Review- Luther: The Rest of the Story by Ken Hensley (Part Two)

This is part two of my review of Luther: The Rest of the Story By Ken Hensley (2003). In three audio lectures, Mr. Hensley explains Luther from his particular Roman Catholic perspective. In this installment, I'll be looking at points from Ken's first lecture of his three part series. Part one of my review can be found here.

In this installment, I'm simply going to lay out Mr. Hensley's position on the biography of Luther. What caused Luther to rebel against the Roman Catholic Church? What caused Luther to see God the way he did? Mr. Hensley answers these questions in his first lecture. Throughout this critique, I've included brief mp3 audio snippets from Ken's lecture designated as "(mp3 clip)". Each clip runs around one to four minutes.

Telling the Rest of the Story?
Ken Hensley begins his treatment exactly where Heiko Oberman's Luther: Man Between God and the Devil did, Luther's death. He relates how upon hearing the news of Luther's death, it was viewed by Luther's supporters as if "The charioteer of Israel has fallen" (2 Kings 2:12). This is the first glimpse of Hensley's position. He's going to debunk the myth of Luther as the great hero by telling "the rest of the story." The "rest" is the part that Protestants never hear, and that Lutheran school children are never told. He's going to dissect the Luther story that has grown to legendary proportions (mp3 clip) (mp3 clip).

Hensley though doesn't initially seek the invective level of a Cochlaeus, Denifle, or Sippo. He notes that Luther had valuable things to say, and was correct in pointing out the abuses plaguing the Roman church. Hensley admits the church needed reform (mp3 clip).While I can appreciate these concessions, by the end of the second lecture Luther is painted as such a theological villain with an antinomian theology that whatever positive things were stated earlier become meaningless.

Throughout his first lecture Hensley quotes Oberman and also Roland Bainton's Here I Stand extensively. This is Hensley's attempt to tell Luther's story from a respected Protestant perspective. To point out "the rest of the story" in this first lecture amounts to a critique of the historical conclusions of these Protestant authors. Hensley reads their conclusions and points out either a different interpretation of the facts, a nuanced interpretation of their conclusions, or flat out rejects what these authors say as Protestant bias. In some instances he'll concede their points, but downplays their conclusions with facts that are alleged to trump Protestant historical interpretation.

Where Bainton and Oberman argue Luther reacted to a corrupt church with a faulty theology saddled with anti-Biblical baggage, Hensley will argue the emphasis of Luther should be placed on him as a man struggling with psychological factors of depression and a difficult relationship with parents he could never please. The doctrines Luther created were based on curing aspects of his psyche. Luther's goal was not really church reform or an accurate critique of Roman Catholic theology by comparing it to the authority of the Bible. Luther's depressions and familial relationships caused him to create a God which was neither the God of the Bible or that taught by the Roman church (Mp3 clip). To relate to this false conception of God, Luther invented sola fide. By the end of lecture one, the "Luther" explained by Hensley is to be pitied. Hensley views the image he's created as sympathetic. Who would not pity a sensitive child continually beaten by adults?

Hensley's approach is known as pyschohistory. This approach holds history can be understood by applying the science of psychoanalysis to a historical figure. History is more than simply “facts”- it is also the result of psychological forces that drive people to do what they do. The Reformation therefore was not God's Spirit working in the Church, it was the result of a man with deep psychological problems who was in the right place at the right time to cause a controversy which divided the church.

Luther's Abusive Parents: Hensley's Psycho-historical Argument
Hensley says that Luther's family situation is that which caused his heresy and revolt. His parents were stern and abusive, and this impacted the fragile sensitive psyche of young Martin. He provides evidence that Luther was beaten by both parents, as well as as by those in charge at school. This harsh treatment, particularly by his father, caused Luther to view God as a severe judge who could not be pleased. Luther had a fear of his father, and a fear of being unable to please his father. Hensley claims it was the severe treatment inflicted on Luther by his parents that sent him into the monastery (mp3 clip). Hensley forcefully brings this point of Luther's relationship with his parents out by describing Luther's first mass. The fear Luther felt during the mass was fear that was instilled by his own father. After the mass, Luther's father embarrassed his son in front of everyone (mp3 clip).

Hensley relates this relationship Luther had with his parents to the way Luther understood God. It wasn't God who was angry with Luther, it was Hans Luther displeased with son for becoming a monk. It wasn't God who was angry with Luther, it was Luther who was angry at God, or rather, the impact of Hans Luther that caused Luther's anger toward God (mp3 clip).

Luther the Monk
At the first mass, Luther claims to have been "without faith" during this period in his life. Luther also mentions that as a devout monk he hated God. These statements question the validity of Luther's call to the monastic life. While not explicitly stated by Hensley, Luther in essence, needed to learn to cope with his father, he didn't need the monastery. Luther wasn't called by God to be a monk. He was a man with a faulty image of God that wrongly chose the monastic life. Luther's struggle was based on the father he loved, feared, but could please (mp3 clip). This transferred to Luther's understanding of God: Luther feared that he could not please God. While Hensley says Luther loved Hans Luther, he hated God and viewed him as angry deity.

As a monk, Hensley points out the rigorous discipline Luther subjected himself to please God, but never felt he could do enough. While Protestants see this is as the natural result on one applying the Romanist system consistently, Hensley asks how it was possible then that others who lived during the sixteenth century were able to achieve sainthood (mp3 clip).

Along with these issues, Hensley's says that Luther's experience of going to Rome caused him to doubt the power and authority of the Roman Catholic Church (mp3 clip) . Hensley comes right out and says Rome was more or less morally depraved from head to toe and that Luther questioned his faith in Rome should be no surprise. Hensley says if Papal leadership doesn't act morally, this is what one should expect of her faithful followers. I add, Hensley's comments should be applied to Rome's current 2010 scandal.

Hensley on briefly touches the aspect of indulgences in the sixteenth century (mp3 clip). He doesn't spend any time describing the rampant abuse of the indulgence, and Luther's critique of the abuse of indulgences. Rather, he says indulgences are an act of prayer and "sincerely seeking God and seeking God's blessing."

Conclusion
In my next installment of this series, I'll take a look at the historical image of Luther sketched by Ken Hensley. The conclusions Ken reached are not "the rest of the story."

Conversation with Catholic Nick

Continuing from here, in my experience too, RCs and EOx are apparently scared of Webster and King's books.Which is ironic b/c Nick felt it necessary to comment on a blogpost about that very book. One wonders whether he's even read one of them. Here's the comment I respond to.
If I'm not mistaken, this is the same Nick as "Catholic Nick" from Tfan's debate: Responses to 'Catholic Nick'.



Nick,

I've responded to that which matters in your post. I left out some things, b/c they were really, really worthless.

James White: he plainly says SS was not operational during times of enscripturation.

Yes, I know. I didn't question that.



The rule of faith was coming into being; it didn't *fully* exist yet.

And yet Paul directs Tim to the Scr and not to the Magisterium. Sounds like he knew sthg you're not acknowledging.



neither the Apostles nor Apostolic Christians were practicing SS.

So what?



R: Except the text says what it says. And of course Timothy had the OT!
N: This is the fallacy of anachronism: your 'interpretation' requires you to read back into the text something that was historically impossible.

It's anachronistic to remind you that Timothy had the OT? Esp when Paul mentions in the previous verse the "sacred writings, which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to faith in Christ Jesus"? Riiiiiight. Try again.



Paul could not be instructing Tim to engage in SS when SS wasn't operational.

Equivocation. "Engage in SS" is not the same as "the Scr is able to adequately prepare the man of God for every good work". Do you think we don't acknowledge that the authoritative teachings of apostles was God's speaking thru His shaluach?
And yet Paul was preparing Tim for the future, as the context makes plain.



Having the OT is irrelevant, since no Protestant claims the OT is sufficient.

Now YOU'RE engaging in anachronism! Paul clearly tells Tim about the "sacred writings, which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to faith in Christ Jesus". The OT is sufficient, yet not the exhaustive extent of God's revelation. You need to argue for the OT's insufficiency, not ascribe that view to me and then dismiss it.



Scripture presents more than one source for divine communication to man, and no rational Protestant would deny that: God spoke to men before Scripture existed

No one questions that here! Do you spend your days talking KJV only advocates or something?
We're asking you to prove your assertion - that God deposited His revelation in sthg other than the Scr, AFTER IT WAS SPOKEN. I notice no evidence from you, no argument for that position. Get on it.



through all sorts of created mediums, dreams, fire, cloud, oral preaching of Apostles, etc.

Which you know about b/c of the Scr, y por nada más.



Just reading v14 refutes your argument, since Paul points to all Tim's teachers.

Strawman. As if Sola Scrip dismisses the utility, even the near necessity, of teachers.
You come across as if this is the 1st time you've talked to a knowledgeable Sola Scripturist, yet you've engaged in a long convo with TFan. I conclude that you're not a very good listener, and I encourage you to get better at that skill.



Further, to limit your analysis to 16f and say "that's all Paul points to" assumes Paul wanted to lay down a rule of faith here without regard for what he taught elsewhere.

Just bring fwd the alternative and we can talk. How many times do I have to challenge you to do so before you pony up the dough?



in which the sword is only one piece.

Given 1 Cor 2:14-15, it's hardly surprising that Paul would refer to someone's need to be regenerate before the Scr will be particularly helpful for him.



I never said something inspired can come from anyone other than God, quite the contrary.

Sorry, man. You said: "I don't recall any requirements (esp in Scripture) where something must be explicitly said to be "God Breathed" to be inspired and authoritative." That's what I was responding to.
Retractions are certainly allowed, but you have to be man enough to say "I retract".



R: Yep, the apostles' teaching. See any apostles around today?
N: No, but irrelevant.

So the fact that apostles are all dead is irrelevant to whether there are for-sure apostolic teaching in somewhere other than the Scr is irrelevant to the question?



N: Where did I assert their oral teaching was substantively different? Nowhere.

Don't be so dense. There's no reason to bring up 2 Thess 2:15 and other mentions of "oral trad" in the NT otherwise. I didn't just fall off the turnip truck.



N: Starting with the last sentence, that claim is bogus because what what Sungenis would have apart from Scripture is irrelevant.
R: Oh, so let's take away Scr. Now please demonstrate how you know your assertion.
Or is this an example of your "non-God-breathed and yet inspired and authoritative teaching"? How do you know it is?
N: How do I know my assertion? By basic logic.

Please give us the logical structure of the way you know that, since you know it "by basic logic".

Patrick Madrid: Here's Why You Shouldn't Trust the Pope

Why should anyone care what the Pope says without using the charism of papal infallibility? Patrick Madrid's latest blog article explains why one should be cautious using a Pope's opinion for proof of truth:

It is a well known fact that Pope John Paul II, of blessed memory, was a stalwart supporter of Fr. Marcial Maciel, the disgraced, recently deceased founder of the Legionaries of Christ religious order and its lay arm, Regnum Christi. I can only assume that John Paul was truly ignorant of the many frauds Fr. Maciel had perpetrated for decades. How it is that the pope did not know the truth about that dastardly man is beyond me, but I'm not focusing on that question here. It's sufficient to remind ourselves that the charism of papal infallibility does not extend to the pope's private, personal opinions about people and things.

As we now know, Pope John Paul II was utterly wrong about Fr. Maciel. He had completely misjudged him. Like a whole lot of other people, including a few popes who came before him, John Paul was conned by a consummate con-man. His approval of the vaunted Mexican priest was in complete error. The gestures of honor and confidence with which he generously betokened Fr. Maciel over many years were completely undeserved. His famous comment that Maciel was "an efficacious guide to youth" could not have been more hideously incorrect.

We know that now. We know now the sordid details of many of the enormous frauds and crimes and sins which Fr. Maciel perpetrated over his lifetime. Since his demise, they have continued to belch forth from the grave like a sulfurous semi-dormant volcano that will emit its noxious fumes for a long time to come.

-snip-

Remember: Pope John Paul II was convinced that Fr. Maciel was a holy priest, an exemplary and faithful Catholic, and "an efficacious guide to youth." He could not have been more wrong about that.

The Perpetual Use of Calvin on Mary's Perpetual Virginity

TurretinFan has posted: Calvin and the Perpetual Virginity (?) of Mary ... plus the Real Francis Turretin. Keep it bookmarked, because Calvin is often brought forth as a witness for Roman Catholic Mariology.

I've done a few links on this topic as well:

On John Calvin's "Mariology"

John Calvin on the Greatness of Mary

John Calvin on Latria and Dulia

Bibliographic Tedium on the Reformers and Perpetual Virginity

The closest I recall coming to actual information about Calvin holding positively to Mary's perpetual virginity was in a discussion with Paul Hoffer in a comment box on this blog. If I recall, he had a secondary source in French with Calvin quotes, but no context. That discussion is somewhere buried on the blog.

The Quotable Sippo #11

I have an occasional feature called, "The Quotable Sippo." It's very simple, I just let Catholic apologist Art Sippo speak for himself. Recently, Dr. Sippo provided some of his insights, and well... let's just let the good doctor speak for himself.

Dr. Sippo answered this question: "I seem to remember a semi-famous quote by a visitor to St. Peter's Basilica when, asked whether he thought it was beautiful, answered by saying something like "yes, but was it worth schism?" Anybody recall the circumstances here?"

What the interlocator meant was that the indulgence to raise funds for the building of St.Peter's Basilica was the proximate cause of Luther's revolt.

In answer to the question, the answer is "Yes, it was worth it." Doing something beautiful for God is always superior than the self-righteousness of those who prefer their own will to that of the will of God. Man made religion tickles men's ears and never offends them. I think every Protestant should look at St.Peter's and regret his loss.

These same people took over Westminster Abbey in London and turned it into an ugly puritanical dump. They got rid of all the frescoes and the statues of the saints and replaced them with pictures and statues of English Protestants who were PATRONS of the sovereigns, not saintly people. There is a FULL SIZED efigy [sic] of Queen Elizabeth, the bastard daughter of Henry VIII, but not a single statue of Jesus. And both Charles Darwin and Benedict Armold [sic] are buried in state there. I think that says it all. [source]

Sola Scriptura in Action

Here's reason number #986 why I keep the book Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Volume One on my desk.

On another blog, I had a brief interaction with someone who claimed to not be Roman Catholic. He stated, "I don't need to be [Roman Catholic] to realize Sola Scriptura is fatally flawed."

I told him if sola scriptura is fatally flawed, this certainly isn't proven by Roman Catholic claims or argumentation. Like Romanists, if this non-Roman Catholic has God's voice somewhere else other than the Scriptures, he needs to prove it. Till then, I'll stick with that which is God breathed and which can thoroughly equip a believer (2 Tim. 3:16). I don't recall God mentioning Tradition or an infallible magisterium was "God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

I never did find out exactly what position this particular non-Roman Catholic held, he never told me. He did though respond to the above:

James, Ah, not so fast. The NIV has for 2 Ti 3:17, "thoroughly equipped for every good work", but many translations, like the ESV and NASB, don't have the word "thoroughly". And look at James 1:4. The NIV has "Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything." So perseverance will make you complete and lacking nothing? Scripture will do that, and so can perseverance? Obviously, you're taking 2 Ti 3:17 out of context. In fact, look at how the King James version translates James 1:4: "But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be PERFECT and ENTIRE, wanting NOTHING." It's making an even stronger case for perseverance, much stronger than the case for the Scriptures in 2 Ti 3:16-17. So bible-only Christians are misusing 2 Ti 3:16-17.

In 2 Tim. 3:17, Paul uses the Greek participle exertismenos which is the participle form of exartizo. It means 'having been completely or fully equipped,' so, it doesn't matter which translation you use, the Greek says what the Greek says. If you can point to God's voice elsewhere other than scripture sovereignty declaring what is need to be completely or fully equipped, please do so. As to any other passage that would use similar phraseology, it needs to be noted that whatever other passage you use... they are all Scripture, and as such form and norm moral behavior. Apart from Scripture, you would have no way of knowing that "perseverance must finish its work...etc."

I was able to put forth this response because I remembered the same type of argument was put forth by Robert Sungenis:

If we were to use the concept of `sufficiency' that Protestants force into 2 Timothy 3:17, we could claim, in light of the similar language in 2 Timothy 2:21, that refraining from bad influences and behavior is all that is needed to make a man useful for every good work [Not By Scripture Alone, p.117].

...And then this argument was responded to by David King in depth in the span of two or three pages. Here's though is the relevant section that helped me in my response:

Sungenis notes that the phrase `every good work' is found in six other places in the New Testament (2 Tim. 2:21; Col. 1:10; 2 Thess. 2:17; 1 Tim. 5:10; 2 Cor. 9:8; Titus 1:16; Titus 3:1;'or Hebrews 13:21). His intent is to try to prove that Scripture itself teaches that Scripture alone is not sufficient to prepare one for every good work, since it teaches that God uses other means in addition to Scripture to accomplish that purpose. But with respect to each occurrence of `every good work' in the Pastoral Epistles (or elsewhere in Scripture for that matter), it needs to be noted that these passages are all Scripture, and as such form and norm moral behavior. Apart from Scripture, Sungenis would have no way of knowing they exist! Using 2 Timothy 2:21 to argue against the sufficiency of Scripture, he unwittingly proves the very point he seeks to undermine. Other Scriptural instances of `every good work' cited by Sungenis do not advance his claim against the sufficiency of Scripture, but rather, we find Scripture fulfilling the very purpose for which it was given as described in 2 Timothy 3:1617, namely, informing and norming for us `instruction for righteousness.., for every good work.' The question is not whether the disciplines are necessary, but what is the source of revelation which reveals them as necessary? With every quote from Scripture, Sungenis only succeeds in demonstrating that the revelatory source, by which these disciplines are normed, is none other than holy Scripture itself. [David King, Holy Scripture The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Volume One, pp. 85-86].

What Constitutes a Correct "Roman Catholic" View of Luther?

Heinrich Denifle was learned Roman Catholic scholar in the 1800's. The Catholic Encyclopedia states he was “beloved by Leo XIII and Pius X.” He was also an accomplished scholar, with groundbreaking work on the relationship between scholastic theology and medieval mysticism. When he began a work on Luther, Leo XIII opened the secret archives of the Vatican to scholars. Luther’s then-unknown Roman’s treatise was found, and Denifle working as an assistant archivist was able to utilize it. The announcement that Father Denifle was going to publish a biography including never before writings from Luther was highly anticipated in the academic world.

But Denifle's work on Luther has not stood the test of time as a valuable historical resource. Both Protestants and Roman Catholics scholars say the work is quite flawed. Even another Roman Catholic writer (Hartmann Grisar) from the same time period (and no friend to Luther) corrected and challenged points Denifle raised.

The following is an interesting point made by Grisar in his first volume on Luther as to how a Roman Catholic view on Luther should be constructed:

Does a Catholic opinion exist with regard to Luther's personal qualities and his fate? Does the much-discussed work of Denifle represent the "Catholic feeling"? That it does has frequently been asserted by those most strongly opposed to Denifle. Yet Denifle's manner of regarding Luther was, on the whole, by no means simply "Catholic," but largely biased by his individual opinion, as indeed has ever been the appreciation by Catholic authors of the different points of Luther's character. Only on those points could Denifle's opinion strictly be styled "Catholic" where he makes the direct acknowledgment of dogmas and the essential organisation of the Church the standard for Luther's views and reforms; and in this he certainly had on his side the repudiation of Luther by all Catholics. A "Catholic opinion," in any other sense than the above, is the sheerest nonsense, and the learned Dominican would certainly have been the last to make such a claim on his own behalf. [source]

I've argued this point for years with Roman Catholics, and it was refreshing to actually read it coming from a Roman Catholic source: "Only on those points could Denifle's opinion strictly be styled "Catholic" where he makes the direct acknowledgment of dogmas and the essential organisation of the Church the standard for Luther's views and reforms." I've taken this a step further and questioned whether or not later Roman Catholic dogmas after Luther's death can be applied posthumously.

Indeed, "A 'Catholic opinion,' in any other sense than the above, is the sheerest nonsense."

Polemic Theology: How to Deal with Those Who Differ from Us

Here's an interesting article from Roger Nicole: Polemic Theology: How to Deal with Those Who Differ from Us.

What Do I Owe to the Person Who Differs From Me?

What Can I Learn from Those Who Differ From Me?

How Can I Cope with Those Who Differ from Me?

Food for thought. Here's an interesting snippet:

How then do we desire to be treated? First, we want people to know what we are saying or meaning. If we are going to voice differences, therefore, we have an obligation to make a serious effort to understand the person with whom we differ. That person may have published books or articles. Then we should be acquainted with those writings. It is not appropriate for us to voice sharp differences if we have neglected to read what is available. The person with whom we differ should have evidence that we have read carefully what has been written and that we have attempted to understand its meaning. In the case of an oral exchange where we don't have any written words, we owe the person who differs from us the courtesy to listen carefully to what he or she says. Rather than preparing to pounce on that person the moment he or she stops talking, we should concentrate on apprehending precisely what his or her position is.

In this respect, Dr. Cornelius Van Til has given us a splendid example. As you may know, he expressed very strong objections to the theology of Karl Barth. This was so strong that Barth claimed that Van Til simply did not understand him. It has been my privilege to be at Dr. Van Til's office and to see with my own eyes the bulky tomes of Barth's, Kirchliche Dogmatik (incidentally, these volumes were the original German text, not an English translation). As I leafed through them I did not see one page that was not constellated with underlining, double-underlining, marginal annotations, exclamation points, and question marks galore. So here is someone who certainly did not say, "I know Karl Barth well; I understand his stance; I don't need to read any more of this; I can move on with what I have." Each of the volumes, including the most recent, gave evidence of very, very careful scrutiny. So when we take issue with somebody, we need to do the job that is necessary to know that person so that we are not voicing our criticism in the absence of knowledge but that we are proceeding from the vantage point of real acquaintance.

Review- Luther: The Rest of the Story by Ken Hensley (Part One)

More than a few times I've heard Catholic Answers recommend Luther: The Rest of the Story By Ken Hensley (2003). It isn't a book, but rather a series of three lectures, available on CD, and via MP3 download from Saint Joseph Communications. As of the writing of this review, used copies of the CD's are available on Amazon for $65 up to $161.00. Why? I'm not sure, as the new sets are only $23. Perhaps materials from Saint Joseph Communications are collectible.

The lectures are advertised as follows:

Luther: The Rest of the Stroy [sic] CD
In an uncompromisingly Catholic presentation on the true teachings of the man who changed the face of Christianity. A former Protestant Pastor, Hensley brings a unique perspective to the critical examination of a man whose doctrines he once held with great devotion. As you listen to his in-depth analysis on three digitally mastered CDs, you’ll discover Luther’s theological, personal and historical background and motivations, from the testimony of his own writings. And follow the tangled web woven by the “Father of the Reformation” from the day he nailed his infamous 95 theses on the door of the Castle Church at Wittenberg to the theological wreckage of modern Protestantism. [source]

...[T]his is no inflammatory “tell-all” exposé but an intelligent (and entertaining) investigation into the real-life convictions and contradictions of this controversial figure. Here at last is a serious discussion of Luther from a Catholic perspective that’s insightful, informative and, best of all, suitable to share with Protestant (and fallen-away Catholic) friends and family.

Whatever your opinion of Luther and his religious revolt, you owe it to yourself to discover the surprising truth about his actual teachings and his little-known devotion to much that has been rejected by his spiritual descendants. With Ken Hensley’s perceptive presentation and analysis, Luther: The Rest of the Story will equip you to effectively defend Catholic truth, but also to better understand the reality of many important theological and historical misconceptions. Get ready — it’s time to set the record straight! [source]

After listening to almost all of these three lectures, I decided a review of Hensley's arguments would be a worthy endeavour. I strongly disagree with the above advertising blurbs. The lectures, while at times cordial and entertaining, present the typical negative outdated polemic that so infects pop-Roman Catholic apologetics.

About Ken Hensley
Previous to listening to this series, I hadn't heard of Mr. Hensley. He appears to be a speaker still affiliated with Saint Joseph Communications (SJC). SJC is most famous for its star apologist, Dr. Scott Hahn. Hahn and Hensley knew each other previous to their "conversions" to the Roman Catholic Church, and Hahn played a role in Hensley's conversion to Romanism.

Hensley was a former American Baptist minister (of eleven years), and became Roman Catholic in 1996. A truncated discussion of his conversion story was given on Catholic Answers many years ago (MP3 available here). He received his Bachelors Degree in Scripture and Theology from Grace Bible College and his MA degree from Fuller Theological Seminary.

In lecture one he mentions he had only been a Christian one or two years in Junior college when he first heard about Martin Luther via the old 1953 movie. He mentions that the movie so impressed and inspired him, it left him with tears in his eyes and a desire to be like the man portrayed in the movie. Subsequently, he read thousands of pages of Luther's writings, took an entire course at Fuller on the theology of Martin Luther, and owns (and has read) a number of biographies on Luther. Thus, his qualifications for giving these lectures are: his previous education and readings, Baptist ministry, and conversion to Roman Catholicism. He's a man who has seen both sides: Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. Who better to explain Luther than a former Protestant turned Roman Catholic?

Qualified to Tell the Rest of the Story?
After listening to his Luther series I do have reservations as to Hensley's qualifications to tell "the rest of the story" about Luther. In this short MP3 clip from his Catholic Answers interview, he says the worldview of Protestantism was "assumed" rather than explored at seminary. That is, the direct conflict that gave birth to the Reformation was not looked at with any appropriate depth. How then a seminary level class on Luther's theology was handled at Fuller is indeed a mystery, since Luther's paradigms are best understood against the backdrop of the sixteenth century Church. I also have had a seminary level class on Luther's theology. Understanding the culture and theology of the sixteenth century was a crucial aspect to grasping the material. The conflict which caused the Reformation couldn't be missed.

Second, "Lutheran" and "American Baptist" are not quite two pegs which fit in the same hole. Luther's theological paradigms are not typically studied and digested by those who aren't Lutheran. The longer I study Luther's theology, the more I realize his theology isn't Reformed, Baptist, or Methodist, etc. While there are points of agreement, it's a different breed of cat, so to speak. I would be more willing to grant that a former (conservative!) Lutheran minister would be able to tell "the rest of the story" about Luther than I would a former American Baptist. If Hensley so wanted to be like Luther, becoming an American Baptist instead requires quite a number of disagreements with Luther's theology. In fact, I would say that an American Baptist could likewise tell their own story about their disagreements with Luther.

As to his assertion that he'd read thousands of pages of Luther and many biographies previous to these lectures, the material presented didn't give me much confidence in such claims. He quotes heavily from Roland Bainton's Here I Stand and Heiko Obermann's Luther: Man Between God and the Devil. He also mentions The Theology of Luther by Paul Althaus in passing. He claims that citing Luther directly from his own writings is of great importance to his lectures, but he presents many of the popular quotes typically sifted from Luther's writings used by earlier generations of Roman Catholic polemicists. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out Patrick O'Hare's The Facts About Luther was also consulted, as well as other Roman Catholic books slanted against Luther. More often than not, it was those context-less quotes I've seen a thousand times typically brought up by Roman Catholics that Hensley used. Thus I really do wonder if the quotes came more from Luther-hostile sources than Hensley's own readings of Luther. This will be demonstrated as the Luther quotes used are reviewed.

Conclusion
It's not my intention to slander Mr. Hensley. Rather, any who read this blog know that I often review Luther materials put out by Roman Catholics. Some of the material he presented was quite interesting. In fact, in this blog entry I made reference to Hensley's opinion on Luther's early journey to Rome. Hensley comes right out and says Rome was more or less morally depraved from head to toe. That Luther questioned his faith in Rome should be of no surprise. In fact, Hensley says if Papal leadership doesn't act morally, this is what one should expect of her faithful followers. I add, Hensley's comments should be applied to Rome's current scandal.

His section on Justification in lecture two would truly befuddle many Protestants. His argumentation is clear, and I commend him for laying out Rome's position in such a way that it could be easily understood by a nominal Roman Catholic while at the same time send a Protestant back to the Bible in search of an exegetical response.

It might take a while to work through Hensley's series. But, I think any Protestant coming in contact with the material presented would be hard pressed to formulate a response without being familiar with the issues raised, both biographical and theological. This doesn't mean I've ceased reviewing Biblical Catholic Answers for John Calvin. I plan doing that at one entry per week, or when I get to it.

Luther: The history of Jonah is so monstrous that it is absolutely incredible

Allegedly, "The history of Jonah is so monstrous that it is absolutely incredible ... " according to Luther. In this brief snippet, the implication may be that Luther denied the historical account of Jonah and the whale, and therefore denied the miraculous, and is also probably like one of those liberal scholars who interprets the Bible as fictional literature rather than history. Or quite possibly, he just said awful things about Holy Scripture.

This is from a Tabletalk entry, and not something Luther actually wrote. You can read the context for yourself. It does no harm to Luther.

The majesty of the prophet Jonah is surpassing. He has but four chapters, and yet he moved therewith the whole kingdom, so that in his weakness, he was justly a figure and a sign of the Lord Christ. Indeed, it is surprising, that Christ should recur to this but in four words. Moses likewise, in few words describes the creation, the history of Abraham, and other great mysteries; but he spends much time in describing the tent, the external sacrifices, the kidneys and so on; the reason is, he saw that the world greatly esteemed outward things, which they beheld with their carnal eyes, but. that which was spiritual, they soon forgot.

The history of the prophet Jonah is almost incredible, sounding more strange than any poet's fable; if it were not in the Bible, I should take it for a lie; for consider, how for the space of three days he was in the great belly of the whale, whereas in three hours he might have been digested and changed into the nature, flesh and blood of that monster; may not this be said, to live in the midst of death? In comparison of this miracle, the wonderful passage through the Red Sea was nothing

But what appears more strange is, that after he was delivered, he began to be angry, and to expostulate with the gracious God, touching a small matter not worth a straw. It is a great mystery. I am ashamed of my exposition upon this prophet, in that I so weakly touch the main point of this wonderful miracle. [source]

Are There Biblical Catholic Answers for John Calvin? (Part Four)

In a self-published Roman Catholic book comes the following quotation from John Calvin:

At present I only reply in one word, that our Saviour’s promise is made to those only who assemble in his name. How, then, is such an assembly to be defined? I deny that those assemble in the name of Christ who, disregarding his command by which he forbids anything to be added to the word of God or taken from it, determine everything at their own pleasure, who, not contented with the oracles of Scripture, that is, with the only rule of perfect wisdom, devise some novelty out of their own head (Deut. 4:2; Rev. 22:18). . . . Let my opponents solve this difficulty if they would subject my faith to the decrees of man, without authority from the word of God. (IV, 9:2)

The author uses this Calvin quote under the heading, "The Catholic Church vs. the Bible?" He concludes Calvin here is saying Rome's doctrine is unscriptural because... Calvin says it is. The author contends "It is simply not the case that Catholics ignore Scripture in setting forth their theological views" (p.17).

What is Calvin actually saying? The section from the Institutes begins Calvin's look at Councils and their authority (one wouldn't figure this out from the author's citation). Calvin begins in IV- 9.1 noting his esteem for ancient church councils. In IV-9.2 Calvin uses the criterion that a Council gathers in Christ's name when its goal is not to add or subtract from God's word. Calvin says that it's meaningless for his opponents to cite councils in response to him if they haven't first established that those councils really were gathered in Christ's name. Calvin says,

Ungodly and evil bishops can just as much conspire against Christ as good and honest ones can come together in his name. We have clear proof of this fact in a great many decrees that have come forth from such councils. But this will appear later.

Calvin does cover this later (in IV-9.8-9). Calvin isn't making a blanket statement that all Roman Catholics "ignore Scripture in setting forth their theological views." He may make statements like this, but he certainly isn't making it here. He's arguing that when his opponents cite a Council to him, they need to first establish that council is not adding or subtracting to God's word. Calvin says,

It will benefit our adversaries but little to mention councils of bishops a thousand times over; nor will they persuade us to believe what they contend—that councils are governed by the Holy Spirit — before they convince us that these have been gathered in Christ’s name.

This is a great example of how the author reads a text. He argues about a point Calvin isn't even making at the moment. If the author really wanted to respond to Calvin, he should at least respond to the argument being made. Why not argue against Calvin about who decides if a Council is meeting in Christ's name? Why not argue who determines if someone is adding or subtracting to God's word? What criteria serves as a guideline to determine an addition or subtraction? If I were a Roman Catholic reading this section of the Institutes, that's what I would ask.

Skip the "Middle Man" as the Middle Man Requested

The Catholic Champion has presented James Swan: Begging the Question on Sola Scriptura.

A few weeks back he put forth Revolutionizing Catholic Apologetics: Cutting Out The Middle Man and also wrote this.

So, shouldn't I simply skip the middle man? Exactly why should I read Matthew's response according to Matthew's own logic? He should just simply point me to which books would be the best response. But wait... that's the middle man pointing me to the best books.

I guess I'm stuck with the middle man is some regard until the magisterium does something, anything.... but their hands are full with lawsuits and allegations this week, so perhaps next week they can work on a good list of resources in response to my comments on sola scriptura.

Since Matthew recommends skipping the middle man, the argumentation I'd use in response to him would be found here. I suggest Matthew purchase this book and get right to the source of my argumentation.

By the way, I'm still hopeful Matthew will provide a list of which "middle men" to avoid. How do we know according to Matthew who qualifies as a "middle man"? Matthew states:

"The best place to start your research is by using faithful, well educated scholars and clergy to compile your material from, as well as the original sources of the Church, Church Fathers and the Saints."

Matthew suggests cutting out the middle men will revolutionize Romanist apologetics. Every revolution requires sacrifice, so let's get started with a list:


Patrick Madrid
Steve Ray
Tim Staples
Karl Keating
Mark Shea
John Martignoni
Matthew Bellisario

I'm willing to sacrifice the insights of these guys. Whom else could we do without?

Luther a Murderer?

On a recent post I mentioned Mitch Pacwa's upcoming Reformation video series. Pacwa was recently on Catholic Answers to discuss the project. He's looking to do a ten part series on the Reformation from a Roman Catholic perspective. I mentioned Pacwa says Luther "apparently had killed somebody in a duel" (here is the audio clip).

Buried in my e-mail spam was a tip from someone who thinks he might know where Pacwa got this tidbit from:

A German biographer named Hans-Joachim Neumann published a book in 1995 entitled Luthers Leiden (English title Luther's Suffering) in which he puts together some circumstantial evidence that in 1505 Luther killed a friend of his in a duel, the friend's name being Hieronimus Buntz, and that the reason Luther entered the monastery was to escape punishment.

So based on this tidbit, I've been looking around for more information. On this web page comes the following:

Luther’s biographer and admirer, Hans-Joachim Neumann has put together much circumstantial evidence, which indicates, that Luther (who was named ”Luder” until 1520) killed his friend Hieronimus Buntz in a duel in 1505 and entered a monastery to escape punishment. In addition, Luder had a relationship with a married woman since 1503. (Luthers Leiden [Luther’s Suffering] ob cit., p. 15 ff.)

Now the webpage is a typical example of Internet propaganda. However, that doesn't necessarily mean this fact is incorrect. Here's another web page tidbit translated from the German:

Evidence suggesting that Luther killed his friend in the dispute Hieronimus Buntz. 1529 Luther wrote about his time monk: "A man slayer I was" and the biographer of Veit Dietrich, 1532, the Table Talk Luther noted: "After the extraordinary decree of God, I was made a monk, so they do not take me prisoner. Otherwise I would be very easy been caught. As it was, they could not, because it took me to the whole Order. "

And another (Translated from Swedish):

There have been two duels, where Luther attended during his undergraduate studies. The first duel was under Dietrich Emmes inquiries between Luther and Conrad Wigant April 16, 1503 near Stotternheim. The second duel was fought between Luther and Hieronimus Buntz in January 1505 and died in that regard Buntz. Where it happened is still an open question.

And another (translated from Spanish)

As to Hans-Joachim Neumann's book, he's a professor and maxillofacial surgeon at the teaching hospital of the Humboldt University in Berlin. His book attempts to use current medical knowledge on Luther. That is, he looks at Luther's health from the historical reports, and then at times diagnoses his suffering and how that impacted his work.

I put this post together in about twenty minutes, so when I have more time, I'll be looking further into this based on the clues above.

Addendum #1
Just to prove I'm not the meanie some think I am, I searched the term "Dietrich Emme" and found a helpful bit of information via this link (Give credit when it's due). This blog posted an edited snippet from the magazine, Thirty Days: "Struck, But Not By Lightning," by Tommaso Ricci, No. 2, 1992, pp. 62-64), worth checking out on this topic.

I'm always curious as to the Roman Catholic interpretation of Luther and the Reformation. I do like Mitch Pacwa, but I've heard him say some not so true historical stuff on Luther and the Reformation over the years. Perhaps now that he'll be focusing directly on Luther and the Reformation, his facts will be updated. Sometimes we hear stuff, and just repeat it, not realizing it's wrong. With this particular event (or non-event), I'm hopeful he'll be fair. The conclusions seem to be based on circumstantial evidence, and it's interesting that not too many people have picked up on this, leading me to believe it's not compelling circumstantial evidence. Even Pacwa used the word "apparently". On the other hand, even if this "duel" is true, it doesn't change anything.

Addendum #2
Some of the editors of Luther's Works responed to this entry, and left the following comment:

Rev. Dr. Benjamin T. G. Mayes said...

Was Luther a murderer?

In the early 1980's, Dietrich Emme popularized the theory that Martin Luther entered the Augustinian monastery in Erfurt not due to his experience in a storm, but in order to escape prosecution after killing a companion (Hieronymus Buntz) in a duel in 1505 (Martin Luther: Sein Jugend- und Studentenzeit 1483-1505 [Cologne, 1982]). Emme's work on this point has been widely dismissed in recent scholarship as piling one speculative conclusion upon another (e.g., Andreas Lindner, "Was geschah in Stotternheim," in C. Bultmann, V. Leppin, eds., Luther und das monastische Erbe [Tübingen, 2007], pp. 109-10; cf. Franz Posset, The Front-Runner of the Catholic Reformation: The Life and Works of Johann von Staupitz[Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003], 94, and the response by Helmar Junghans, Lutherjahrbuch 72 [2005]:190).

The standard biographer of Luther claims that Hieronymus Buntz died of plague (Martin Brecht, Martin Luther: His Road to Reformation, 1483-1521 [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1985], 47), and this is documented in sources from 1505 (http://books.google.com/books?id=r2hHAAAAYAAJ&dq=Hieronymus%20Buntz&as_brr=3&pg=PA34#v=onepage&q=Hieronymus%20Buntz&f=false).

The "duel theory" relies on one of Luther's Table Talks: "By the singular plan of God I became a monk, so that they would not capture me. Otherwise I would have been captured easily. But they were not able to do it, because the entire Order took care of me" (D. Martin Luthers Werke: kritische Gesamtausgabe[Weimar Edition]: Tischreden, vol. 1 [Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1912], p. 134, no. 326). Yet this refers to the Augustinian order's protection of Luther from Rome in 1518, not a putative flight from prosecution for dueling in 1505.

If Luther's "duel" were true, it would have been a matter of rather public knowledge, both casually, among students and the monks, and officially, both with whatever civil or episcopal authorities were supposedly trying to arrest Luther, as well as because a dispensation would have been required for Luther's ordination (homicide being a canonical impediment for the sacrament of order). In other words, it would be practically unthinkable that when the Roman Catholic polemical biographer of Luther, Johannes Cochlaeus, was searching for data about Luther's monastic career (and coming up with stories like Luther wailing in the choir) that such a "fact," if true or even rumored, would not have emerged.

Dr. Christopher Boyd Brown, general editor, Luther’s Works: American Edition
Dr. Benjamin T. G. Mayes, managing editor, Luther’s Works: American Edition

2:30 PM, MARCH 30, 2010 

Addendum #3
This entry was revised 4/3/2018 for formatting and dead links. Also, here is the audio clip of Father Pacwa saying Luther killed someone in a duel.

Are There Biblical Catholic Answers for John Calvin? (Part Two)

I debated as to who to follow in my review of a recent Roman Catholic book on John Calvin. Calvin's order or that put forth by a Roman Catholic author. Common sense tells me to follow the order of argumentation set forth by Calvin, but since this review is on the analysis put forth by a Roman Catholic author, I'm going to journey through his book via his order. Unfortunately, this is like cooking pasta in a big bowl, then trying to organize each strand into a picture of the Mona Lisa. For instance, the very first snippet of analysis put forth by the author is directed toward the thirteenth point of a sixteen point extended argument from Calvin.

I'll begin where this Roman Catholic author begins. I'll note the title of his section, and provide the reference to The Institutes. To follow along, simply read the section of Calvin's Institutes noted. I'll be using both the Battles and Beveridge translations. For anyone time challenged, consult Analysis of the Institutes of the Christian Religion of John Calvin (New Jersey: P and R Publishing, 1980). This text outlines Calvin's actual argument in each section.

1. The Catholic Church vs. the Bible?
This particular  Roman Catholic author begins with an edit of IV, 8:13 and one sentence from IV, 17:48 ". . . the ministers of Satan, whose usual practice is to hold the Scriptures in derision, . . ."). He comments:

The Catholic Church doesn't create dogmas with utter disregard for Scripture (quite the contrary). Calvin fails to document what he charges. We make no such dichotomy. Calvin does because he thinks in "either/or" terms: for him, if there is true Church authority, this must somehow inexorably be opposed to Scripture in some essential fashion. It's simply not true.

From his reading, the author sees Calvin positing the Roman church doesn't rely on Scripture when it creates dogma. Perhaps he has these key sentences from Calvin in view:

Their statement that the church cannot err bears on this point, and this is how they interpret it—inasmuch as the church is governed by the Spirit of God, it can proceed safely without the Word; no matter where it may go, it can think or speak only what is true; accordingly, if it should ordain anything beyond or apart from God’s Word, this must be taken as nothing but a sure oracle of God.

And:

Now it is easy to conclude how wrongly our opponents act when they boast of the Holy Spirit solely to commend with his name strange doctrines foreign to God’s Word—while the Spirit wills to be conjoined with God’s Word by an indissoluble bond, and Christ professes this concerning him when he promises the Spirit to his church.

Calvin's Argument
In IV, 8:13 Calvin argues against the claim that the church cannot err because it's governed by God's Spirit. Rome also claims the ability to ordain doctrine beyond what was set down in Scripture. Footnote #15 of the Battles translation documents this by appealing to Cochlaeus, De authoritate ecclesiae (1524) I. v, fo. C 1b; I. 6, fo. C 3b; De Castro, Adversus haereses I (1543, fo. 8 B-10 G). In the very next section (IV, 8:14) Calvin goes on to expand this by saying:

Here again they mutter that the church needed to add some things to the writings of the apostles, or that the apostles themselves afterward properly supplied through a living voice what they had not clearly enough taught. For, of course, Christ said to the apostles, “I have many things to say to you which you cannot bear now” [John 16:12]. These, they explain, are decrees which, apart from Scripture, have been accepted only by use and custom.

Again, this is substantiated by footnote #17- Cochlaeus, op. cit., I. 4, fo. B 4a; I. 8, fo. E 2a; Eck, Enchiridion (1535), fo. 21ab. In Eck's Enchiridion we find the following statement:

Not only are those things expressly stated in the Scriptures or proved from them to be believed and kept (something the Lutherans are willing to do), but also it is necessary to believe and keep those things Holy Mother Church believes and observes. For not everything has been clearly handed down in the Sacred Scriptures, but very many have been left to the Church to determine (which is illumined and governed by the Holy Spirit, and on this account cannot wander from the path of truth). Hence the Savior said to his disciples [Jn 16:12f ]: "I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now. But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth." Therefore the Church observes in its rites and ceremonies many things, from the intimate inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and the tradition of the Apostles, and of the holy fathers, which even if not expressly stated in the Scriptures, yet it is wicked to depart from them or take exception to them. Indeed these things are most confirmed to them, and on that account are to be enforced and observed by all true evangelical and Pauline Christians (such do the Lutherans falsely boast themselves to be). "Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle" [2 Thess 2;14]. [Enchiridion of Commonplaces (Michigan: Baker Books, 1979), p.46].

One finds this very issue (the contents of Scripture and Tradition) debated at the Council of Trent. Rome declared that the truth of God is found both in the Scriptures and in the Tradition of the church. James Boice points out,

A technical point of historical research concerning Trent sheds some interesting light on the matter. In the original draft of the fourth session of Trent the decree read that “the truths … are contained partly [partim] in Scripture and partly [partim] in the unwritten traditions.” But at a decisive point in the Council’s deliberations two priests, Nacchianti and Bonnucio rose in protest against the partim … partim formula. These men protested on the grounds that this view would destroy the uniqueness and sufficiency of Scripture. All we know from that point on is that the words partly … partly were removed from the text and replaced by the word and (et). Did this mean that the Council responded to the protest and perhaps left the relationship between Scripture and Tradition purposely ambiguous? Was the change stylistic, meaning that the Council still maintained two distinct sources of revelation? These questions are the focus of the current debate among Roman theologians. [“Sola Scriptura: Crucial to Evangelicalism.” The Foundations of Biblical Authority. James M. Boice, ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1980].

It is a simple historical fact that those Roman theologians contemporary with the Reformers viewed God's truth also elsewhere than solely in Scripture. David Bagchi notes,

Luther's characteristic position was that no doctrine not found in Scripture can be enjoined as generally necessary for salvation. This view was universally condemned by Catholics, principally on two grounds that were themselves drawn from Scripture. First, Christ said much to his apostles that is not recorded in Scripture (John 21:25). This apostolic tradition was reputed to include such practices as praying toward the east and observing Sunday as the Christian sabbath, and such doctrines as the generation of the Son from the Father. Second, Christ told his apostles that they could not yet bear the whole truth and promised them the Holy Spirit, which would lead them into all truth (John 16:12-13).70 This was taken as a guarantee of the trustworthiness of established custom, consuetudo ecclesiae. [David Bagchi, Luther's Earliest Opponents (Minnieapolis: fortress Press, 1991), p. 163]

And also:

The early canons of Gratian, especially Ecclesiasticarum, In his rebus, and Catholica, are clear that Scripture, apostolic tradition, and local and universal customs (provided that they contravene neither positive law nor the law of reason) have equal force. Apostolic tradition was, of course, a fixed body of instructions, the contents of which were well known from references to it made by the fathers. What local and universal customs embraced was, however, not so evident. Clearly they were less ancient than the apostolic traditions, but how ancient did a custom have to be for it to be traditional? The fact that many of the beliefs and practices the Romanists defended as traditional or customary were of recent date caused them little embarrassment. This must not surprise us, for their appeal was ultimately not to antiquity, nor to catholicity, but to the fact that the doctrine or discipline at issue belonged to that church to which Christ had promised the Spirit of truth. The process of being led into all truth was one that nullified all considerations of antiquity and universality, "for the Spirit blows not only where it will, but also when it will" [Ibid., p.166].

Conclusion
Here we have clear truth that the Roman theologians of Calvin's day argued for a second vehicle of God's revealed truth outside of Scripture. This content was different than that contained in the Scripture. This is in fact how Rome's sixteenth century apologists argued against the Reformers, and this is the argument Calvin is responding to. Is the contemporary Roman author's analysis of Calvin accurate? No, he completely misses Calvin's argument, and the historical context in which the argument was made. Indeed, the Roman church today attempts to dress everything up with Scripture, but back then, Rome's apologists had no trouble stating God's truth was also outside of the Bible (ironically, even many of Rome's modern defenders say this). This is a perfect example of what Steve Hays stated:

[Calvin's Institutes] was written at a very different time and place. To correctly interpret Calvin, you’d need to know about his intellectual influences, the socioeconomic and political conditions of the day, the historical antecedents to his theological terminology, the identity of his theological opponents, and century. What may be common knowledge for someone living in the 16th Century is hardly common knowledge for someone living in the 21st Century.

Are There Biblical Catholic Answers for John Calvin? (Part Three)

In a Roman Catholic book on John Calvin comes the following quotation from John Calvin:

Every child knows that in the writings of the apostles, which these men represent as mutilated and incomplete, is contained the result of that revelation which the Lord then promised to them. (IV, 8:14)

Roman Catholic Analysis

Catholics do not do this. Scripture often points to traditions outside of itself that are true. Therefore, to hold such a view is not to hold to a "mutilated and incomplete" Bible. It is to hold to all that the Bible itself asserts. The one who denies that there is such a thing as a tradition described and fully accepted in Scripture, is selectively disbelieving part of that same Scripture. It isn’t being accepted in its totality.

Context
Calvin is discussing the claim that extra apostolic God-breathed material exists beyond the Bible. He argues in response that when the apostles committed their doctrine to writing, they weren't so incompetent to leave important things out which needed to be given to the church via a "living voice." Quoting Augustine, Calvin says, "When the Lord said nothing, who of us may say,'These things are or those things are’? Or if one dare say so, what proof does he provide”?

Response
Here would have been a perfect spot for the author to actually supply a Biblical Catholic answer. Which God breathed Traditions does the Bible say exist outside of its pages? Well, of course the Bible can't tell you what they are, that's why they're Traditions! Who can tell you? Why, the Roman Catholic Church... but can they really? They've yet to declare whether the partim-partim or material view is that described in Trent. Those Calvin faced were clearly of the partim-partim camp.

Catholic Partim-Partim Sufficiency claims part of God’s special revelation is contained in the Scripture, and part is contained in Tradition. In this view, the Bible is “materially insufficient.” The New Catholic Encyclopedia states of those who hold this view, “Neither tradition nor Scripture contains the whole apostolic tradition. Scripture is materially (i.e., in content) insufficient, requiring oral tradition as a complement to be true to the whole divine revelation” [Source: New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967) Vol 14, p.228].

The other is the Roman Catholic Material Sufficiency view. It holds the Scriptures are “materially sufficient” meaning the entire content of revelation is in the Scriptures, or that divine revelation is contained entirely in Scripture. That is, all the doctrines Christians are to believe are found in the Bible. Along with affirming totum in Scriptura, Catholics who maintain material sufficiency also hold “Tradition” likewise contains the entire content of revelation: “totum in traditione”. Thus, two vehicles carry God’s special revelation in total: Scripture and Tradition. Both are infallible in the Catholic view.

A search of the author's blog for the term "Partim Partim" provided two hits, and neither were his words. He does though appear to be holding to the material view:

We believe Scripture is materially sufficient, but not formally sufficient without the Church as a Guide. We believe that Scripture and Tradition are "twin fonts of the same divine wellspring," as Vatican II states.

 Calvin was well within his right to criticize the view of his contemporaries. They indeed held that the Bible was not complete and needed to have things added.

Are There Biblical Catholic Answers for John Calvin? (Part One)

A Roman Catholic recently blogged a large amount of material on John Calvin. I held out reading any of it and waited to see what he'd put forth in a published book ( I eventually recently received his self-published book on this Calvin material). Material on a blog can be edited or deleted as if by magic. A published work though sets one's opinion and research concretely. I plan on at least working through some of it to see if Patrick Madrid's claim that this author's work ably refutes Calvinism is correct. It may indeed be the case it accurately presented the argumentation of Calvin's Institutes and contrasted those differences succinctly with his particular flavor of modern day Roman Catholicism. If that turn out to be so, I'd be pleasantly surprised. 

Given the author's work on Luther, I do have significant doubts that he accurately presented a correct analysis of Calvin. The author has claimed to present "Biblical Catholic answers." As I work through the material, I'll keep a sharp lookout for these Biblical Catholic answers. This is actually the first quizzical statement from the author. Will the author be presenting Biblical answers which are those interpretations of Biblical texts most commonly used by current non scholarly defenders of Rome? Since there are so few (or perhaps any) actual infallibly defined verses for Roman Catholics to utilize, will this treatment be this Roman Catholic author's particular interpretations of the Bible that serve as a response? Or, will those answers be his particular Biblical interpretation along with his particular interpretation of statements from Papal encyclicals, councils and Tradition, etc.?

Dedication
The author dedicates the book "To my Reformed Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ, for whom I have a great deal of respect. May we rejoice in the common ground that we have, and be cordially open and honest with each other, as fellow Christians, when we disagree." Let me be cordially open and honest. More often than not, seriously Reformed five-point Calvinists do not consider Roman Catholics "brothers and sisters in Christ." Recent argumentation put forth by Doug Wilson and his group (as well as some atypical reasoning from Charles Hodge) are exceptions, not the rule. We can be grateful for the author's graciousness towards separated brethren, but the author should not be surprised that Reformed people deny the hand of fellowship in return for this dedication. Those like the author that knowingly and actively promote Rome's false gospel do not stand on common ground with the Reformed on issues most vital to the Christian faith.

Translation of Calvin's Institutes
The author relied on the older Henry Beveridge translation of Calvin's Institutes (1845) "to easily cut and paste everything in it, without a great deal of extra typing being necessary". This is unfortunate, because a far superior translation by Ford Lewis Battles now is the norm for English readers. A cyber-version of this translation can be obtained for a meager $15 (savvy searchers could probably find it for free). Of the Beveridge translation John T. McNeill notes the Beveridge translation is of "uneven quality" and it's "rather less accurate than either of his predecessors, and is chargeable with numerous minor omissions and a few clearly erroneous renderings" (The Library of Christian Classics edition of Calvin's Institutes, volumes 20 of Westminster's series, p. xlvii). McNeill says though that Beveridge did an admirable job on many sections of the text. One wonders why the author, for a mere $15 wouldn't seek out the best translation? The Battles translation is also more than just a modernized rendering. The in-depth historical and bibliographic notes are of great value to anyone engaging the Institutes. If an English reader really wanted to understand the Institutes and all it entails, the Battles edition is the best choice. To go along with this, any layman serious about engaging the Institutes would greatly benefit from the compendium book by Battles, Analysis of the Institutes of the Christian Religion of John Calvin (New Jersey:P and R Publishing, 1980). Battles provides an outline form for each chapter of the Institutes. I point all this tedium out to note that the necessary tools to understand Calvin in context are readily available for any serious study and interaction with the text.

Methodology
The author wrote he chose to use his "Socratic manner" to interact with the Institutes. What this usually means is that a section of text is posted and then commentary from the author follows. The positive aspect of using such an approach is that one can claim to have interacted line by line with a complete text. The negative aspect is that complex argumentation sometimes must be viewed as a whole in order to be best understood and appreciated. If a text is scrutinized line by line without the whole in view, the argument can be missed, caricatured, or mishandled. Also the "Socratic manner" often employed by the author tends to scream out, "I need an editor." Sometimes what could be said in a paragraph of analysis spans multiple paragraphs of tedium and rabbit trails. In this volume, the author appears to argue against Calvin by reorganizing the Institutes into his own system. For instance, Calvin begins Book IV (the focus of the Roman Catholic author's book) addressing The Holy Catholic Church, our mother. The author approaches this subject on page 323 of his critique. The author begins his book with Institutes IV, 8:13 and IV, 17:48 discussing The Catholic Church vs. the Bible. Calvin though discusses the authority of Scripture throughout the Institutes, but in particular in Book I.

The Focus of This Roman Catholic Book on John Calvin
The author says his focus is on Book IV of the Institutes: Of the Holy Catholic Church. He claims that Calvinism and Roman Catholicism are far closer on soteriology,whereas the real differences between the two systems are on ecclesiology. With this I have an immediate rejection, as would John Calvin most likely. Perhaps the author means only to suggest that current Roman Catholicism is closer in soteriology to Calvin, whereas, Calvin wrote with his contemporary "Papists" in view. In either case, the differences between imputation and infusion are still two different soteriologies staring at each other across an immense chasm never to be bridged. The author says Calvin didn't even realize how close he was to being in harmony with Roman Catholic soteriology. I would say quite the opposite is the case (see Institutes Book III, 13-20).

The Author vs. the Goliath of Calvin
The author compares his credentials to those of Calvin, noting Calvin's "formal education, rhetorical and literary ability" and "remarkable encyclopedic knowledge". The author though is "just a lay Catholic apologist with a degree in sociology, and no formal theological education (but with lots of informal theological education for over thirty years)". I have to wholeheartedly agree with the author that Calvin is far his superior. Calvin with his limited library (and all those issues which plagued his life) is still the greater intellect compared to the author living in the United States with a computer. The author says that since Calvin's been dead a long time and can't counter respond, Calvin's education makes this a fair fight. That is, it's not unfair to write a refutation of someone that's long gone if they have a pedigree of intellectual accomplishment. The "unfairness" as I see it is in this sense: Calvin wrote against the particular Roman church of his day. The author writes from his modern Roman perspective. As long as the author takes this into consideration, a fair response to Calvin is an approachable endeavor.

The author says "I'm confident that [Calvin] has been, throughout my replies, very often plainly shown to be in error. I've often noted that one may be the greatest genius of all time, but if the facts and the truth are not on one’s side, even an infant who knows the truth can 'get the better of them' in discussion." I can appreciate the fact that the author argues for the perspicuity of truth without infallible help. It's refreshing to find a defender of Rome so willing to admit that words and information on a printed page can obviously be clear enough to be true or false, and that a person without formal theological training can arrive at truth. This is refreshingly Protestant of the author.

Get The Anti-Catholics Before They Get You
The author notes that even before his book was published, certain Reformed nefarious anti-Catholics were already attacking his Calvin project. After searching around a bit, it appears those being refered to actually made their comments on this blog. The author suggests these minions actually fear such a book on Calvin coming out. Contrarily, those in my immediate apologetic circle that doubt the author's abilities to put forth a coherent response to Calvin by no means "fear" his intellectual prowess. Rather, my response to the project is more like someone watching a car wreck about to happen: Someone get the keys before the car pulls away.

On the other hand, the author makes a point which at first appears valid in his defense: "The second defense I made was to appeal to Calvin’s own claims for his work, and its intended audience. It was not supposed to be for scholars and theologians only, but rather, primarily for students and laymen." Steve Hays though has pointed out,"The definitive 1559 edition of the Institutes was written in Latin. It’s not as if the average baker, blacksmith, midwife, or cobbler could read Latin. Indeed, universal literacy in the 16th Century was nonexistent." Hays goes on to say:

Even more to the point, it’s obviously anachronistic to say that because 16th Century work was pitched at a popular level, therefore a 21st Century blogger can write a commentary on that work without any specialized background knowledge. Even if it was written for popular consumption in the 16th Century, to a 16th Century audience, that doesn’t mean it’s equally accessible to a modern audience. It was written at a very different time and place. To correctly interpret Calvin, you’d need to know about his intellectual influences, the socioeconomic and political conditions of the day, the historical antecedents to his theological terminology, the identity of his theological opponents, &century. What may be common knowledge for someone living in the 16th Century is hardly common knowledge for someone living in the 21st Century.

On this blog some months ago, this very subject of the author's Calvin material came up as well. The author says of his Calvin work: "Catholics who encounter Calvinist friends might like to consult this for reference purposes." Hays responds,

So Catholics who are incompetent to evaluate Calvin should consult a Catholic epologist who is equally incompetent to evaluate Calvin. Richard Muller might be qualified to write a commentary on the Institutes. Roger Nicole might be qualified to write a commentary on the Institutes. Paul Helm might be qualified to write a commentary on the Institutes. There are probably some Catholic scholars who would be qualified to do so as well. You are not. Your commentary on the Institutes is an exercise in self-conceited charlatanry.

The words "self-conceited charlatanry" made it to the published edition of the book. The other person apparently singled out in the book is Tim Enloe, who stated the following on this blog:

I thought it was bad some years back when [the author] claimed he didn't even need to know the alpha from the omega in order to "refute" an argument advanced by a man who had been teaching Greek on the college level for many years. I thought it was bad when a few years back he claimed that an entire critical portion of my thesis on conciliarism, discussing the centuries of Medieval canon law debates about the limits of papal power, was "too boring" for him to read through and try to figure out, but he was going to go ahead and "refute" my "dumb" statements about the orthodoxy of conciliarism anyway. The notion that [the author] is writing a "commentary" on Calvin's Institutes, however, tops it all off. The man simply has no concept of his limitations, and despises the correction of others who do. This is one part of the biblical definition of a fool, and since [the author] apparently considers himself a Modern day Socrates, it is worth noting that Socrates would have called him a fool, too - not to mention a Sophist.

The words “no concept” and “limitations” made it to the book. Enloe went on to say:

The question being raised about qualifications to, say, write a "commentary" on Calvin's Institutes is very interesting and touches precisely on why I am so hard on Internet apologists. It's one thing to blog in a spirit of "faith seeking understanding" inquiry where one recognizes one's intellectual horizons and is seeking to grow in his or her understanding. It's quite something else to set oneself up as a master of some subject matter for the purpose of "defending the Faith" and acting like the command to "give an answer" means that any old time you run into something you don't understand, a few nights with encyclopedias and popular-level works will suffice to write a definitive "refutation" of someone's "errors."

-snip-

It is still an interesting question - the limits that laymen should observe when putting their thoughts out in public. I scrolled through the papal document on lay apostolates last night, and while I would not be able to say that I have a great grasp of its guidelines, I did find it interesting that it said some things about laymen needing to have specific mandates from the hierarchy and obtaining "serious" training for the purpose of being competent to do those mandated tasks. It does make an outsider wonder about much of what goes on in the Catholic apologetics world, especially the common enough phenomenon of Joe Blow, who just converted 6 months ago after reading 25 pages of the Church Fathers, 100 pages of Catholic convert stories, and a 2 page summary of Newman setting himself up as an "apologist."

The author says of Enloe and Hays:

This is how the academic snob views most popular analyses, written for the masses and the proverbial “common man,” rather than merely to academics and pointy-headed “intellectuals.” Neither of these men, however (ironically), are actually academics themselves. One is a teaching assistant and the other is still trying, in his late thirties, to obtain a graduate degree. Both have been very active on the Internet for years (a “popular” medium if there ever was one), since that has been the only way they could be read at all (neither having had a book published by reputable publishers, as I have, six times now). They seem to believe that the only people who can think and analyze and critique are scholars and professors. Yet they write such analyses all the time, and are scarcely more qualified than I am (if not less) to do so.

One can see that both Hays and Enloe raised serious questions as to the author's work on Calvin, yet it is enough to attack these men personally as a response, in print. One wonders if any publisher or editor would have kept such comments in a published book. He ignores their constructive criticism and says,"No law or rule can be found that would forbid me from doing this, or entail that this endeavor ought to be defined as having 'no concept' of my 'limitations,' as one of my critics put it, or, 'an exercise in self-conceited charlatanry,' as another delightfully opined." Even if there was a law or rule, one doubts the author would follow it anyway.

Final Remarks
The author says his book is a "gift to John Calvin". Poor Calvin, all his opponents want to give him refutations of the Institutes. Servetus sent Calvin his Christianismi Restitutio, an attack on the Institutes. Normally, gifts aren't meant to tear a person down. I do find it interesting that a man deemed a heretic by Romanists and Protestants likewise wanted Calvin to have such a present.

The author finishes his introduction by stating, "May God the Holy Spirit, our Helper, guide us all into all truth, and grant us the will, by His grace, to want to always seek truth." I haven't done any searches on this sentence, but it is rather curious for a Roman Catholic espousing free will to ask God to "grant us the will." Perhaps a little Calvin actually did rub off on the author.

Why the Canon Argument is Connected to Playing "Freebird" for Two Hours

I recently posted The Canon as Infallible Sacred Tradition over on aomin.org. I realize this type of post is... well, argumentation that has been presented before. I wanted to explain the odd circumstances that provoked me to put it together.

I was looking at recent threads over at Catholic Answers, and came across this post: how do we defend against this Catholic slam? The post states,

A prominent central NJ pastor is doing a month-long series on Catholicism. See liquidchurch.com and bighairpreacher.com. You can listen to his messages at liquidchurch.com or on iTunes (search for 'Liquid Church').

How do Catholics respond to what he says? Does he misrepresent Catholic theology? He doesn't put it in a good light, despite that he says he's not out to "trash Catholics".

Now normally I wouldn't even bother to visit a site like the one mentioned. I'm sure there are a number of ministers takings shots at Romanism, and probably some using horrendous argumentation. I was recently made aware of this particular church ("Liquid Church"), and it's actually not far from where I live. It's a church geared toward the youth, and I've heard it's quite successful (in terms of popularity and attendance). They've got the great band, and all the media enhancement, and probably are somewhat emergent, though I haven't looked over their site very closely. They do appear to be non-Reformed, lacking creeds, and dispensational in eschatology. I wouldn't expect to find the same quality of argumentation against Romanism as say found as that put forth by a Reformed church.

Now here's where it gets personal. I sort of know the minister of this church. He actually grew up in the same church I did. He was at least 4 or 5 years younger than I. I was actually good friends with his older brother back in my teens- we were both guitarists, or rather, guitarist wanna be's. I have very fond memories of the "Freebird" two hour jam sessions in which two 14 year old boys traded riffs, blew up amplifiers, broke strings, and had the police show up telling us to turn our amplifiers down. I think we also had a few good doses of electricity pumped through us by plugging too many amplifiers into one ungrounded outlet. Great times!

Now fast forward 27 years. I have no idea where this brother is, but little Timmy is now a very successful local pastor. It was probably out of sentiment that I went and visited the web page that so infuriated the Romanists on Catholic Answers. I ended up getting involved in the blog comments. I'm not sure how skilled Pastor Tim is with basic Romanist epistemological argumentation. I watched a few clips from Pastor Tim on Roman Catholicism, basic stuff, not bad, but definitely not able to meet the epistemological issues raised by Romanism. I don't even know if Pastor Tim reads his blog comments, or even remembers me. But if he does visit his blog, he'll see that I interacted with the old rewarmed canon argument. It's funny, I would've thought this argument would've been retired by now. I know I haven't listened to or played Freebird in many, many years.