Luther: A Good Life from Good Works Leads to Damnation

The following is from the web page Luther, Exposing the Myth, under the heading "Faith and Good Works":

"There is no scandal greater, more dangerous, more venomous, than a good outward life, manifested by good works and a pious mode of life. That is the grand portal, the highway that leads to damnation" [Denifle’s Luther et Lutheranisme, Etude Faite d’apres les sources. Translation by J. Paquier (Paris, A. Picard, 1912-13), VOl. II, pg. 128].

Luther Exposing the Myth says their stated purpose is to show that "from Luther’s own words we shall see him for what he really was, that is a rebellious apostate, who abandoned the faith and led many into apostasy from God under the guise of “reformation” in order to follow his perverse inclinations." With this quote, they attempt to show Christ valued works as part of salvation, while Luther held leading a good life based on good works leads to damnation.

Documentation
Luther Exposing the Myth cites "Denifle’s Luther et Lutheranisme, Etude Faite d’apres les sources. Translation by J. Paquier (Paris, A. Picard, 1912-13), VOl. II, pg. 128." I have a hard time believing Luther Exposing the Myth actually used this source. My speculation is that it used a source that quoted Denifle / Paquier. Luther Exposing the Myth cites Denifle / Paquier four times. Each citation and reference is also used in this book: Two Arguments for Catholicism (1928) by Antonin Eymieu. This particular quote can be found on page 46:

The great danger is the doing of good works. It is what the Papists call the practice of virtue. "There is no scandal greater, more dangerous, more venomous, than a good outward life, manifested by good works and a pious mode of life. That is the grand portal, the highway that leads to damnation [(Footnote 5) Dollinger III, 124].

Luther Exposing the Myth does not mention or refer to Eymieu, but I would be surprised if Two arguments for Catholicism was not (ultimately) the source used for this quote. In fact, it becomes more probable when one notices that footnote four (documenting a quote previous to the one in question) in Eymieu refers to "Denifle II, 128."  In other words, Luther, Exposing the Myth mis-documented the quote during its probable plagiarization of  Eymieu (the quote was actually supposed to be documented with "Dollinger III, 124"). Luther et Lutheranisme II:128 can be found here. Checking page 128 of Denifle’s Luther et Lutheranisme II, one is hard pressed to discover exactly what's being cited, for it doesn't appear the quote is cited on the page. The quote does appear though on page 124 of the French edition of Dollinger's  La réforme III (it is on page 128 in Dollinger's German). Here is what Dollinger says:

Here is the German:

In the French edition, Dollinger cites "L.c. XI, 349 et suiv" as his reference for this Luther quote. This refers to Walch vol. xi, p. 349 and what follows. This was a set of Luther's works published 1740-1753 by Johann Georg Walch. The set was revised from 1885-1910 and is also known as the St. Louis edition. Volume XI refers to Kirchen-Postille Evangelien-Predigten, or Luther's Church Postil.  Here is page 349. These Postil sermons have a tedious and complicated legacy (see the introduction to LW 75). The text in question appears to be:

The text being cited is a section from Luther's sermon Am Sonntage nach dem Christtage (Luc. 2, 33-40). This sermon is available in English. It can be found in Lenker's Church Postil: Sunday After Christmas Sermon (Luke 2:33-40)., and it can be found in LW 52:102.

Context

Lenker:
51. Finally Simeon says that all this will happen that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed. What a blessed and necessary fruit of this falling and speaking against! But in order to understand this we must notice that there are two different kinds of temptation among men. There is the temptation to gross sins, as for instance to be disobedient to parents, to kill, to be unchaste, to steal, to lie and blaspheme, etc., which are sins against the second table of the law. The people who do these things need not take offense at a sign which is spoken against; their thoughts are sufficiently revealed by their evil life. The Scriptures speak little of this temptation.

52. But the most dangerous temptation is prefigured by Cozbi the daughter of Zur, a prince of Midian, because of whom twenty-four thousand were slain in Israel, as Moses writes in Numbers 25, 15. This is the temptation through the bright and shining sins of good works and the service of God, which bring misfortune upon the whole world and against which nobody can guard sufficiently. These are the sins against the first table of the law, against faith, the honor of God and his works.

53.For a life of good works, blameless conduct and outward respectability is the greatest, most dangerous and destructive stumbling-block. The people leading such lives are so upright, reasonable, honorable and pious that scarcely a single soul could have been preserved or saved, if God had not set up a sign against which they might stumble and by which the thought of their hearts might be revealed. Thus we see their hearts behind their beautiful words and good works, and find that these great saints and wise men are pagans and fools; for they persecute the faith for the sake of their works and will not suffer their ways to be rebuked. Thus their thoughts are laid bare and they become manifested as trusting in their own works and themselves, sinning not only continually against the first commandments, but endeavoring also in their enmity against God to exterminate and destroy all that belongs to God, claiming to do this for the sake of God and to preserve the truth. Behold, such are the pope, the bishops and almost all the priests, who have filled the world with innumerable snares and stumbling-blocks by making an external glitter of the spiritual life. Among them there is no faith, but only works,the Gospel does not prevail, but only human laws.

54. The whole Scriptures speak of this stumbling-block,and God with all his prophets and saints contends against it.This is the true gate of hell and the broad highway to eternal damnation, wherefore this harlot is well called Cozbi, "mendacium meum," my lie. Everything that glitters lies and deceives, but her beautiful ornaments and embellishments deceive even the princes of Israel, and so she is not merely called "mendacium," but "meum mendacium," my lie, because with her deception she attracts and tempts almost everybody. (Lenker, 277-278).

LW 52:

For there is no bigger, more dangerous, more poisonous stumbling block than the external good life lived in good works and blameless conduct. The people living such lives are such upright, sensible, honorable, pious people, that not a single soul could be saved or remain unseduced, if God had not set up his sign and target, over which they stumbled and revealed the thoughts of their hearts. Through their beautiful words and good works we see into their hearts and discover that these eminent saints and wise men are heathen and fools; for they persecute the faith for the sake of their works and they want to be unpunished in their conduct. Thus their thoughts are discovered and become visible, showing how they trust in their works and in themselves and how they not only sin unnecessarily against the first commandments, but also, full of hatred, strive to blot out and to destroy everything pertaining to faith and to God. They always behave as if they were doing so for the sake of God and in order to preserve the truth. The pope, the bishops, and almost all the clergy are of this disposition; they have filled the world with their snares and offenses by turning the spiritual life into external glitter. And yet there is no faith, but only works; the gospel does not rule here, but only human laws.

All of Scripture speaks of this offense and God fights against it with all his prophets and saints. This is the true gate to hell and the broad highway leading to damnation. Thus, this harlot is aptly named Cozbi, mendacium meum, “my lie.” Everything that glitters is falsehood and deception, but her beautiful adornment and jewels deceive even the rulers of Israel. She is named not only mendacium, but meum mendacium, “my lie,” because her deception entices and tempts everybody [LW 52:120-121].

Conclusion
This quote has some history. It was reviewed by in the 1800's in Luther Vindicated. Charles Hastings Collette examined the quote being used out of context by Reverend S. Baring-Gould:

Having examined a passage from which the rev. gentleman has dropped two words from Luther's text, and thereby made it appear that he preached adultery, I now will note a deliberate shifting of a couple of words, by which an equally atrocious sentiment is attempted to be fixed on the Great Reformer.

In page 15, n. 44, we are referred to vol. xi., col. 346, Walch edition of Luther's works, the correct column is 349. Here Luther not only exposed the heresy of advancing good works as a meritorious cause of justification; but, like Paul, he warns us against those who have "a form of godliness," and by an outward life and show,—in fact, what he called " coloured hypocrisy,"—deceive others as well as themselves. This deceit, he tells us, is still more destructive to the soul. Luther's words are :—

"There is no scandal greater, nor more dangerous, nor more venomous than the outward good life in good works and holy conversation. That is clear, the very gate and the broad highway which leads to destruction. Oh, what a horrid abomination of unbelief and ungodliness underlies this fine life, a wolf in sheep's clothing, a harlot underneath the bridal garland !"

The reader will be somewhat surprised to find what the rev. gentleman has been enabled to make of this by a skillful shifting of the position of words which I have placed in italics, making the "good life manifested externally by good works," to be condemned by Luther, instead of the sham or pretence and hypocrisy veiled by a show of good works. The Rev. S. Baring-Gould says were most dangerous, as they prevented man from a total surrender of himself to God to do with him as He saw fit. And he laid down that it is far more dangerous for a man to remain till death in a state of grace and good living than to be plunged in profligacy and stained in innumerable crimes. 'There is no scandal greater,' says he, ' nor more dangerous, nor more venomous, than a good life manifested exteriorly by good works and a pious conduct. It is the carriage-gate to damnation.'" "Charity rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth." The rev. gentleman, however, seems to take a special delight in attributing iniquity to Luther, and this at the expense of truth [source].

The context clearly shows those whom Luther was talking about: "trusting in their own works and themselves, sinning not only continually against the first commandments, but endeavoring also in their enmity against God to exterminate and destroy all that belongs to God, claiming to do this for the sake of God and to preserve the truth." These are the people Luther had in mind who are on "the highway that leads to damnation" with their pious works.


Addendum (2016)
This blog entry is a revision of an entry I posted back in 2010. The original can be found here. Because so many sources are now available online, I'm revising older entries by adding additional materials and commentary, and also fixing or deleting dead hyperlinks. Nothing of any significant substance has changed in this entry from that presented in the former.

Some concluding thoughts from the Called to Communion discussion 1

I’ve mentioned in the past that the issue of the early papacy (or rather the non-existent early papacy) is the “soft underbelly” of Roman claims. If anyone has been involved in these types of discussions – Catholic/Protestant – you know there is always something that can be brought up to evade or change the topic. (The phrase “oh yeah, but what about this…” comes to mind.)

I’ve outlined in another post what Roman Catholics have traditionally believed about the papacy, things which I believed in my early years (the 60’s and the 70’s) – and it’ll be useful to recap them here:

1. The pope is the chief bishop, primate, and leader of the whole Church of Christ on earth.

2. He has episcopal jurisdiction over all members of the Church.

3. To be a member of the Catholic Church, a man must be in communion with the Pope.

4. The providential guidance of God will see to it that the Pope shall never commit the Church to error in any matter of religion.

(Source, Adrian Fortescue, “The Early Papacy”)

These four items are things that are said always to have been believed – and Vatican 1 etched them into stone, so to speak. But these thing are said to have been believed back into the earliest days of the church. From the beginning, according to some.

Fortescue goes on to state that the underpinning, further, revolves around these three foundational elements:

But all of this depends on something else, he said. "All of this depends further on three more theses, into which we cannot enter here." (Pg 51)

These three theses that he did not touch are:

1. "That our Lord gave these rights to the Apostle St. Peter."

2. "That St. Peter must have a successor in them."

3. "That his successor is the Bishop of Rome."

Ratzinger tried to defend these three theses in his “Called to Communion.” And some time ago, I started to get into this and analyze it – it is a genuinely weak set of arguments, given what we know today.

* * *

Peter Lampe’s work (which we know as “From Paul to Valentinus: Christians in Rome During the First Two Centuries”) was first published in Germany in 1987. This work was not a first-of-a-kind work by any stretch. It was sort of a tying together of a lot of disparate threads of thought, which had started more than half a century prior. Here is a summary of some of the major efforts that I’ve found:

In 1927, James Shotwell and Louise Loomis compiled virtually every document that had been used in support of the papacy from the first five centuries of the church (“The See of Peter,” New York and Oxford: Columbia University Press, ©1927, 1955, 1991). These were grouped roughly into “three distinct sets of texts on the ascendancy of the Papacy within the Roman Catholic Church.”

Without going into detail, the vast majority turned out to be, at best, a “curious and less respectable set of documents, the popular apocryphal literature, which grew up around the figure of Peter almost as soon as reliable records began, literature sprung from misconceptions and confusions or else frankly fictitious.”

In the 40’s, 50’s, and 60’s, a Lutheran theologian named Oscar Cullmann wrote a major study, “Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr” (the first English translation Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1953). In this work, Cullmann analyzed both the theological claims of the papacy (and provided major exegetical studies of Matthew 16:17-19 and related texts). As well, he analyzed the historical literature in tremendous detail, in order to ascertain Peter’s role in the early church, as well as the concept of “succession.” He concluded among other things:

The original Church was led by [Peter], and he led it only in its earliest period. For as soon as the foundation for this leadership is laid, Peter will give it up. Another, James, will take it over in Jerusalem, while Peter will concentrate entirely on his missionary work and will do so, indeed, in a subordinate role under James.

This later subordination of Peter under James is a fact important in every respect. It confirms first of all that the leadership of the Church by Peter also has its significance for us chiefly as a starting point. [This is a point that Cullman has been making throughout: the fact that Peter is "first" is a unique fact. There is no "successor" to Peter. Any leadership role that was given to Peter, any primacy, was completed by this time. It was non-continuing in any way.].

James is the actual head of the Church from the moment that Peter dedicates himself completely to missionary work. The memory of that fact was steadily retained in the whole of Jewish Christianity, which took an interest in the ancient traditions. According to Hegesippus, “The brother of the Lord, James, takes over the leadership of the Church with the Apostles. (Citing Eusebius E.H. II, 3, 4).

Particularly important is the fact that the Pseudo-Clementina, which are friendly to Peter, clearly subordinate Peter to James. Peter has to “give an accounting” to James, “the bishop of the holy Church.” To him Peter sends his public addresses, and [Pseudo-]Clement calls him [James] “Bishop of Bishops,” “leader of the holy church of the Hebrews and of the churches founded everywhere by God’s providence. [Pseudo-]Clement traces Peter’s commission to him [Clement] back to a commission that James gave to Peter. These late reports thus agree with what we can learn concerning James from the letters of Paul and the book of Acts.

[In other words, any "Petrine succession" to Clement came through a commission to James. This document, by the way, was one of the documents that was widely believed for hundreds of years, known as the "Pseudo-Isidore Decretals."]

It will not do, however, to make some such objection as that Peter went to Rome just at that time in order to “transfer” the primacy from Jerusalem to that place. In reality Peter does not leave Jerusalem in order to transfer the primacy elsewhere; he leaves rather to spread the Gospel. But the significant thing, as said, is that in relation to the new leadership at Jerusalem he does not continue in some superior position, as though James were only his substitute, or were only Bishop of the church at Jerusalem, already sunk to the position of a local church. He rather subordinates himself to the authority of James as the central government. (Cullman, “Peter,” 224-226).

There is more to this, and I’d love to publish it some time.

In 1969, Daniel William O’Connor published “Peter in Rome,” a critical study designed to look at the question of whether Peter actually ever was in Rome. And the answer there was “yes, but likely only at the end of his life. It is probable that he was martyred and buried there. His bones were never recovered.”

In 1973, there was a major work, “Peter in the New Testament,” subtitled “A Collaborative Assessment by Protestant and Roman Catholic Scholars (© 1973 Augsburg Publishing House. I have a Wipf and Stock reprint). This work was edited by Raymond Brown, Karl Donfried and John Reumann, “from discussions by” about nine different Roman Catholic and Lutheran scholars, as part of “the United States Lutheran—Roman Catholic Dialogue” that was going on, and its topic was “the Role of the Papacy in the Universal Church.

The conclusion of this group was really to have raised more questions than they answered, and at the end, the reader was referred to the second phase of this work, a patristic study “co-chaired by the Ref. Dr. A.C. Piepkorn of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri, and by Professor J. McCue of the School of Religion at the State University of Iowa (Iowa City).

I have not been able to track down this work, but a 2004 survey by a Franciscan priest Rev. Adriano Garuti (“Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and the Ecumenical Dialogue” San Francisco: Ignatius Press) summarizes the Catholic-Lutheran dialogue this way:

In spite of a certain rapprochement (which is unthinkable if it is confronted with the theory of the papacy formulated by the First Vatican Council), it is impossible to overlook the controverted points which still exist, especially concerning the ius divinum and the fullness of the power of the Bishop of Rome (pg 193).

Dr. Peter Lampe is a Lutheran scholar who is one of the signatories of the 1998 document that was presented in advance of the “Joint Declaration on Justification,” which strongly suggested that that “Joint Declaration” was a mistake.

* * *

As I mentioned, Lampe’s study came out in 1987. In 1989, the Vatican began its own historical study. The results of this study have not been published, as far as I know. (If they had found something favorable, don’t you think they would be crowing about it? But instead, what came out of that, was the 1995 encyclical, Ut Unum Sint, in which we see the spectacle of a pope asking for theological input on ways “to find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation.”)

Shortly thereafter, the Vatican held a “theological” symposium on the papacy in 1996, and the strongest reassurances for the papacy that came out of that was, “we are aware of development in the papacy” … “Peter was the leader of the apostles” … “the bishop of Rome is [somehow] the successor of Peter, based on the fact that Peter and Paul died in Rome…”

The symposium is characterized by its properly doctrinal nature, aimed at extracting the essential points of the substance of the doctrine on the Primacy, according to the Catholic Church's conviction of faith...

In addition, there was a document of “reflections” published, just to keep everyone “on the same page,” that is, “These "Reflections" - appended to the symposium - are meant only to recall the essential points of Catholic doctrine on the primacy…” – this is now what it is essential to believe.

THE PRIMACY OF THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER IN THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH
Reflections of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect
Tarcisio Bertone, Archbishop emeritus of Vercelli, Secretary

No longer are the boastful claims made by Fortescue a part of the calculation. As much as possible, historical considerations have been stripped from “what it is now essential to believe”.

Note this paragraph from the conclusion of that theological symposium, written by Ratzinger:

On the basis of the New Testament witness, the Catholic Church teaches, as a doctrine of faith, that the Bishop of Rome is the Successor of Peter in his primatial service in the universal Church;13 this succession explains the preeminence of the Church of Rome,14 enriched also by the preaching and martyrdom of St Paul.

Note the bone given to Paul, although Peter and Paul were “Founders” of the church at Rome. Note also that somehow, in some undefined way, it is “the New Testament witness” where this “succession” “explains” “the preeminence of the Church of Rome”.

This “explanation” may be found in Ratzinger’s “Called to Communion,” and I will say here, that it is such a tremendous stretch, that I find it to be laughable. (You may not, but then again…)

The summary of that document is:

13. … it is essential to state that discerning whether the possible ways of exercising the Petrine ministry correspond to its nature is a discernment to be made in Ecclesia, i.e., with the assistance of the Holy Spirit and in fraternal dialogue between the Roman Pontiff and the other Bishops, according to the Church's concrete needs. But, at the same time, it is clear that only the Pope (or the Pope with an Ecumenical Council) has, as the Successor of Peter, the authority and the competence to say the last word on the ways to exercise his pastoral ministry in the universal Church.

So, in effect, "nanny-nanny-boo-boo on you."

Nevertheless, there is going to be a “last word” on the papacy; it is forthcoming, and it is going to be the result of these historical studies that these Called to Communion folks are mocking and dismissing right now.

You Can't Please Catholic Answers Folks

"As someone noted earlier here, [James White] had packed the audience for Round One with groupies from hundreds of miles away" [source].

compare to the recent debate:

"First of all, this was an embarassingly unattended event. At most, there were 30 people in the auditorium. One would think that Mr. White would draw a bigger crowd than that" [source].

This debate was held in a Roman Catholic school. It's not Dr. White's problem if Roman Catholics on Long Island don't care enough about the immaculate conception and sinlessness of Mary to attend a debate.

In a discussion at Called to Communion

Sean Patrick has put forth a bit of a challenge, with the title, Modern Scholarship, Rome and a Challenge. This of course is based upon my writings about Peter Lampe and some of the echoes with David Waltz. I'm very pleasantly surprised to report that they're allowing me to comment.

Council of Nicaea in 325 AD – Excellent Question!

Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Liberal Skeptics repeat the same misunderstandings on the council of Nicaea in 325. Or are they deliberately lying?

Regarding the Trinity and Deity of Christ, the council of Nicaea, and church history

Pastor Joseph:
“Those who hate the doctrine of the Trinity like Jehovah’s Witnesses and Muslims and so many others, claim that the Trinity is an invention, of Nicaea, and maybe Constantine, and it’s a political thing, and none of the church fathers before 325 ever believed in the Trinity” can you address this?,. . . “

Dr. James White:
“Only real radical people would even begin to make that kind of an assertion, because it is so easy to demonstrate the existence of the belief in the full Deity of Christ from their writings before the Council of Nicaea . . .

“Why does anyone think that the men who gathered at the council of Nicaea in 325 AD, almost every single one of them, who had just gone through the most severe period of persecution by the Roman Empire ever brought against the Christian church; - remember that persecution extended to 313 AD - so only 12 years earlier than Nicaea (325), the Roman Empire was engaged in the worst level of persecution of Christians, from 260-313 AD – was the worst period; there was not any other period of Empire –wide persecution as bad as that period; - so many of the men that gathered at Nicaea carried the scars on their bodies from the sufferings that they had undergone, because they refused to deny their testimony of Jesus Christ. Why would anyone think that those kinds of men who had gone through so much, would roll over and accept some kind of new teaching and new god and new deity on the authority of the very state that had been persecuting them for so long? How does that make one wit of sense? I have never understood that. That is why that argument has never carried any historical weight to any serious minded person.” Dr. James White

Amen!

Staring at 33:48; Dr. White with Pastor Joseph, “100% God; 100% Man, Part 1”
Listen to the whole thing, here.

"Constantine went around the hall greeting bishops, kissing many on the very wounds that had been caused by Roman persecution. He gently kissed stubbed fingers that had been hacked off; he kissed empty eye sockets where eyes had been gouged out. He asked for bishops to remember him in prayer. He urged the bishops to retain and hold firmly to the peace that had been attained at their great council. "

Luther: Peasants are no better than straw

The following is from the web page Luther, Exposing the Myth, under the heading "Social Justice":

Christ taught: “Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill” [Matt 5:6,Cf. Matt 19:18, I John 3:15, Matt 26:52, Romans 12:21].

Luther teaches: “Peasants are no better than straw. They will not hear the word and they are without sense; therefore they must be compelled to hear the crack of the whip and the whiz of bullets and it is only what they deserve” [Erlangen Vol 24, Pg. 294]

It is important to keep in mind that these peasants were actually Protestants who favoured Luther and his views, yet in order to please the German princes Luther and gain influence Luther did not hesitate to have even his own followers put to death! As one writer put it “I know of no example in history ( with the exception of Hitler’s famous, or rather infamous, June 30, 1934) where a man turned in such an inhuman, brutal, low way against his own followers – merely in order to establish his own position, without any reason.” – Peter F. Winer, Martin Luther, Hitler’s Spiritual Ancestor, Pg. 57

Luther Exposing the Myth says their stated purpose is to show that "from Luther’s own words we shall see him for what he really was, that is a rebellious apostate, who abandoned the faith and led many into apostasy from God under the guise of “reformation” in order to follow his perverse inclinations." With this quote, they attempt to show Christ taught one should thirst after justice, while Luther acted unjustly towards the peasants.

Documentation
Luther Exposing the Myth cites "Erlangen Vol 24, Pg. 294." "Erlangen" refers to the Erlangen Edition of Luther's works. This out of print German / Latin edition of Luther's works was published in the 1800's. Here is page 294. It contains the closing paragraphs of Wider die räuberischen und mörderischen Rotten der Bauern (Against the Robing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants, 1525). There is no such quote on this page as Luther, Exposing the Myth purports.  This particular reference is for this different quote.

An additional quote of commentary is provided from "Peter F. Winer, Martin Luther, Hitler’s Spiritual Ancestor, Pg. 57." Here's the next blatant error to point out: it's "Wiener," not Winer. It is probable this was the source from which Luther Exposing the Myth snatched this Luther quote. Wiener states,

“Peasants”, Luther declared, “are no better than straw. They will not hear the Word and they are without sense; therefore they must be compelled to hear the crack of the whip and the whizz of bullets, and it is only what they deserve. We must pray for them that they may become obedient; but if they do not, pity is of no avail here; we must let the cannon-balls whistle among them, or they will only make things a thousand times worse."

Wiener doesn't document this quote, but a few paragraphs later in reference to another quote he refers to "E24, 294," the same source Luther, Exposing the Myth refers to. It's quite possible that Wiener also didn't use a primary source for this quote. In this section of Martin Luther, Hitler’s Spiritual Ancestor, Wiener heavily utilized M. Funck Bretano's biography of Luther, though this isn't the source he used for this quote (Bretano cites the quote on page 207 as " 'Give them straw and oats to eat,' he went on, referring to the wretched peasants. 'Since they are devoid of reason they must be made to understand their duties by means of the arquebus! There is no need to pity them, believe me! We must let the bullets whistle.' "). The secondary source used by Wiener therefore remains a mystery.

This Luther quote is actually from a letter to John Rühel. He was a councilor of Count Albrecht of Mansfeld in whose territory the peasant uprising was brewing. The German text can be found in WA BR 2:669. The quote can be found on pages 669-670,

This letter has been translated into English. It can be found in Luther's Correspondence and Other Contemporary Letters, Volume 2, p. 320 - 322. The quote under scrutiny can be found on page 321.


Context
John Rühel was a councilor of Count Albrecht of Mansfeld in whose territory the peasant uprising was brewing. Previous to this letter, Luther had written his Admonition for Peace as a reply to the Twelve Articles of the Swabian Peasants (April 1525). At this point, he wasn't fully aware of all that was going on with the peasant's revolt and the atrocities they had committed. At the beginning of May, Luther wrote Rühel stating in part, "If there were thousands more of the peasants, they would still be altogether robbers and murderers, who take the sword simply because of their own insolence and wickedness, and who want to expel sovereigns [and] lords, and [to destroy] everything, and to establish a new order in this world. But for this they have neither God’s commandment, authority, right, or injunction, as the lords have it now" [LW 49:108]. By May 30, things had grown worse. Writing to Nicholas von Amsdorf, Luther stated:

In my opinion it is better that all of the peasants should be killed rather than that the sovereigns and magistrates should be destroyed, because the peasants take up the sword without God’s authorization. The consequence of this wickedness of Satan can only be the satanic devastation of the kingdom of God and of the world [LW 49:113].

On the same day, Luther penned the letter in question to John Rühel:

687. LUTHER TO JOHN RUHEL. DeWette, ii, 669. German. (wittenberg), May 30, 1525.

Grace and peace in Christ. Many thanks for the latest news, dear doctor and brother-in-law. We must hope and pray that God will graciously put an end to this wretched state of affairs. That the people call me a hypocrite is good; I am glad to hear it; do not let it surprise you. For some years now you have been hearing me berated for many things, but in the course of time all these things have come to nothing and worse than nothing. I should need much leather to muzzle all the mouths. It is enough that my conscience is clear before God; He will judge what I have said and written; things will go as I have said, there is no help for it.

As for showing mercy to the peasants, there are innocent men among them, whom God will save and protect, as He did Lot and Jeremiah. If He does not save them, then they certainly are not innocent, but have at least kept silence and approved of the rebellion. Even though they may have done it from timidity or fear, nevertheless it is wrong and in God's eyes a sin that must be punished, like the sin of a man who denies Christ because he is afraid, and my writings against the peasants are all the harder because without ceasing they compel these fearful souls to do their will and incur God's punishment.

The wise man says, "Cibus, onus et virga asino;" "straw for the peasant." They have gone mad and will not hear the Word, and so they must bear the rod, that is, the guns; it serves them right. We ought to pray for them that they may be obedient; if not, then let the shot whistle, or they will make things a thousandfold worse.

I shall write to the Bishop' and send you a copy. Munzer has not had the right sort of an examination; I should have asked him very different questions. His confession is nothing else than a devilish, hardened persistence in his opinion. He says in his confession that he has done no wrong. That is terrible. I should not have thought a human heart could be so hardened.

Well, anyone who has seen Munzer can say that he has seen the very devil, and at his worst. O God! If this is the spirit that is in the peasants it is high time that they were killed like mad dogs. It may be that the devil feels the nearness of the last day, and so decides to stir up all the dregs and show all his hellish power at once. Haec sunt tempora, but God still lives and reigns and will not forsake us. His goodness is nearer, mightier and wiser than the ragings and the ravings of Satan.

A report has reached here that the collector of Allstedt has been put to death, but we hope it is a lie. The same report is circulated about Dr. Strauss. Greet my sister-in-law, your dear vine, and her grapes. God have you in His keeping. The two sermons preached at the Elector's funeral are in press.- Martin Luther

Conclusion
One can see the differences between Wiener's translation versus a direct translation. One can also view what Luther, Exposing the Myth left out: "We ought to pray for them that they may be obedient" along with other similar statements from the surrounding context. Luther believed seditious peasants should be killed, and held that the governing authorities had the right to do so. It is against those peasants that were using the gospel to cause rebellion that Luther opposed. To put it bluntly, they were the devil’s agents, leading people away from the gospel. I've written more on this here: Luther and the Peasants Revolt and Luther and the Peasant's War.

Are the words of Christ and Luther in direct opposition? It's ironic that a Roman Catholic would think so since the papacy has used force throughout the last 2000 years. Luther, Exposing the Myth should have given stronger consideration to Matthew 26:47-56. Those who live by the sword (as the seditious peasants did) will die by the sword. None of the other verses they refer to have anything to do with a segment of the population revolting against established authority. Luther, Exposing the Myth refers to Romans 12:21 "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." What they should have done was continue reading Romans 13:

Submission to the Authorities1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

It's a bit naive to think somehow a person living in a peaceful country, hundreds of years later, actually can meaningfully chastise Luther's writings against the peasants revolt. I would love to have the ability to stick these people back in 1524-1525, to see what they would think of the peasants while the peasants ransacked their house, or killed their family members, and threatened the stability of the land.

Luther, Exposing the Myth states "It is important to keep in mind that these peasants were actually Protestants who favoured Luther." Luther did not approve of societal revolt against secular authority, even previous to the peasants revolt of 1525. True, some of the peasants read Luther's writings, but they read what they wanted to in them, and ignored what they needed to from those same writings. When Luther, Exposing the Myth says the peasants were Protestants who favored Luther, in actuality they were societal rebels that favored those parts of Luther's writings that favored their cause. When Luther, Exposing the Myth states "Luther did not hesitate to have even his own followers put to death," this is grossly inaccurate. These people were not his followers. In actuality, the revolts began in a part of Germany that was remote from Luther's direct influence. Even those rebels nearer to Luther were not in direct contact with him. Luther was not their leader, nor did he create their movement. In fact, he continually spoke out against fanatical leaders previous to 1525. The peasants had their own fanatical leaders Luther did speak out against. At one point, Luther attempted to visit some of the peasant areas and barely made it out alive.

In regard to the secondary quote from Wiener given by Luther, Exposing the Myth, Gordon Rupp responded long ago. Wiener held that Luther changed his opinion on a government using force against rebels:

Finally, Mr. Wiener's most memorable utterance to date (p. 47). "I know", he says, "of no example in history (with the exception of Hitler's famous or rather infamous June 30, 1934) where a man turned in such an inhuman, brutal, low way against his own followers ... merely to establish his own position, without any reason. Treason of any kind is, in my opinion, honourable compared to Luther's change of colours." There is, of course, absolutely no evidence to suggest any connection between Luther and the rebels such as existed between Hitler and the "purged", or any other members of the Nazi party, though if it be true that the Nazis claimed Thomas Munzer as the first Nazi, there was more to it than to some of their claims. The charge that Luther "went over" in 1525 to the other side and for opportunist reasons can be completely refuted, and if it could not, it would still contradict Mr. Wiener's statement that he changed his side "without any reason", since to save his own skin would be quite a good reason, or a lot of people have been diving into air-raid shelters in this part of the world for no reason at all.

I do not know what the reader has made of all this. It is not easy to deal with methods like those of Mr. Wiener without overstating the other side, but I imagine that few readers will feel the comparison with Hitler and the purge of 1934 to be anything but forced and unreal. What, then, will they make of what follows? "Treason of any kind is in my opinion honourable compared with Luther's change of colours." Will anybody seriously consider Vidkun Quisling, Richard III, and Judas Iscariot and believe them honourable in comparison with Luther and the peasants? Well, well, well. We must make allowances. Evidently Mr. Wiener is one of those who feel very deeply the cause of the oppressed. He himself is doubtless living in some garret, having given up all to labour for the coming Revolution. But his pamphlet bears the address of one of our more elegant public schools. Gentlemen, let us clear our minds of cant! [Gordon Rupp, Martin Luther- Hitler's Cause or Cure? (London: Lutterworth Press, 1945) pp. 49-50].

Addendum (2016)
This blog entry is a revision of an entry I posted back in 2010. The original can be found here. Because so many sources are now available online, I'm revising older entries by adding additional materials and commentary, and also fixing or deleting dead hyperlinks. Nothing of any significant substance has changed in this entry from that presented in the former.

Trueman, Newman, and Discernment

Somehow, in the flurry of comments and emails, amidst this discussion of how inconsistent it is to appreciate some part of the works of a particular theologian, without accepting the whole of his works (or even his "presuppositions") as divinely inspired, or not, Pilgrimsarbour had the presence of mind to post this link to this Carl Trueman article (and to send me an email reminder of it) which outlines how to do that very thing. (For those of you who don't know, Carl Trueman is a Professor of Historical Theology and Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary.)

Of course, broadly speaking, there have been historically, and are still, at least two approaches to discerning and understanding the truth within in Christianity. The first, of course, as evidenced by Dr. Trueman's fine appreciation for a broad range of Christian heroes:

Luther is a hero of mine, along with Nazianzus, Augustine, Aquinas, Owen, and Newman. It does not mean I agree with him (or them) on all points or even in some cases many points; it does not mean he would even have regarded me as a Christian; but it does mean he is an exceptional person from whom I have learned an enormous amount; and in reading him (and them) my own theology has been sharpened, and my understanding of the grace and beauty of God in Christ has been deepened. There is a heroic quality to the thought of men who are willing to tackle the greatest themes relating to God, creation, salvation, and the church: even when they make mistakes, they make magnificent mistakes from which we can all learn. In a day of small men and small minds, we should be grateful that the Lord is truly good, and has provided such brilliant men to inform the great traditions of the church and to provide us with immense resources of theology and devotion...

Dr. Trueman, of course is adhering to the advice of such like St. Paul ("Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect" and "test everything; hold fast what is good") and Francis Turretin ("examination of faith and knowledge ought to precede the knowledge of the church" -- that is, examine the Scriptures to discern the doctrines, and locate the church where such doctrines are held and practiced). We've heard this called "the pick-and-choose" approach, but, we'd rather go with Paul's thoughts and advice on these things.

The second, we’ll call it a philosophy or mindset, is one of something like swallowing the whole pig.* This method may or may not be unique to Roman Catholicism. But for Roman Catholics, it is an article of faith for them. Roman Catholics must receive with docility everything that the Roman Church teaches them. Mark Shea describes this second method in a particularly striking way. JB note: my comments are set below in [square brackets], whereas that which is (in parenthesis) is an original Mark Shea comment within the text:

For no part of Sacred Tradition, written or unwritten, can be set above (or below) the authority of the Church with which it is seamlessly woven together, or else the whole Tradition (and therefore the written Tradition which is the Bible – and therefore all Christianity) unravels. The authority of his Church, like Christ’s robe, is seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom.

This is not to say that all aspects of Catholic Tradition are equally important. The Church itself acknowledges the reality of the hierarchy of truth and is quite matter-of-fact in saying that some Tradition (such as the Trinity) is irreformable big “T” Tradition, while other tradition (for example, the Friday abstinence from meat or some other delectable) is small “t” tradition. The latter can be altered or even set aside by the Church and has been on occasion, for it is a mere discipline and not a cornerstone of what must be believed always, everywhere, and by all. But the big “T” stuff cannot be altered without striking at the very heart of the Faith.

Which left me (as it leaves you, good reader) with a challenge. [A footnote here says that this is “A challenge which, if you wish to take it up, can be pursued with the help of some of the handy materials offered in the appendix.”] According to Catholic belief, the very doctrines which irk most Protestant believers (such as Purgatory, the Assumption of Mary, the infallibility of the Pope, and so forth) are doctrines which cannot be set aside since they are squarely located under the Big "T" heading by the Catholic Church and are therefore immovable features of Sacred Tradition -- the very same Tradition which tells us what is and is not in our Bible and does so in a coherent voice of authority sounding down to the centuries through a line of bishops leading inexorably back to Jesus Christ himself. In other words, I was (and you by extension, good reader, are) obliged to either:

1. Find out if the whole Catholic Tradition was truly coherent; or,

2. Arbitrarily reject the bits I was [and therefore you are] uncomfortable with, but simultaneously exploit Catholic Tradition's authority (where it was useful against modernism)--all the while hoping that both Evangelicals and modernist (not to mention the Holy Spirit) would not laugh at my [i.e., your] inconsistency. [Mark Shea, By What Authority? An Evangelical Discovers Catholic Tradition Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, 1996, pgs 174-175.]

So you can be Roman Catholic and swallow the whole pig, or you can be Protestant, and be discerning, and use the faculty of discernment, as Paul has suggested that we do.

Of course, where the outside edges of this “Big ‘T’ Tradition” lie, now that's a different question, and the “living Magisterium,” will, uh, “pick-and-choose” for you, what it is that you are to hold and not to hold as a binding doctrine of the faith. They "discern" the difference between what's irreformable and what's merely "small 't' tradition" for you. The important thing is that you listen to them about what the pig is and only swallow that. So long as you hold to the definitions themselves, then the discussions of where those edges are is very much open to question.

As an example of this, the Blessed Newman himself rejected the concept that there was ever a time when something might be “believed always, everywhere, and by all.” He said:

It does not seem possible, then, to avoid the conclusion that, whatever be the proper key for harmonizing the records and documents of the early and later Church, and true as the dictum of Vincentius must be considered in the abstract, and possible as its application might be in his own age, when he might almost ask the primitive centuries for their testimony, it is hardly available now, or effective of any satisfactory result. The solution it offers is as difficult as the original problem.

So we can see that, while it is not possible for Roman Catholics to be good Catholics and not swallow the whole pig, it is possible to disagree about what defines the edges of that pig, as Roman apologist Scott Windsor so ably describes here.

So the difference between Roman Catholics and Protestants comes down to whether you hold that you must swallow the whole pig, or that you just eat the bacon and ribs and throw away the rest of it. Be that as it may, I’m going to follow the path of Dr. Trueman and continue to affirm that I deeply appreciate the thorough work of Peter Lampe in providing a very clear analysis of the church at Rome in the first two centuries. Whether or not he believes that Paul actually wrote the letters to Timothy.

* Note: This video is shown here merely to illustrate the process of "accepting the whole cloth of Roman Catholic authority." We would not have the whole "Tradition" to unravel. But the author does not wish to imply that Mark Shea could be adequately illustrated by a Komodo dragon, nor that the whole of Roman Catholic dogma could be illustrated as “a whole pig.” We, here, at Beggars All, do not attempt to “bind the conscience,” and we advise that the dear reader should form his or her own opinions on such matters.

The Council of Nicaea – Pictures and Images can be Deceiving

What do many liberals/skeptics/agnostics/atheists (like Dan Brown of The DaVinci Code book and movie fame) , Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and many other people have in common as a mis-perception of Christianity? Sometimes it is just misunderstandings, but sometimes there is deliberate deception and outright lying about what happened at Nicaea. If told often enough, the mis-understanding gets embedding in people's thinking.

“The Council of Nicaea - 325 AD
There are many erroneous things said and written about the famous Council of Nicea.
For example, it was not:
- the beginning of the "Catholic Church". (the universal church among all nations started much earlier than 325 AD)
- when Christianity decided Jesus was divine (He already was known as the eternal Son of God, "God in the flesh" from His time with the disciples, around 26-30 AD)
- when the New Testament was made official” – see
The Council of Nicaea
"At The Council of Nicaea, they chose 4 gospels and rejected 80 others" (total fiction)

They think that the council of Nicea in 325 AD was about which books belonged in the canon of Scripture. A Muslim who called himself Tony called in to the “Answering Islam” program with Dr. White and Pastor Josephhere, about at the 42 minute mark, asking the about a book entitled The Lost Books of the Bible, and the Forgotten Books of Eden, (World Bible Publishers, Alpha House, 1926) and said that Constantine ordered them to come up with the four gospels. How many times have I also heard something similar to this in my 26 years of dealing with Muslims? (and other non-Christians also. I remember several Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and agnostic skeptics saying this to me over me in various evangelistic encounters.)

I quickly pulled my copy of this book off the shelf in my church history section, in order to refresh my memory of some of its contents and details. I remember it being a mixture of legendary texts, Gnostic texts, Infancy Gospels, the Proto-evangelium of James and other Early Church father’s writings, such as the letters of Ignatius. Apparently the publishers and compilers of this book were trying to create doubt on the canonical Bible, by the title they chose for this book, and the comments they make in the introduction.

The wonders of the internet! The book, “The Lost Books of the Bible” is on line here below: (It seems that The Forgotten Books of Eden was not put together with this part of this work here. The book I have is apparently two books in one volume; actually two anthologies of various books put under one book cover to make people think that these were other inspired books that should have been kept by the early church.

The Lost Books of the Bible

One thing that struck me was the picture in the front of the book, opposite the title page – it says, “Members of the Council of Nice presenting their decision to the Emperor Constantine. Fourth Century”.

Deception trick # 1 – Put some ancient artwork up opposite the title page of "lost books of the Bible", and people will think that the Council of Nicaea was about the canon of Scripture. Sprinkle in "from an early Greek manuscript" and tell an outright lie, "Fourth Century" for more cunning deception.

The Muslim “Tony” kept saying, “it says translated from the original Greek!” Published in 1926! Library of Congress . . . !”, etc. as if these things gave it authority.

Council of Nicaea presenting to Constantine:

Image of the council presenting to Constantine

I wanted to try and find another web-site on this art work, to get another opinion on it. Turns out, that according to Getty Images, it is not even about The Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, rather it is about the Council of 2nd Nicaea in 787!

Deception trick # 2 – wrong Nicaea and wrong Constantine, the picture is Constantine VI.

This one says it was 2nd Nicaea and Constantine VI in 787 AD. Getty Images just seems more credible on this issue; what do you think?

“Members of the Second Council of Nicaea presenting their decisions concerning the worship of images and Christian Iconography to Emperor Constantine VI, AD 787.” (Photo by Kean Collection/Archive Photos/Getty Images)


The Muslims, the atheists, the skeptics, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and the Evangelical church today needs to be educated on what really happened at Nicaea. Here is an excellent article by Dr. White:
What really happened at Nicaea?

And another general article on Nicaea

Here is an excellent article and message on Athanasius, who was a deacon at the Council of Nicaea, by John Piper.Contending for Our All

Luther: Perform a Big Sin to Quiet Your Conscience

The following is from the web page Luther, Exposing the Myth, under the heading "On Sin":

"Do not ask anything of your conscience; and if it speaks, do not listen to it; if it insists, stifle it, amuse yourself; if necessary, commit some good big sin, in order to drive it away. Conscience is the voice of Satan, and it is necessary always to do just the contrary of what Satan wishes" [J. Dollinger, La Reforme et les resultants qu’elle a produits. (Trans. E. Perrot, Paris, Gaume, 1848-49), Vol III, pg. 248].

Luther Exposing the Myth says their stated purpose is to show that "from Luther’s own words we shall see him for what he really was, that is a rebellious apostate, who abandoned the faith and led many into apostasy from God under the guise of “reformation” in order to follow his perverse inclinations." With this quote, they attempt to show Christ says those who commit any sin are children of the Devil, while Luther says to quiet your conscience from convicting you of sin and also go out and perform a big sin. Hence contrary to Christ, Luther espoused a weak view of sin.

Documentation
Luther Exposing the Myth cites "J. Dollinger, La Reforme et les resultants qu’elle a produits. (Trans. E. Perrot, Paris, Gaume, 1848-49), Vol III, pg. 248." Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger was a Roman Catholic scholar. Page 248 of his book can be found here. While Luther's view of sin and the Devil are discussed, the exact form of this quote isn't provided. The closest thing from Dollinger p. 248 is this synopsis of a letter Luther wrote to Jerome Weller:

There's are two Latin quotes at the bottom of the page. The first contains a portion of text of Luther's letter to Jerome Weller in 1530. The second Latin quote is from the Table Talk. Neither of these quotes exactly match that put forth by Luther, Exposing the Myth.

There is a strong possibility Luther, Exposing the Myth took this quote from Antonin Eymieu, Two Arguments for Catholicism (Burns, Oates and Washbourne, 1928 ) p. 48. Eymieu uses the same English quote in question, but the reference is slightly different: "Dollinger, III. Cf. 37-58." The "Cf. 37-58" is instructing readers to see also Dollinger III 37-58 (that's 21 pages of text!).

I suspect the quote is ultimately Eymieu's summary statement of Luther's view with some of Luther's letter to Jerome Weller from 1530 mixed in.  Luther's letter can be found in De Wette, I V. 188 (the fourth volume of Luther's letters). The letter can also be found in WA BR 5:518-520. In English, this letter was not included in LW 49,  it has though been cited either in full or partially in a number of books. The letter itself has quite a polemical history, cited by numerous Roman Catholic sources, as well as even being cited by PBS. A full translation was provided by W.H.T. Dau, Luther Examined and Reexamined: a Review of Catholic Criticism and a Plea for Revaluation (Concordia Pub. House, 1917), pp. 119-122. Another translation can be found here. There is a partial translation provided by Preserved Smith, The Life and Letters of Martin Luther, p. 324 - 325.  Dau dates the letter "sometime in July." Others date the letter to November. Hartmann Grisar goes with July and points out, "In the older reprints the letter was erroneously put at a later date" [source].


Context

Accordingly, whenever this affliction [of conscience from the Devil] befalls you, beware lest you enter into an argument with the devil, or muse upon these death-dealing thoughts. For this means nothing else than to yield to the devil and succumb to him. You must rather take pains to treat these thoughts which the devil instills in you with the severest contempt. In afflictions and conflicts of this kind contempt is the best and easiest way for overcoming the devil. Make up your mind to laugh at your adversary, and find some one whom you can engage in a conversation. You must by all means avoid being alone, for then the devil will make his strongest effort to catch you; he lies in wait for you when you are alone. In a case like this the devil is overcome by scorning and despising him, not by opposing him and arguing with him. My dear Jerome, you must engage in merry talk and games with my wife and the rest, so as to defeat these devilish thoughts, and you must be intent on being cheerful. This affliction is more necessary to you than food and drink.

-snip-

Therefore, be cheerful and brave, and cast these exceedingly terrifying thoughts entirely from you. Whenever the devil worries you with these thoughts, seek the company of men at once, or drink somewhat more liberally, jest and play some jolly prank, or do anything exhilarating. Occasionally a person must drink somewhat more liberally, engage in plays, and jests, or even commit some little sin from hatred and contempt of the devil, so as to leave him no room for raising scruples in our conscience about the most trifling matters. For when we are overanxious and careful for fear that we may be doing wrong in any matter, we shall be conquered. Accordingly, if the devil should say to you: By all means, do not drink! you must tell him: Just because you forbid it, I shall drink, and that, liberally. In this manner you must always do the contrary of what Satan forbids. When I drink my wine unmixed, prattle with the greatest unconcern, eat more frequently, do you think that I have any other reason for doing these things than to scorn and spite the devil who has attempted to spite and scorn me? Would God I could commit some real brave sin to ridicule the devil, that he might see that I acknowledge no sin and am not conscious of having committed any. We must put the whole law entirely out of our eyes and hearts,--we, I say, whom the devil thus assails and torments. Whenever the devil charges us with our sins and pronounces us guilty of death and hell, we ought to say to him: I admit that I deserve death and hell; what, then, will happen to me? Why, you will be eternally damned! By no means; for I know One who has suffered and made satisfaction for me. His name is Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Where He abides, there will I also abide.

Conclusion
I've covered this quote before here. I also came across a very helpful overview on Luther and Conscience. Section three of the link has an overview on Conscience and the Devil. The author states,

For Luther the conscience can be an instrument of the devil, the device to make his assaults, his Anfechtungen, real. Here law and death become allies of the devil trying to make the sinner rely on his or her own good works and accomplishments. But relying on their own righteousness human beings are lost and driven into sadness. He writes:

Therefore we should be on our guard, lest the amazing skill and infinite wiles of Satan deceive us into mistaking the accuser and condemner for the Comforter and Savior, and thus losing the true Christ behind the mask of the false Christ, that is, of the devil, and making Him of no advantage to us.

-snip-

For Luther, conscience is the place where the law, death, and the devil encounter the human being and drive him into despair. The guilty conscience is one of the most terrifying human experiences. But this is not Luther's final word on conscience. As early as his Romans commentary, he could also say "He who believes in Christ is secure in his conscience and righteous and, as the Scripture says, 'bold as a lion'(Prov. 28:1)." In 1513 in an exposition of Psalm 118 he wrote: "Where could there be a higher or greater joy than in a happy, secure, and fearless conscience, a conscience that trusts in God and fears neither the world nor the devil?" In a sermon preached at Leipzig in 1519 Luther had said:

One must know how one stands with God, if the conscience is to be joyful and be able to stand. For when a person doubts this and does not steadfastly believe that he has a gracious God, then he actually does not have a gracious God. As he believes so he has. Therefore no one can know that he is in grace and that God is gracious toward him except through faith. If he believes it, he is saved; if he does not believe it, he is damned. For this confidence (zuvorsicht) and good conscience is the real, basically good faith, which the grace of God works in us.

Conclusion
I simply couldn't find any direct verification to the validity of this exact quote in the form it is in based on the documentation given. I suspect if this quote exists at all, it's a sort of Roman Catholic interpretation of Luther's letter to Weller. Even without a conclusive context, the quote itself can still be interpreted according to Luther's theological paradigms. It appears to me to be another hyperbolic statement like "sin boldly." Like that quote, the point is to trust in the work of Christ, who took sin upon himself. If you're a believer, your sin has already been punished and atoned for by the death of Christ. Left in our sins we will face nothing but death and damnation. By Christ’s victory over sin, death, and the world, we stand clothed in His righteousness, the recipients of His grace, no matter what we have done.

If Luther's letter to Weller is in view, this letter is one of three letters typically used by Rome's defenders (and others) to prove Luther was an antinomian. W.H.T. Dau provides the contexts for all three letters. Dau concludes his analysis of these letters with pertinent observations that suffice to demonstrate the quote is typically taken out of its historical context:

When Luther advises Weller to drink somewhat more liberally, that does not mean that Luther advises Weller to get drunk. This, however, is exactly what Luther is made to say by his Catholic critics. They make no effort to understand the situation as it confronted Luther, but pounce upon a remark that can easily be understood to convey an offensive meaning. Neither does what Luther says about his own drinking mean that he ever got drunk… Luther's remarks about jesting, merry plays, and jolly pranks in which he would have Weller engage are likewise vitiated by the Catholic insinuation that he advises indecent frivolities, yea, immoralities. Why, all the merriment which he urges upon Weller is to take place in Luther's home and family circle, in the presence of Luther's wife and children, in the presence of Weller's little pupil Hans, who at that time was about four years old. The friends of the family members of the Faculty at the University, ministers, students who either stayed at Luther's home, like Weller, or frequently visited there, are also included in this circle whose company Weller is urged to seek. Imagine a young man coming into this circle drunk, or half drunk, and disporting himself hilariously before the company! We believe that not even all Catholics can be made to believe the insinuations of their writers against Luther when all the facts in the case are presented to them. [source]

In Luther's remarks about sinning to spite the devil we have always heard an echo from his life at the cloister. One's judgment about the monastic life is somewhat mitigated when one hears how Dr. Staupitz and the brethren in the convent at Erfurt would occasionally speak to Luther about the latter's sins. Staupitz called them "Puppensuenden." It is not easy to render this term by a shortand apt English term; "peccadillo" would come near the meaning. A child playing with a doll will treat it as if it were a human being, will dress it, talk to it, and pretend to receive answers from it, etc. That is the way, good Catholics were telling Luther, he was treating his sins. His sins were no real sins, or he had magnified their sinfulness out of all proportion. This same advice Luther hands on to another who was becoming a hypochondriac as he had been. When the mind is in a morbid state it imagines faults, errors, sins, where there are none. The melancholy person in his self-scrutiny becomes an intolerant tyrant to himself. He will flay his poor soul for trifles as if they were the blackest crimes. In such moments the devil is very busy about the victim of gloom and despair. Luther has diagnosed the case of Weller with the skill of a nervous specialist. He counsels Weller not to judge himself according to the devil's prompting, and, in order to break Satan's thrall over him, to wrench himself free from his false notions of what is sinful. In offering this advice, Luther uses such expressions as: "Sin, commit sin," but the whole context shows that he advises Weller to do that which is in itself not sinful, but looks like sin to Weller in his present condition. When Luther declares he would like to commit a real brave sin himself as a taunt to the devil, he adds: "Would that I could!" That means, that, as a matter of fact, he could not do it and did not do it, because it was wrong. What bold immoral act did Weller commit in consequence of Luther's advice? What immoralities are there in Luther's own life? Luther's letters did not convey the meaning to his morbid young friend that Catholic writers think and claim they did. [source]

Addendum (2016)
This blog entry is a revision of an entry I posted back in 2010. The original can be found here. Because so many sources are now available online, I'm revising older entries by adding additional materials and commentary, and also fixing or deleting dead hyperlinks. Nothing of any significant substance has changed in this entry from that presented in the former.

Best-of-Breed New Testament Scholarship

David Waltz said: NT scholars like Lampe do undermine the NT; if Paul did not write the Pastorals, then the author who did is a boldfaced liar, and if the author of the Pastorals is a boldfaced lair, then the letters are not “God-breathed”, and should not be in the canon. (Further, Lampe contends that there are at least two historical errors in the Pastorals.)

While I'm glad to see that David has adopted this attitude, I do need to take issue with him.

In an earlier paragraph in the same comment, he said:

Further, Robert Lee Williams (a Baptist) in his book, “Bishops Lists” (linked to above), disagrees with Lampe on some crucial historical issues, one of which Lampe is for sure mistaken—i.e. that Irenaeus was the first to persuade “a Roman bishop to curtail tolerance” of the theological diversity in Rome (hope to create a new post soon to document this).

I've looked through that work, briefly, and I would love to see a Baptist take on the issue of "apostolic succession." I would also be interested in seeing a Baptist interact with Lampe.

(I would note that on page 108 your author, Williams, cites Elaine Pagels. Just sayin'.)

But the fact is, Lampe’s work is extremely solid. Both Schreiner and Moo interact with his work on Romans 16 in a favorable way. It was a thorough and effective study, and it is, you might say, "state of the art." It has effectively silenced those critics who may have wanted to say that Romans 16 was not part of the original letter, but rather was appended to it at a later date.

You may think that his belief that Paul did not write the Pastorals somehow leads him to arrive at conclusions that you would not accept, but you cannot possibly say his work is anything less than stellar work. And it's not even as if Lampe has written in any scholarly capacity to argue that the letters of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus were pseudepigraphic works. You are measuring the man’s work by what are almost off-handed comments that he has made.

Again, I cannot stress enough, that the bulk of Lampe’s work is not a “New Testament Criticism,” but it is rather a historical (and sociological) analysis of Rome, largely in the second century.

* * *

As for the issue of pseudonymity, Towner, in the introduction to his commentary, says that pseudonymity as a theory about the writing of these epistles, "can be seen as a solution that sought a middle ground between the earliest critical view -- in which a judgment of non-Pauline authorship meant 'forgery' and at best a reduced authority within the canon -- and the unpalative [in the academy] conservative insistence on authenticity. Existence of pseudonymity in the ancient world is well documented. And studies of the phenomenon in Greco-Roman and Jewish cultures have shown that it was a literary means of drawing on ancient authoritative voices to address current situations, and, most significantly, that the process was accepted and understood by the communities and free from allegations of deception"(20-21).

This is to say that Lampe's view (which represents an incidental mention and not a major writing) is not a radical view, but rather a "middle ground" in the scholarly discussions that go on about these letters.

(For those who are interested, Carson and Moo, citing Lewis Donelson in their Introduction to the New Testament, affirm that there are no instances of the earliest [New Testament era] church of having "accepted a document as religiously and philosophically prescriptive which was known to be forged. I do not know a single example" (pg 342). They go on to say, however, that "we should surely sympathize with the second-century presbyter who composed a 'Pauline' writing 'from love of Paul' and find little difficulty in imagining an earlier example of the same kind of thinking. The difficulty is not the idea of pseudonymity but the lack of evidencethat the New Testament Christians gave any countenance to the idea" (343-44).)

But I do believe that we may look to that period between 100 and 200 as a time when, after the death of the last apostle, that there was a void in the earliest church. There was, as O’Connor said, a time when “the Early Church was so eager for details that within another century it created the full accounts which are found in the apocryphal Acts.” And there is, as you are aware, a long, long list of pseudepigraphic and even forged works from this time. A huge number of these cropped up in support of legends of Peter – this is why Eamon Duffy can say that virtually everything that individuals like Origen, Ambrose and Augustine (and Roger Collins extends this list to Irenaeus and Tertullian) believed about Peter was “pious romance.”

Ken is right – Irenaeus did put forth some nonsense – such as that Jesus lived to be 50, and that Peter and Paul “founded” the church at Rome.

So I have no problem accepting the analysis that Hegesippus “drew up,” or “crafted” (his word, as reported by Eusebius) the list of Roman bishops – using names from that city’s historical memory, to be sure – but that such a list had not been kept from the beginning.

***

Just as an aside, I recall reading that you are from Northern California? Quickly, who are the mayors of San Francisco going back 100 years? (Hegesippus wrote in 166, and so it would have been approximately 100 years-worth of names he’d have had to come up with.) Who are the mayors of your current home town going back 100 years? What were their names – be sure to get them in the correct order – and affix dates to them. If you can’t do it, what would you do? Ask old folks for some of the names they remember. There’s no guarantee that would be a successful effort though. And if you were arguing against heretics, as Hegesippus was, and going back 20 or 30 years, there weren’t actually any “mayors” but maybe just councils or itinerant sheriffs, well, you might be tempted to incorporate those names in the drawing up of those lists. But it doesn’t make for an accurate list.

* * *

It may be possible for you to question Lampe’s analysis of the Hegesippus/Irenaeus lists, but I cannot imagine you can challenge his analysis of episcopoi/presbuteroi -- he relies incredibly heavily on primary sources such as Clement and Hermas and others, and you certainly can’t (easily) challenge his entire fractionation-and-house structure. The “presbyterial style” of government also has deep roots within the New Testament.

The Victor/Irenaeus situation you alluded to somewhere seems highly plausible, especially given that Polycarp had made a similar kind of intervention with Anicetus with regard to the Eastern church in the dating-of-Easter situation.

* * *

The bottom line is that you can’t simply dismiss Lampe’s work because of his “presuppositions” (which you may well be wrong about). The field of New Testament scholarship is just too small of a society – like a small town, in which very many of the players know very many of the other players, and even though a writer may think that Paul didn’t write the Pastorals, other more conservative New Testament scholars (such as Schreiner and Moo) still quote and cite and even rely on their work in other situations. Lampe’s thoughts about 2 Timothy is not dependent on his work regarding Romans. And the reverse is true as well. Each conclusion (by each writer) must be, and is, worked out on its own.

In the world of technology, there are two ways that people create systems. One is to assemble “Best of Breed” networks, whereas others may use something like Microsoft end-to-end. There are certainly better security solutions than a Microsoft security solution. There are just some situations in New Testament (and early church) studies that you want to look for a “best of breed” understanding of things.

The best New Testament scholars I've read don't go around saying, "I reject your work because you're liberal". (Though some used to do that.) No, the proper thing to do -- and the thing that is done -- is to look at each item, point-by-point, and interact with it. That's why these commentaries are so long. Because commentators do go word by word, and verse by verse, and consider all of the options -- what past writers have said, and what current writers are saying, and only then do they suggest what the best interpretive option is, and why.

Lampe's work "From Paul to Valentinus" is a thorough and thoughtful analysis of virtually everything we know about the church in the city of Rome in that era. If some of his presuppositions (which you cannot fully discern) slip out as he is building the sub-points for certain supporting arguments, it shows at worst that he his human. It does not reflect on the overall shape of the work.

Called to Confusion

This is for Catholic Nick, who said:

When someone puts their stakes on one horse, they need to stick with that horse. One cannot selectively cite a scholar, especially if the scholar is liberal and you are conservative ...

In his work, "Called to Communion," Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger enthusiastically quoted Joachim Jeremias, the German Lutheran theologian and professor of New Testament studies, from his work "New Testament Theology":

"We must reduce the whole question quite sharply to a single point: the sole meaning of the entire activity of Jesus is the gathering of the eschatological people of God." (22)

Ratzinger, of course, is bound by Catholic doctrine to hold to the hierarchical structure of the Roman Church: "Christ, the one Mediator, established and continually sustains here on earth His holy Church, the community of faith, hope and charity, as an entity with visible delineation through which He communicated truth and grace to all. But, the society structured with hierarchical organs and the Mystical Body of Christ, are not to be considered as two realities, nor are the visible assembly and the spiritual community, nor the earthly Church and the Church enriched with heavenly things; rather they form one complex reality which coalesces from a divine and a human element. (Lumen Gentium 8)

But what Ratzinger fails to report is that for Jeremias, "the people of God" has a meaning that's quite different from what Ratzinger intends:

"Now there is no question that if by ekklesia we understand an organization of the kind that developed in a later period, it would be an anachronism to ascribe to Jesus the intention of founding an ekklesia. But that would be to misunderstand the meaning of ekklesia …" When Jesus said, "I will build my church," Jeremias says that "it is more appropriate to translate ekklesia 'people of God' than 'church'."

Jeremias expands on Jesus's "favorite of all the images for the new people of God is the comparison of the community of salvation with the eschatological family of God." "God is the father (Matt 23:9), Jesus the master of the house, his followers the other occupants (Matt 10:25). The older women who hear his word are his mothers, the men and youths his brothers (Mark 3:34)."

This, of course, is the "house church" movement in a nutshell, so clearly articulated by the "critical scholar" Peter Lampe.

Does Ratzinger call people to communion with the hierarchical Roman Church? Or with Jeremias's version of the "people of God"?