Christ offered in His death was perfect and totally sufficient. Jesus removed every bit of a believer’s guilt for sin. This includes all judicial punishments both eternal and temporal. God requires no more propitiatory offerings (e.g., the mass) or satisfactions of any kind for sin (e.g. penance and purgatory). Christ satisfied all the claims of the law for believers. The idea that Christ removed the guilt of sin but not its punishment is absurd. If Christ totally removed all the guilt of sin, then He also has removed the punishment for sin both temporal and eternal. “There is now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1). “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us” (Gal. 3:13). “For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified” (Heb. 10:14). Christ’s expiation of sin for His people was either full and complete or it was not. The Bible teaches that Christ’s perfect obedience is the ground of our justification (Rom. 5:18-19); that by His death He removed all guilt and every penalty (Rom. 5:21; 8:1, 32-34; Heb. 10:14; Ps. 103:12; Isa. 44:22, etc.); that He actually achieved reconciliation with God (Rom. 5:10; 2 Cor. 5:18); that He completely propitiated God’s wrath against the elect (Rom. 3:25; Heb. 2:17); that He paid the ransom price in full (Gal. 3:13; Rom. 7:4, 6; Heb. 9:12; Rev. 5:9; Isa. 53:6; 1 Pet 2:24). “As a creditor does not liberate a surety from prison unless a full payment has been made, so neither could Christ be set free unless he had satisfied to the full. Therefore, since he rose again so gloriously and was raised by the Father himself, there is no room left for doubt concerning the perfection of satisfaction and the full payment of the price of redemption....” Once this perfect satisfaction is established, “the Roman dogmas of the sacrifice of the Mass, of human merit and satisfaction in this life and of the purgatorial punishments to be endured hereafter are at once overthrown. For such things cannot be allowed without either accusing his satisfaction of insufficiency or God of injustice (exacting a double price and a double punishment of the same sin).”"

Exerpt from:
Justification by Faith: An Examination of the Biblical Doctrine of Salvation by Brian Schwertley

Deficient Atonement

“The second ground of the Romish doctrine of justification flows not only from their confounding of the purificatory aspect of regeneration with pardon, but also their idea that Christ only rendered satisfaction for eternal punishments but not for temporal punishments. Trent says: “If any one saith, that satisfaction for sins, as to their temporal punishment, is nowise made to God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, by the punishments inflicted by him, and patiently borne, or by those enjoined by the priest, nor even by those voluntary undertaken, as by fastings, prayers, alms-deeds, or by other works also of piety; and that, therefore, the best penance is merely a new life: let him be anathema”(71) Furthermore: “If any one saith that God always remits the whole punishment together with the guilt, and that the satisfaction of penitents is no other than the faith whereby they apprehend that Christ has satisfied for them: let him be anathema.”(72) The Romanist theologians at Trent in their concept regarding the temporal punishments due for sin were following in the footsteps of the medieval scholastic theologians who made a distinction between the guilt of sin and the guilt of punishment. Romanists teach that Christ did not render a satisfaction or pay the price for the guilt of punishment. Out of this legal obligation of punishment flows the entire system of penance and purgatory. Protestants maintain that God chastises His children to aid them in their sanctification. Roman Catholicism teaches that God actually metes out penal sufferings on His people, that Christians are required “as a satisfaction to God’s avenging justice” to pay for their sins.

Roman Catholicism teaches that Christ’s death did part of what was needed, but that man through prayer, fasting, attending masses, rosary prayers, vows of chastity and poverty, and other “good” works completes the job… In any debate with a Romanist regarding justification, one must always remember that the confounding of justification with sanctification and the Romanist idea of the necessity of human merit stands upon the foundation of their deficient view of Christ’s sacrifice. A biblical view of Christ’s atoning death would instantly render unnecessary the whole anti-Christian popish system (e.g., the mass, works of penance, purgatory, etc.).”

Exerpt from:
Justification by Faith: An Examination of the Biblical Doctrine of Salvation by Brian Schwertley

_____________________________________
Here's just a quick personal update of sorts.... December tends to be my busiest month. My work schedule greatly increases (....a typical day begins in the dark, and ends in the dark, if you know what I mean). I also have an exam coming up in a few days, and I'm also scheduled to begin teaching a class at church this coming Sunday. I've also had a cold for about 2 weeks, and to make it even worse, my roots are coming in!

I spend very little time on-line, probably about 30 minutes. In the morning while sipping coffee, I take care of the Iron Sharpens Iron blog. I highly recommend this broadcast. I've been listening to these shows now more than ever, because the top morning show here in the Northeast (Curtis Sliwa and Ron Cuby), was kicked off the radio and replaced with Don Imus. How anyone can regularly listen to Don Imus mumble his way through a few hours of radio is beyond me. Shame on WABC radio- I wish them utter failure with their new Imus morning show.

I also have been monitoring a thread I posted a few days ago. This thread is really.... well, hard to describe. I can only speculate that some people are fortunate to have a lot more free time than I do. I would like to thank Dee Dee Warren and a few others who have taken the time to defend me against the usual sophistry and vitriol. Your persistence and kindness expressed in defending me was a blessing.

Not to end on a sour note, but my dear favorite Catholic apologist is still spewing out nasties toward me: "That will satisfy all except ninkempoops like Swan (hello to all his mind-numbed readers!!! How r ya??), and, "Looks like one of James Swan's inane, logic-challenged "arguments..." Well, there isn't much to say except, "The things that come out of the mouth come from the heart."

Tim Staples keeps the commandments!

It's not easy listening to Matt Slick discuss with Tim Staples, but I got thru round three recently. I left a comment too, which led a (I believe) Roman Catholic fellow-listener to write me an email. I won't reproduce his email to me, but it had to do with his assertion that, no, really, good Christian people CAN keep 7 or so of the 10 Commandments, at least most of the time. And a few other related questions flowing out of the podcast. I reprint here the relevant parts of my response to him:


Let me share with you sthg I've noticed - where sin and man's sinfulness is downplayed, grace is by necessity downplayed as well.
One place that definitely occurs is in the RCC. You're not really all THAT bad, you haven't broken the _th commandment, or at least only a few times in your life, etc.
And your sin and resulting distance from God is not such that you can't get there by any of your own efforts. No, no, no, God's grace ENABLES us to DO some things to get there, to provide some atonement for our own sin whether by penance that we do or by Purgatorial sufferings. All that to say, we add to Christ's atonement in order to be saved.
It's terrifying! If I must rely on partly myself to get to Heaven, I'll never make it!

Tell you what, let's examine what you/Tim say about the 10 Commandments. You say that we should be able to keep the 1st 7 commandments w/o too much trouble.

From Ex 20:3-17 -

Commandment #1 - "You shall have no other gods before me.

-Have you ever put ANYthing before your devotion to God?
Of course you have. Every time you sin in ANY way you do so.

Broken? Check.

#2 - "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am(D) a jealous God,(E) visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

- Why does God say He's jealous in this cmdmt? It's b/c this is about putting material things before God Himself! Ever done that? Ever preferred a material thing over God? Ever lusted after a material woman?

Broken? Check.

#3 - "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.

-Ever used God's or Jesus' name as a curse?
Ever proven yourself unworthy of bearing the name "follower of Christ" by your actions? (ie, ever sinned?)

Broken? Check.

#4 - "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy...

-Is your devotion and faith in Jesus Christ complete and full so that you NEVER trust in anything other than Him?
(This is the interpretation of the Sabbath from the book of Hebrews.)

Broken? Check.


#5 - "Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you.

-Have you ALWAYS honored them? NEVER grumbled? NEVER disobeyed?

Broken? Check.

#6 - "You shall not murder.

-Ever been angry with someone? Ever called them a derogatory name? hated?
(See Jesus' interp of this in Matthew 5.)

Broken? Check.


#7 - "You shall not commit adultery.

-Ever looked at a woman with lust? (Matthew 5)

Broken? Check.



Etc.
Be honest - NO ONE can fulfill the law. Not even a little. Galatians 3 says that this is the whole point of the law - to demonstrate to us by our inability to keep it even a little the fact that we need to fall on God's grace IN TOTAL. Yes, we are THAT low. Yes, God's grace is THAT wonderful!
You say you haven't broken any of those 1st 7? That is self-righteousness and a lie. Please, repent before God. Tell Him that you are relying on Him and Him alone to bring you to heaven, to forgive your sin, that you can do NOTHING.

Finally, Tim was being incredibly inconsistent when he talked about "but when I do fall, there's forgiveness."
1) In RC dogma, you have to DO PENANCE to ACHIEVE that forgiveness. That's not by grace at all! "If it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace." Romans 11:6
2) God's standard is not "pretty good, not breaking 7 of the 10 most of the time"; it's PERFECTION. You can't EVER get there.
3) The whole point of the law, as I said, is to point out our inability. Not to try to make us think we can do it ourselves!

I hope you'll consider what I've said here. Please repent and ask God for forgiveness for your pride.

True Peace to you,

Calvin & The Death Penalty

I recently found this thread . It is a discussion of a recent entry I posted over at aomin on Steve Ray's use of a Calvin "fact" on repressing Catholics with the sword. Ray directed his readers to a book by Georgia Harkness, who documents Calvin saying, "Persons who persist in the superstitions of the Roman Antichrist [Catholicism] . . . deserve to be repressed by the sword." I suggested Ray used this quote for shock value.

In the discussion thread, I was chastised by one person for equating "repress with the sword" with the death penalty, because the two are not the same. I grant this, but point out, I followed the leading of Steve Ray, who sent his readers to the book by Georgia Harkness. In the context of the discussion of this particular Calvin "fact", Harkness is specific on using the term in regard to the death penalty. Hence, I assume Ray had the death penalty in mind in interpreting this tidbit of information. Harkness says, "...I have been able to find only one [instance] in which [Calvin] says [Catholics] ought to be put to death" (p. 96). She then provides the quote in question. In fact, in the entire context of pages 95-96, Harkness has the death penalty in mind.

Heaven, it's easy!

johnMark



Family Christian is selling this little number for $9.99. Isn't that great? I really hesitated to include the link, but I did least someone think I made this up. The marketing of Christianity is unbelievable today.

I told my wife and she was disgusted. She wondered how someone could say this and added that dying to self isn't easy. I agree with her, of course. I don't really even know what "Heaven is easy" actually means, but I do think it's the wrong message to send in such a simplistic manner.

How easy was Christ's death on the cross? Not very from what I can tell. And the cost was that God Himself died for sinners so it wasn't only not easy but not cheap. And to be a follower of Jesus will cost you your life, it's not easy.

Mark