Scott Windsor weighs in on Luther's belief in the Immaculate Conception

Scott Windsor has weighed in on Luther's belief in the Immaculate Conception, and says I'm arguing from silence that Luther later abandoned this belief:

Although his formulation of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was not clear-cut, he held that her soul was devoid of sin from the beginning: "But the other conception, namely the infusion of the soul, it is piously and suitably believed, was without any sin, so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin and adorned with the gifts of God to receive the holy soul thus infused. And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin..."3
3 Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works, English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St. Louis], Volume 4, 694.
Correction on this citation, which many other Catholic apologetics sites have as well. This quote actually comes from a sermon preached by Luther ("On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527) and was published with his permission, but prior to the end of his life it is not found in published editions of his works. Modern Protestant apologists speculate that he rejected the Immaculate Conception, but this is an argument from silence.[source]
In response To Mr. Windsor: in yesterday's mail I received Luther's Works vol. 58 (published this month). They state:

Originally, Luther may have held something similar to the Thomist position, put forward in the Festival Postil (1527), sermon on the conception of Mary, WA 17/2:287-288, though the material in question seems to be solely the responsibility of its editor, Stephan Roth (d.1546), and was removed from the 1528 and subsequent editions: see StL 11:959-961; Baseley 1:50-51. In his later preaching, Luther affirmed that Mary had been both conceived and born in sin and connected her purification from sin with the work of the Holy Spirit at the time of Christ's conception: see e.g., Luther's sermons for Christmas Eve 1539, WA 47:860, and 1540 WA 49:173; Dufel, Luther's Stellung zur Marienverehrung, pp. 163-174, 196-97; Kreitzer, Reforming Mary, pp. 110-11 [LW 58:434-435].

Is Concordia Publishing arguing from silence as well? Hardly, they're affirming the same argument I've been presenting for years. In the article Scott Windsor has posted, it says "the Immaculate Conception was a doctrine Luther defended to his death." This is simply untrue. As to Luther's changing view on the Immaculate Conception, even some of my Roman Catholic opponents have finally conceded I'm right about this (it only took about seven years). See:

Luther: the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin
1544: Luther's Explanation Concerning Mary and the Birth of Christ
Response to Paul Hoffer on Luther & the Immaculate Conception
Luther: God has formed the soul and body of the Virgin Mary full of the Holy Spirit, so that she is without all sins
Did Martin Luther believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary?



Addendum #1I also took some time to work through some of Scott Windsor's Luther references posted on his website. He's taken the web page "The Protestant Reformers On Mary" from Mariology.com and added it as worthy material for his "American Catholic Truth Society." Now he's blogged the same page allowing me to comment on the material.

All of the Luther references had errors, and some of the quotes were grossly out of context.

1. "She is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God ... It is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God" [Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works, English translation edited by J. Pelikan (Concordia: St. Louis), volume 24, 107.]

This quote isn't from WA 24 (Weimar). It's from LW 24 (Luther's Works):

Therefore we must adhere to the speech and expressions of Holy Writ and retain and confess the doctrine that this Christ is true God, through whom all things are created and exist, and at the same time that this same Christ, God’s Son, is born of the Virgin, dies on the cross, etc. Furthermore, Mary, the mother, does not carry, give birth to, suckle, and nourish only the man, only flesh and blood—for that would be dividing the Person—but she carries and nourishes a son who is God’s Son. Therefore she is rightly called not only the mother of the man but also the Mother of God. This the old fathers taught in opposition to the Nestorians, who objected to calling Mary “Mother of God” and refused to say that she had given birth to God’s Son.

Here we must again confess with our Creed: “I believe in Jesus Christ, God the Father’s only Son, our Lord, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered, was crucified, died.” It is always one and the same Son of God, our Lord. Therefore it is certain that Mary is the mother of the real and true God, and that the Jews crucified not only the Son of Man but also the true Son of God. For I do not want a Christ in Whom I am to believe and to whom I am to pray as my Savior who is only man. Otherwise I would go to the devil. For mere flesh and blood could not erase sin, reconcile God, remove His anger, overcome and destroy death and hell, and bestow eternal life."

Here, Luther's using the rich Christ-centered usage of Theotokos when discussing the incarnation or Christ’s Deity. I would agree with him. so, this quote may be a "shocker" to some sort of fundamentalist type, but not the Reformed or Lutheran.

2. "It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a Virgin" [Martin Luther, op. cit., Volume 11, 319-320].

This reference appears to be to WA 11, not LW. "op cit." refers to the previous reference. That means, The web page want us to go back to the source just cited. Well, it unknowingly cited LW. This reference though is sort of from WA 11. Here is an English rendering of pages 319-320 from WA 11. Where is "It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a Virgin" located?

...as happened after the coming of Christ, but remained solely in the possession of the fathers and their descendants.

Now just take a look at the perverse lauders of the mother of God. If you ask them why they hold so strongly to the virginity of Mary, they truly could not say. These stupid idolators do nothing more than to glorify only the mother of God; they extol her for her virginity and practically make a false deity of her. But Scripture does not praise this virginity at all for the sake of the mother; neither was she saved on account of her virginity. Indeed, cursed be this and every other virginity if it exists for its own sake, and accomplishes nothing better than its own profit and praise.

The Spirit extols this virginity, however, because it was needful for the conceiving and bearing of this blessed fruit. Because of the corruption of our flesh, such blessed fruit could not come, except through a virgin. Thus this tender virginity existed in the service of others to the glory of God, not to its own glory. If it had been possible for him to have come from a [married] woman, he would not have selected a virgin for this, since virginity is contrary to the physical nature within us, was condemned of old in the law, and is extolled here solely because the flesh is tainted and its built-in physical nature cannot bestow her fruit except by means of an accursed act.

Hence we see that St. Paul nowhere calls the mother of God a virgin, but only a woman, as he says in Galatians 3 [4:4], “The Son of God was born of a woman.” He did not mean to say she was not a virgin, but to extol her virginity to the highest with the praise that is proper to it, as much as to say: In this birth none but a woman was involved, no man participated; that is, everything connected with it was reserved to the woman, the conceiving, bearing, suckling, and nourishing of the child were functions no man can perform. It is therefore the child of a woman only; hence, she must certainly be a virgin. But a virgin may also be a man; a mother can be none other than a woman.

For this reason, too, Scripture does not quibble or speak about the virginity of Mary after the birth of Christ, a matter about which the hypocrites are greatly concerned, as if it were something of the utmost importance on which our whole salvation depended. Actually, we should be satisfied simply to hold that she remained a virgin after the birth of Christ because Scripture does not state or indicate that she later lost her virginity. We certainly need not be so terribly afraid that someone will demonstrate, out of his own head apart from Scripture, that she did not remain a virgin. But the Scripture stops with this, that she was a virgin before and at the birth of Christ; for up to this point God had need of her virginity in order to give us the promised blessed seed without sin.

The third passage is addressed to David, II Samuel 7[:12–14], “When your days are fulfilled, and you sleep with your fathers, I will raise up your seed after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom for ever. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son.” These words cannot have been spoken of Solomon, for Solomon was not a posthumous son of David raised up after his death. Neither did God after Solomon (who during David’s lifetime was born and became king) ever designate anyone as His son, give him an everlasting kingdom, or have him build such a house. Consequently, the whole passage must refer to Christ. We will let this passage go for the present because it is too broad and requires so much in the way of exegesis; for one would have to show here that Christ accordingly had to be the son of a woman only in order to be called here God’s child, who neither should nor could come out of an accursed act.

The fourth passage is Isaiah 7[:14], “God himself will give you a sign. Behold, a virgin [jungfrau] is with child, and shall bear a son.” This could not have been said of a virgin who was about to be married. For what sort of a marvelous sign would that be if someone who is presently a virgin should bear a child within a year? Such is the ordinary course of nature, occurring daily before our eyes. If it is to be a sign from God, therefore, it must be something remarkable and marvelous not given by the ordinary course of nature, as is commonly the case with all God’s signs.

It is of no help for the Jews either to try to evade the issue here and come up with this way of getting around it, namely: the sign consists in the fact that Isaiah says flatly that the child shall be a son and not a daughter. By such an interpretation the sign would have nothing to do with the virgin but only with the prophet Isaiah, as the one who had divined so precisely that it would not be a daughter. The text would then have to speak of Isaiah thus, “Behold, God himself will give you a sign, namely, that I, Isaiah, will divine that a young woman [jung weyb] is carrying a son, and not a daughter.” Such an interpretation is disgraceful and childish.

Now granted, we could probably infer here that for Luther "It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a Virgin" from "Actually, we should be satisfied simply to hold that she remained a virgin after the birth of Christ." That would be my guess.

4. "Although he did not make it an article of faith, Luther said of the doctrine of the Assumption: 'There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know.'" [Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works (Translation by William I. Cole) 10, p. 268.]

First error: William J. Cole didn't translate Volume 10 of Luther's Works. The quote was probably snatched from his article "Was Luther a Devotee of Mary?" (Marian Studies), (1970), 123-124. The reference left out what Cole actually cited: WA 10 (3), 268, 13 to 269. The (3) is crucial because there are three volumes of Volume 10.

Luther stated in 1522:

Today the festival of our dear lady, the mother of God, is observed to celebrate her death and departure above. But how little this Gospel corresponds with this is plain. For this Gospel tells us nothing about Mary being in heaven. And even if one could draw from this text every detail about what it is like for a saint to be in heaven, it would be of little use. It is enough that we know that departed saints live in God, as Christ concludes in Matthew [Matthew 22] based on the passage in Exodus [Exodus 4] where God says to Moses, "I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob," that God is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living.

Now, let's take off our Assumption glasses for a moment with this Luther quote from 1522. Toward the end of his life, Luther delivered a series of lectures on the book of Genesis. Note the following:

This is what Moses wanted to indicate when he speaks of 'the lives of Sarah.' It is as though he were saying: 'Sarah, in conformity with differences in places and people, often adopted a different attitude and different ways. When she came to a place where she thought she would live pleasantly and quietly, she was compelled to move and to change her plans and feelings as she did so.' For this reason that saintly woman had many lives. More attention should have been given to these things, although it is easy for me to believe that in her hundredth year she was just as beautiful as she was in her twentieth.

Then one should much rather consider how Abraham delivered a beautiful funeral address about Sarah. For in the Holy Scriptures no other matron is so distinguished. Her years, lives, conduct, and burial place are described. In the eyes of God, therefore, Sarah was an extraordinary jewel on whom extraordinary love was bestowed, and she is mentioned deservedly by Peter as an exemplar for all saintly wives. He says (1 Peter 3:6) that she called Abraham lord and that “you are her daughters.” To all Christian matrons Peter holds her up as a mother.

Scripture has no comments even on the death of other matriarchs, just as it makes no mention of how many years Eve lived and of where she died. Of Rachel it is recorded that she died in childbirth (Gen. 35:16–19). All the other women it passes over and covers with silence, with the result that we have no knowledge of the death of Mary, the mother of Christ. Sarah alone has this glory, that the definite number of her years, the time of her death, and the place of her burial are described. Therefore this is great praise and very sure proof that she was precious in the eyes of God.

But these facts do not concern Sarah, who is already dead, as much as they concern us, who are still alive. For it is a very great comfort to hear that the departure and death of that most saintly matriarch and of all the fathers, in comparison with whom we are nothing, differs in no wise from our own death but was just as odious and ignominious as our own is. Their bodies were buried, consumed by worms, and hidden in the earth on account of their stench, not otherwise than if they had not been the corpses of saints; yet they were most saintly people, and, although departed, they are actually alive in Christ.

Accordingly, these things are written for our sakes, in order that we may know that the most saintly fathers and mothers underwent the same experiences we are wont to undergo. Nevertheless, it is certain about them that in the eyes of God they live; and I believe that they — namely, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Adam, etc. — rose with Christ.

Note above how Luther treats Mary. He doesn't speak of some cryptic way in which Mary disappeared off the earth. No, she's placed in a list with others whose deaths are not recorded in Scripture, and are passed over in silence. Are we to assume, based on Luther's words, that all the women were Assumed into Heaven?

The volume from which Scott's assumption quote comes from has all sorts of feast day sermons, some to various saints. In each instance, Luther says things like "what this person did isn't in Scripture, so we aren't going to talk about it."

5. "The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart" [Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works (Translation by William J. Cole) 10, III, p.313].

William Cole didn't have anything to do with WA 10 (3), The reference otherwise is accurate.

As to "The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart"- in context, Luther states,

You know, my friends, that deep in the heart of men is inscribed the honor with which one honors the mother of God; yes, it is even so deep that no one willingly hears anything against it, but extols her more and more.

Luther's point is that whatever respect Mary was due to her, the Church collectively had gone far beyond it. Note Luther's qualifier: "Now we grant that she should be honored since we are enjoined by the Scripture to receive one another with honor, as Paul says (Romans 12:10); so man must also honor her." Romans 12:10 states, "Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honor giving preference to one another." Luther saw that Mary had become more than she actually was. Note where Luther places Mary with his veneration of her:

We are called Christians after Christ, because we depend upon him alone and are his children and heritage; in this respect we are like the Mother of God herself and Mary's brothers and sisters; otherwise we do injury to the holy blood of Christ, for through his blood all of us are cleansed from sin and made partakers of his goods. In this respect we are likewise holy as she. And if she received greater grace, that did not happen because of her merit but because of the mercy of God, for we cannot all be the mother of God. Otherwise she is like to us inasmuch as, by the blood of Christ, she has come to grace as we have. WA 10 (3), 315, 10 to 316, 11

So there you go- in a passage in which Luther chastises the church of his day for excessive Mary worship, and Mary is to be honored as all Christians are according to Romans 12:10, the quote is cited by Catholic apologists to prove Luther held to similar devotional practices of today's Roman Catholic. For a detailed look at this quote see: Luther: The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart.

6. " 'Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the holy Mother of God rather not to be honoured? This is the woman who crushed the Serpent's head. Hear us. For your Son denies you nothing.' Luther made this statement in his last sermon at Wittenberg in January 1546" [Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works, English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St. Louis], Volume 51, 128-129].

Pelikan had nothing to do with WA 51, nor did he edit LW 51.Yes, the quote is in WA 51. Unfortunately, it's completely out of context. The quote can be found in the following context. Is Luther being cited in context?

And what I say about the sin of lust, which everybody understands, applies also to reason; for the reason mocks and affronts God in spiritual things and has in it more hideous harlotry than any harlot. Here we have an idolater running after an idol, as the prophets say, under every green tree [cf. Jer. 2:20; I Kings 14:23], as a whorechaser runs after a harlot. That’s why the Scriptures call idolatry whoredom, while reason calls it wisdom and holiness. How the prophets inveighed against this lovely whoredom, idolatry! It is a wild thing which is not easily caught and its foolishness is inborn, but it considers itself the height of wisdom and justice, and still it cannot understand the things of God. We must guard against it, as the prophets say: You must not serve God on the mountains or in the valleys or under the trees, but in Jerusalem, which is the place that God appointed for his worship and where his Word is. But here again, reason says: True enough, I have been called, circumcised, and adjured to go to Jerusalem, but here is a beautiful meadow, a fine green mountain; if we worship God here this will please God and all the angels in heaven. After all, is God the kind of God who binds himself only to Jerusalem? Such wisdom of reason the prophets call whoredom.

Therefore, when we preach faith, that we should worship nothing but God alone, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, as we say in the Creed: “I believe in God the Father almighty and in Jesus Christ,” then we are remaining in the temple at Jerusalem. Again, “This is my beloved Son; listen to him” [Matt. 17:5]. “You will find him in a manger” [cf. Luke 2:12]. He alone does it. But reason says the opposite: What, us?Are we to worship only Christ? Indeed, shouldn’t we also honor the holy mother of Christ? She is the woman who bruised the head of the serpent. Hear us, Mary, for try Son so honors thee that he can refuse thee nothing. Here Bernard went too far in his “Homilies on the Gospel ‘Missus est Angelus.’ ” God has commanded that we should honor the parents; therefore I will call upon Mary. She will intercede for me with the Son, and the Son with the Father, who will listen to the Son. So you have the picture of God as angry and Christ as judge; Mary shows to Christ her breast and Christ shows his wounds to the wrathful Father. That’s the kind of thing this comely bride, the wisdom of reason cooks up: Mary is the mother of Christ, surely Christ will listen to her; Christ is a stern judge, therefore I will call upon St. George and St. Christopher.

No, we have been by God’s command baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, just as the Jews were circumcised. Therefore, just as the Jews set up all over the land their own self-chosen shrines, as if Jerusalem were too narrow, so we also have done. As a young man must resist lust and an old man avarice, so reason is by nature a harmful whore. But she shall not harm me, if only I resist her. Ah, but she is so comely and glittering. That’s why there must be preachers who will point people to the catechism: I believe in Jesus Christ, not in St. George or St. Christopher, for only of Christ is it said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” [John 1:29]; not of Mary or the angels. The Father did not speak of Gabriel or any others when he cried from heaven, “Listen to him” [Matt. 17:5].

Therefore I should stick to the catechism; then I can defend myself against reason when the Anabaptists say, “Baptism is water; how can water do such great things? Pigs and cows drink it. The Spirit must do it.” Don’t you hear, you mangy, leprous whore, you holy reason, what the Scripture says, “Listen to him,” who says, “Go and baptize all nations” [Matt. 28:19], and “He who believes and is baptized [will be saved”]? [Mark 16:16]. It is not merely water, but baptism given in the name of the holy Trinity.

There's a lot of things to correct with Scott's webpage, at least with the Luther material. I didn't have time for the Calvin & Zwingli quotes. The quote from Luther on the Immaculate Conception should be removed entirely, as should Scott's "argument from silence" comment in his footnote. The Luther comment allegedly affirming the Assumption should likewise be removed, as the quote in context doesn't support any such thing. Also the two quotes about "honor to Mary" should be removed, as they likewise say no such thing in context.


Addendum #2Scott Windsor made some adjustments to his blog entry. Despite my better judgment, he's requesting a response. Below are Scott's recent comments or adjustments, and my response.

1. "Before we begin citing Luther, it must be noted that while he did continue honoring the Blessed Virgin in a very "Catholic" sense for a time after his departure from the visible Catholic Church; later in his life such sentiments are either flatly denied or have disappeared into silence."
Scott, define and explain Luther's "honoring the Blessed Virgin in a very 'Catholic" sense.' " Here you'll need to investigate Luther's "honoring." Then you need to revise that part of your blog article "Honor to Mary."

2. "Therefore, contextually speaking I can only support that Luther held these views in his Catholic and early Protestant days - but not through to the end of his life."
Then you contradict your posted article "the Immaculate Conception was a doctrine Luther defended to his death." Pick one.

3. "Modern Protestant apologists speculate that he rejected the Immaculate Conception, but this is an argument from silence."
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you haven't read the links of the work I've done on this. Even the latest volume of Luther's Works supports my conclusion. Explain to me why my links are "arguments from silence." That is, go through my material, and show me where the "silence" is.

4. "I am still looking for where the "J. Pelikan" citation originates, if it does not turn up, I will delete it entirely and stick with wholly valid sources I have found."
Do you really think Pelikan had anything to do with a volume of Luther's writings published in the 1800's? The Latin text Ben M. found was published quite a long time ago.

5. "From what I am seeing, there's not a lot to "correct" - moreso to contextualize - which I believe my added statement at the beginning of the article now clarifies."
Well, if you attribute things to Luther like a lifelong belief in the Immaculate Conception or purposefully left the door open to Mary's Assumption, these are errors. The quotes about honoring Mary are not Roman Catholic-esque. The quotes you have posted actually speak against honoring Mary in a Romanist sense.

6. " The quotes are legitimately from Luther and AFTER his split with the Catholic Church - but I could not say he held these views throughout his life with a few exceptions."
And, if you'll simply read the materials on my blog, you'd then be informed.

7. "James Swan has basically stated that all citations and quotes should be thrown out, I beg to differ."
That is not what I "basically stated." It's true Luther used the term "Mother of God." It's true Luther held a lifelong belief in Mary's perpetual virginity. Keep in mind, if you want to be fair and honest with Luther, let him be Luther. See how defends or treats the issues.

8."Quote 1: The citation was inaccurate, according to his research (based on his mistake regarding quote 6, I'm not so sure, but we'll get to that in a moment."
What mistake did I make in quote six? You then said a few paragraphs later of quote six "On this quote it would appear Mr. Swan is correct and the original citation was taken out of context."

9. "Swan agrees that this can be seen as an "article of faith" since Luther said, "Actually, we should be satisfied simply to hold that she remained a virgin after the birth of Christ."
Actually, my position is it's the only thing I found in the context that was remotely possible, and I'm being generous. It's up to you to prove that the quote you're citing is correct. This takes work Scott. you know how long looking up these quotes takes? A long time. As it stands, the context doesn't say anything about "article of faith." It's up to you to prove the citation accurate, not me. As it stands, the quote isn't in the context cited. I showed you the context, now you show me where it says "article of faith." If you can't prove "article of faith"- I suggest you use the quote I provided instead.

10. Quote 3: Citation is confusing, but appears to be an accurate citation of the Latin sermon in question - and the quotation is accurate. I'm still working on resolving this one completely, but it appears to be a "good quote."
LOL. Luther removed the quote and rewrote the place in the sermon where the quote was. The editors of Luther's works don't even think Luther wrote it. I'm not going to spoon feed you on this one. You've got my links, read them, and deal with the facts.

11. Quote 4: Citation should have been Cole's work Was Luther a Marian Devotee?" I fixed that.
The quote doesn't support the assumption. I have the entire sermon, and also you completely ignored the other material on this I provided. This should be removed. It isn't any sort of positive evidence Luther allowed for, or granted the assumption. If you've got any positive proof, I'd like to see it.

12. Quote 5: The citation was off (citing Cole again), and I fixed it. Swan himself said that other than the reference to Cole, "The reference otherwise is accurate."
If you want to deal with this quote, deal with what I've written on it: Luther: The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart.

13. I'm sure Mr. Swan would like me to just agree with him on all his renderings - but I don't see how I could objectively do so.
No, I would like you to interact with the historical research I've presented, and then disagree with my conclusion with arguments and reasoning. If you won't do that, we're done here.

14. "I withdraw the implication that my post on BeggarsAll was somehow removed."
I know of no way to delete posts and then add them back to the blog. That would be a cool trick.

Luther: Rulers should drive, beat, choke, hang, burn, behead, and break upon the well of the vulgar masses

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

“God has given the law, and nobody observes it. He has in addition instituted rod masters, drivers and urgers; so then are rulers to drive, beat, choke, hang, burn, behead, and break upon the well of the vulgar masses” [Sermon delivered by Luther in 1526. Ref. Erlanger, Vol. XV, 2p. 276].

“Like the drivers of donkeys, who have to belabor the donkeys incessantly with rods and whips, or they will not obey, so must the ruler do with the people; they must drive, beat throttle, hang, burn, behead and torture, so as to make themselves feared and to keep the people in check”[Erlangen Vol 15, Pg. 276 ].

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 these quotes, they attempt to show Christ taught one should thirst after justice, while Luther says rulers are to enforce law by violent means.

Documentation
Luther Exposing the Myth cites "Sermon delivered by Luther in 1526. Ref. Erlanger, Vol. XV, 2p. 276" and "Erlangen Vol 15, Pg. 276." There is no such thing as the Erlanger edition of Luther's works, it's Erlangen, referring 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. These two quotes cited by Luther, Exposing the Myth are the same quote. Luther, Exposing the Myth appears to have taken the first quote from this secondary source. Notice the similarities:

This source documents the quote as "Transcript of a sermon delivered by Luther in 1526. Ref. Enlanger Vol. XV, 2, p. 276." This secondary source may have taken the quote from Quizzes to a Street Preacher by Leslie Rumble. Rumble puts forth an alleged protestant myth, and then answers it:

77. [Luther] wanted freedom for all men.
That he certainly did not advocate. Luther was a strong defender of slavery. "Because God has given the law, and nobody observes it," he wrote. "He has in addition instituted rod-masters, drivers, and urgers; so then are rulers to drive, beat, choke, hang, burn, behead, and break upon the wheel the vulgar masses." (Erlangen, Vol. XV, 2, p. 276.) Again, he declares, "Slavery is not against the Christian Order, and he who says so lies." Weimar, Vol. XVI, p. 244.

Because of the similarities, Rumble may have taken the quote from this 1917 article:

Because God has given the law and knows that nobody observes it, He has in addition instituted rod-masters, drivers and urgers. So the Scripture by a similitude calls the rulers. They must be like men who drive mules. One must constantly cling to their necks and urge them on with whips, for else they will not move ahead. So then are the rulers to drive, beat, choke, hang, burn, behead and break upon the wheel the vulgar masses, Sir All. (Erlangen Ed., Vol. XV, 2, p. 276.)

The second quote may have been taken from Martin Luther- Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor by Peter Wiener. Wiener placed this 1526 quote in the midst of his discussion on the peasant's revolt of 1525:

He would have no criticism—Luther, who is reported to be the great champion of tolerance. “Those who thus blame my little book (against the peasants) must be warned to hold their tongues and to take care what they say; for most certainly they are insurgents at heart, therefore the authorities must keep an eye on such people and let them see that they are in earnest.” Indeed, Luther “attributed his pamphlet against the peasants to Divine inspiration.”

No, Luther would not retract a single word of his pamphlet or apologise for it as the offspring of momentary passion. Instead, he began to elaborate his new political theory, a theory which was so readily accepted in Germany. “Scripture speaking figuratively”, wrote Luther in 1526, “calls rulers drovers, taskmasters, and scourgers. Like the drivers of donkeys, who have to belabour the donkeys incessantly with rods and whips, or they will not obey, so must the ruler do with the people; they must drive, beat, throttle, hang, burn, behead and torture, so as to make themselves feared and to keep the people in check" (E15, 276).

The princes obeyed. A “brutal revenge” took place. Typical is the assertion of one of the princes: “I hope we are now going to play with heads as the boys play with marbles.”

It's possible Wiener took the quote from Johannes Janssen (or someone utilizing Janssen). Notice the similarities:

'Scripture, speaking figuratively,' wrote Luther in the year 1526, ' calls rulers drovers, task-masters, and scourgers. Like the drivers of donkeys, who have to belabour their animals incessantly with rods and whips, or they will not obey, so must the rulers do with the people' (with ' Herr Omnes,' as he calls them); ' they must drive, beat, throttle, hang, burn, behead, and torture, so as to make themselves feared and to keep the people in check. For God is not satisfied with our merely holding up the law before the people ; he requires that we should drive them to keep it. For if we only held it up before them, and did not compel them to carry it into practice, it would all come to nothing.

The primary references are correct. Erlangen XV page 276 can be found here (and the same text can be found here). It's also found in WA XX 247. It's from Ein ander Sermon am Tage der Opferung Christi im Tempel, Luca 2, 22-32  (Luther's Sermon on Luke 2:22-32, "Sermon on the Day of the Purification of Mary," February 2, 1526). The Text reads:

An English translation of this sermon is available in Joel Baseley, The Festival Sermons of Martin Luther (Michigan: Mark V Publications, 2005) pp. 244-258: "A Second Sermon on the Festival of the Presentation of the Infant Christ at the Temple."

Context
Why would a sermon on Mary's purification would include such a comment? The fact of the matter is many of Luther's alleged Marian sermons have far more to say about other subjects rather than Mary. Luther was expounding upon the keeping of the law as stated in Luke 2:22-24. From this he launched in to a discussion on the burden of the law, and it's crushing condemnation of people before a holy God and the misery it brings upon people. Even those who keep some sort of outward appearance of keeping the law still haven't kept the law purely in their hearts. The law brings misery on mankind, because it condemns man of sin. Contrarily, Christ kept the law with a pure heart, even though he didn't need to. Luther states,

According to the outward mask we sure keep the law, put on a good show and grab hold of it with our fist. But of hearts shy away from it. We do it unwillingly. We have no desire to do by nature unless that Holy Ghost enlightens our heart with His grace. Therefore even if we keep the law with works, yet it is not done from pure and clean heart. For it is done for the sake of our own advantage reputation or out of fear of punishment.

Now since God has also given the law and He knows that no one keeps it, He is also the One who has made it a prison guard, driver and leash. For the Scripture designates this supervision [of the law] by comparing it to one who drives a stubborn mule, which one must always push and pull and drive with a stick or it will not move forward. So this supervision of the law must pummel you. It is always to drive, strike, throttle, hang, burn, behead, and torture you so that you fear. By this people are held in check. For God does not desire that the law merely be presented to the people, but rather that it also drive them, seize them with a fist and compel them to work. For only in this way are people preserved. If they are not forced then they will do nothing. That is because the heart cannot keep the law because it is completely against its nature.

So if there were no punishment in the world, there would be nothing in the world but the rule of death, adultery, thievery, robbery, manslaughter and every blasphemy. No one would be safe from one another. But when the supervision of the law is there and punishes gross scoundrels and blasphemers, the rabble must be contained by it. They will know they are not permitted to go forth so boldly and live their lives according to their own desires. So it is necessary that the driving of the law remains over people and those raging rebels. It always compels and drives as swine and wild animals are forced and driven.

So now if we must do the law and not like it, then we are an enemy of the law for it battles our lusts. But God has done all of this so that it makes us weary. By this we might learn to acknowledge our abilities, and what we are able to do. So we look at ourselves and say, "I, poor man, I must keep the law and I don't like to do it. Yes, I have absolutely no desire to do it. So then I must lose any reward and thanks that I would get for doing it, had I truly and gladly kept the law." In summary, all who are under the law do it unwillingly. So we are tortured by it, forced to keep it and yet earn no reward from it [Baseley, 248-249].

Conclusion
God has also instituted authorities to enforce law to keep society stable. In another treatise, Luther expounds similarly:

You must know that since the beginning of the world a wise prince is a mighty rare bird, and an upright prince even rarer. They are generally the biggest fools or the worst scoundrels on earth; therefore, one must constantly expect the worst from them and look for little good, especially in divine matters which concern the salvation of souls. They are God’s executioners and hangmen; his divine wrath uses them to punish the wicked and to maintain outward peace. Our God is a great lord and ruler; this is why he must also have such noble, highborn, and rich hangmen and constables. He desires that everyone shall copiously accord them riches, honor, and fear in abundance. It pleases his divine will that we call his hangmen gracious lords, fall at their feet, and be subject to them in all humility, so long as they do not ply their trade too far and try to become shepherds instead of hangmen [LW 45:113].

The editors of Luther's Works note on the word "executioner" used above:

The term stockmeyster, meaning “jailer,” is also used by Luther synonomously with Zuchtmeister for Paul’s “custodian” of Gal. 3:24–25. See his exegesis of the Nunc Dimittis in a sermon preached on the Day of the Purification of Mary, February 2, 1526, where the term must mean more than merely a guard or warden; it refers actually to one who flogs or otherwise inflicts legal punishment in execution of a sentence. WA 20, 247
[LW 45:113, fn 82].

Because the world is so wicked, Luther says in Trade and Usury (1524),

Streets must be be kept clean, peace established in cities, and justice administered in the land. Therefore one must let the sword strike transgressors vigorously and boldly, as St. Paul teaches (Rom. 13:4). For God wants non-Christians held in check to keep them from doing wrong or from committing wrong without being punished. Let no one imagine that the world can be governed without the shedding of blood. The temporal sword should and must be red and bloodstained, for the world is wicked and is bound to be so. Therefore the sword is God's rod and vengeance for it [ WA 15:302; LW 45:258; Ewald Plass, What Luther Says, III: 1156].

In the sermon in question, Luther goes on to compare fallen humanity's burden of being under the law with Christ who kept the law willingly and with a pure heart. Christ fulfilled the law with pleasure. He volunteered to keep the law. Christ did not fear the stockmeyster. In this 1526 sermon, Luther goes on to weave his exposition of the law into a presentation of the gospel.

Needless to say, Luther's theories on government are far more complicated than these simple quotes offered by Luther, Exposing the Myth. The interested reader should track down What Luther Says and read the twenty eight page double columned synopsis presented by Ewald Plass. Plass points out a number of factors in Luther's governmental theories, everything from Luther's attitude toward unjust rulers, as well as the fact that rulers should not rely on mere brute force. Not to be forgotten as well, Luther was a not a modern man. His notions of government reflect the collective thinking of his time period.

Luther, Exposing the Myth appears to be ignorant of Luther's theology concerning law and the two kingdoms. It chastises him for upholding his theory on civic obedience. Contrary also to Leslie Rumble, Luther was not advocating slavery. The concern was for a stable society, following Paul's concerns expressed in Romans 13. The simple point being made is that God has instituted government to proclaim and uphold civic law. This no Roman Catholic should disagree with. While the methods suggested by Luther are appalling by today's standards, they weren't so to the sixteenth century person. They were a fact of life.

Addendum #1
One of the quotes covered in this article is popularly found online as follows:

Like the mules who will not move unless you perpetually whip them with rods, so the civil powers must drive the common people, whip, choke, hang, burn, behead and torture them, that they may learn to fear the powers that be." (El. ed. 15, 276, quoted by O'Hare, in 'The Facts About Luther, TAN Books, 1987, p. 235.)

Here is a link to O'Hare's page. I'm including this version of the quote so it can get picked up in a search engine.

Addendum#2
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.

The Homosexuality Issue in our Culture as we near the end of 2010

Three Important Blogs (one a 3 part series) on the Issue of Homosexuality in our culture today:

1. On the Current Debate over the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Policy”:

I think everyone should watch this - a little over an hour (69 minutes) presentation by the Family Research Council on the current issue of homosexuality in the military and the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. (Also, take some kind of action that they suggest; pray, sign petitions, and support the effort to expose the liberal mis-information.) There is a lot of good information here that the current liberal media is not telling us. It is also very discouraging that so many fiscal and “military defense” type conservatives, who don’t care about moral issues in our culture, and libertarians are speaking out and agreeing with the liberal spin on why this policy should be repealed.

http://www.frcaction.org/mc

Liberals are making this their political top priority, when the top priorities should be the economic issues.

I wonder, that if the liberals have their way, and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is repealed, will a Christian soldier be able to say to the open homosexual in his troop, “homosexuality is a sin” – Will he be able to say that at all without being punished?

2. Jamin Hubner’s excellent 3 part series at www.aomin.org of exposing Tony Campolo and other Emergent types who seem to think homosexuality is ok in certain circumstances. (in a “committed relationship” or “that the homosexual desires are somehow ok” – failing to distinguish between a temptation and a sinful, perverted desire.

“Adventures in missing the Truth”

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3


Two big shifts that had massive impact in our culture in this area is when the Psychological/medical science groups, based on political pressure and faulty results from skewed reports, such as the infamous "Kinsey report", changed their official stance on homosexuality from a “mental disorder” to normal; and when our culture started allowing homosexuals to adopt children. Those were two big errors that furthered the cultural rot and have their effects on the debate today.



3. Pyromaniacs also has a good recent article on Homosexuality and "Homophobia"; how liberals and “gay rights” advocates seek to shut down debate by pulling the “homo-phobia” card. Also, don’t miss the important addendum at the end of the article on the sick family cult of Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church, a truly wicked and hate-filled and heretical group that unfortunately has stolen so much media attention and has poisoned so many secular and nominal minds against the proper Christian position against homosexuality, that loves homosexuals by telling them the truth of the gospel and shares with them in a right and balanced way, with loving concern and “gentleness and respect”. ( I Peter 3:15)

Biological Proof for the Immaculate Conception

Breaking News:

“Full of Grace” & Divine Cells UPDATED
Thursday, December 2, 2010, 1:04 PM
Elizabeth Scalia

When I studied Anatomy and Physiology in college, the lesson that included microchimerism, became instructive to me on a different level. Learning that every child leaves within his mother a microscopic bit of himself–and that it remains within her forever–the dogma of the Immaculate Conception instantly became both crystal clear and brilliant to me.

Mary, then, was indeed a tabernacle within which the Divinity did reside – not for a limited time, but for all of her life. Understanding this (and considering how the churches seemed to get it ‘way before microscopes told us anything) the Immaculate Conception made and makes perfect sense: God, who is All-Good is also completely Pure; the vessel in which He resides, then, must be pure, too, or it would not be able to sustain all of that “light in which we see light itself.”

Art Sippo:
WOW! That is something new. So much has been learned since I did my medical training. Microchimeralism may helpto explain several immune problems we find in patients. But it also shows that Mother's and children share share themselves with each other in a manner that we never realized before.

The BVM was intimately BIOLOGICALLY intertwined with her Son for her entire life. It is true to say that she remained a living tabernacle contianing the body and blood of Jesus.

I have always pictureed the BVM in Heaven as she is depicted in Revlation 12 pregnant with the Son of God. But truly, even after she had given birth he remained ever with her. Amazing. [source]

Luther: The Ten Commandments Are Stupid

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

“If Moses should attempt to intimidate you with his stupid Ten Commandments, tell him right out – chase yourself to the Jews”[Lecture at Wittenburg].

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 Luther ridiculed the Ten Commandments calling them "stupid."

Documentation
This quote is from the original 2004 version of Luther Exposing the Myth. Later versions have deleted it. Sometime after December 13, 2007 and before February 12, 2008 the quote was removed from the web page.  This quote may have been taken from this secondary source: Verbum the newsletter of St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Ridgefield, CT, Spring 1985. Note the similarities:

They cite "Lecture at Wittenburg." Tedium: it isn't Wittenburg, it's Wittenberg. Luther began lecturing in Wittenberg early in his career, and continued to do so throughout his life. This is obviously not a helpful or useful reference. The quote was probably taken from the reprint of Patrick O’Hare, The Facts About Luther (Illinois: Tan Books, 1987), p. 311 (page 315 from the original). O'Hare states,

In studying Luther, we must remember, that his cardinal dogma when he abandoned Catholic teaching, was that man has no free-will, that he can do no good and that to subdue animal passion is neither necessary nor possible. He insisted that the moral law of the Decalogue is not binding, that the Ten Commandments are abrogated and that they are no longer in force among Christians. "We must," he says, "remove the Decalogue out of sight and heart." (De Wette, 4, 188.) "If we allow them—the Commandments—any influence in our conscience, they become the cloak of all evil, heresies and blasphemies." (Comm. ad Galat. p. 310.) "If Moses should attempt to intimidate you with his stupid Ten Commandments, tell him right out: chase yourself to the Jews." (Wittenb. ad. 5, 1573.) Having thus unceremoniously brushed aside the binding force of the moral law, we do not wonder that he makes the following startling and shameless pronouncements. "As little as one is able," he says, "to remove mountains, to fly with the birds (Mist und Ham halten), to create new stars, or to bite off one's nose, so little can one escape unchastity." Alts Abendmahlslehre, 2, 118.) Out of the depths of his depraved mind, he further declares: "They are fools who attempt to overcome temptations (temptations to lewdness) by fasting, prayer and chastisement. For such temptations and immoral attacks are easily overcome when there are plenty of maidens and women." (Jen. ed. 2, p. 216.)

Notice the documentation O'Hare gives is "Wittenb. ad. 5, 1573." Luther, Exposing the Myth appears to have added the "lecture" part. "Wittenb" usually refers to the Wittenberg edition of Luther's works (1539-1558). "5" probably refers to the volume. "1573" is most likely not a page number, but rather a year (this source mentions, "The old Wittenberg editions are, however, as a rule, not paged"). German Volume 5 of the Wittenberg edition was reprinted in 1573 (the fourth printing). The word "ad"makes me wonder if Father O'Hare had the Latin volume of Wittenb. 5 in mind, but that volume was not reprinted in 1573. It was only printed once (1554).

An older Roman Catholic work also cites this quote:

It was Luther's idea, however, that so long as one had faith, conduct was not of great importance. Thus he wrote to Melanchthon:— "Be a sinner, and sin boldly, but believe more boldly still. Sin shall not drag us away from Him, even should we commit fornication or murder thousands and thousands of times a day" (Letter of August I, 1521). So annoying to him were the Ten Commandments, that he wrote of them:—"We must put the whole decalogue entirely out of our sight and out of our hearts. If Moses scares you with his stupid Ten Commandments, say to him at once:—'Take yourself off to your Jews! To the gallows with Moses!'" [source]

The last three quotes on the Ten Commandments are from different writings, compiled together to appear to be one quote. "We must put the whole decalogue entirely out of our sight and out of our hearts" is from a letter. The last quote, "To the gallows with Moses" isn't even from Luther, but probably Johannes Agricola. The middle quote though appears to be the same as that quoted by O'Hare, but rendered slightly different.

Without having access to volume 5 of the Wittenberg edition, I can only speculate as to the primary source. If the quote indeed came from this set, it wasn't from an obscure writing of Luther's, but probably one of the more popular treatises. This quote may be from the 1525 treatise How Christians should regard Moses. It was "Number 29 in Luther’s long series of seventy-seven sermons on Exodus preached from October 2, 1524, to February 2, 1527" [LW 35:159] in Wittenberg. The sermon was printed in 1526 as "Eyn Unterrichtung wie sich die Christen ynn Mosen sollen schicken." It was a popular writing of Luther's- in fact, here are three different published copies from 1526:

Ain Underrichtung wie sich die Cristen in Mosen sollen schicken

Ain Underrichtung wie sich die Cristen in Mosen sollen schicken

Ein unterrichtung, wie sich die Christen ynn Mosen sollen schicken

If this is the source, the text can also be found in WA 16, 363–393, and also in English in LW 35:155-176. The quote in question may be that found on page 165 of LW 35 and on page 375 of WA 16:

Here is a 1526 copy:

Context
Luther directed this treatise towards those like the enthusiasts (Andreas Karlstadt, and the Sacramentarians, etc.). These were people whom Luther thought misunderstood the relationship of law and gospel. He also had men in mind who were attempting to introduce Mosaic law into the civil code. The editors of Luther's Works point out:

Luther opposed the notion that the Scriptures would be properly exalted if Mosaic precepts were suddenly, as law, to replace laws of the German state and church. He warned that while seemingly honoring the Scriptures, one can actually distort the meaning and intention of the Word of God. This entire discussion too stands in the background of this 1525 discourse on Moses [LW 35:157].

Early in this writing, Luther contrasts two biblical sermons: "the first sermon is in Exodus 19 and 20; by it God caused himself to be heard from heaven with great splendor and might" [LW 35:161]. The second sermon was the sermon on the mount. Luther explains:

Now the first sermon, and doctrine, is the law of God. The second is the gospel. These two sermons are not the same. Therefore we must have a good grasp of the matter in order to know how to differentiate between them. We must know what the law is, and what the gospel is. The law commands and requires us to do certain things. The law is thus directed solely to our behavior and consists in making requirements. For God speaks through the law, saying, “Do this, avoid that, this is what I expect of you.” The gospel, however, does not preach what we are to do or to avoid. It sets up no requirements but reverses the approach of the law, does the very opposite, and says, “This is what God has done for you; he has let his Son be made flesh for you, has let him be put to death for your sake.” So, then, there are two kinds of doctrine and two kinds of works, those of God and those of men. Just as we and God are separated from one another, so also these two doctrines are widely separated from one another. For the gospel teaches exclusively what has been given us by God, and not—as in the case of the law—what we are to do and give to God [LW 35:162].

The law commanded God's people to act in certain ways in order to be acceptable to God. The Gospel though is God's gift to his people, explaining what he's done and how he acts toward his people. In that sense, the law was for the Jewish people. Luther then explains that the "enthusiasts" attempt to preach the law as gospel. He explains that the law was binding on the Jewish people.

The law of Moses binds only the Jews and not the Gentiles

Here the law of Moses has its place. It is no longer binding on us because it was given only to the people of Israel. And Israel accepted this law for itself and its descendants, while the Gentiles were excluded. To be sure, the Gentiles have certain laws in common with the Jews, such as these: there is one God, no one is to do wrong to another, no one is to commit adultery or murder or steal, and others like them. This is written by nature into their hearts; they did not hear it straight from heaven as the Jews did. This is why this entire text does not pertain to the Gentiles. I say this on account of the enthusiasts. For you see and hear how they read Moses, extol him, and bring up the way he ruled the people with commandments. They try to be clever, and think they know something more than is presented in the gospel; so they minimize faith, contrive something new, and boastfully claim that it comes from the Old Testament. They desire to govern people according to the letter of the law of Moses, as if no one had ever read it before.

But we will not have this sort of thing. We would rather not preach again for the rest of our life than to let Moses return and to let Christ be torn out of our hearts. We will not have Moses as ruler or lawgiver any longer. Indeed God himself will not have it either. Moses was an intermediary solely for the Jewish people. It was to them that he gave the law. We must therefore silence the mouths of those factious spirits who say, “Thus says Moses,” etc. Here you simply reply: Moses has nothing to do with us. If I were to accept Moses in one commandment, I would have to accept the entire Moses. Thus the consequence would be that if I accept Moses as master, then I must have myself circumcised, wash my clothes in the Jewish way, eat and drink and dress thus and so, and observe all that stuff. So, then, we will neither observe nor accept Moses. Moses is dead. His rule ended when Christ came. He is of no further service.

That Moses does not bind the Gentiles can be proved from Exodus 20[:1], where God himself speaks, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.” This text makes it clear that even the Ten Commandments do not pertain to us. For God never led us out of Egypt, but only the Jews. The sectarian spirits want to saddle us with Moses and all the commandments. We will just skip that. We will regard Moses as a teacher, but we will not regard him as our lawgiver—unless he agrees with both the New Testament and the natural law. Therefore it is clear enough that Moses is the lawgiver of the Jews and not of the Gentiles. He has given the Jews a sign whereby they should lay hold of God, when they call upon him as the God who brought them out of Egypt. The Christians have a different sign, whereby they conceive of God as the One who gave his Son, etc.

Again one can prove it from the third commandment that Moses does not pertain to Gentiles and Christians. For Paul [Col. 2:16] and the New Testament [Matt. 12:1–12; John 5:16; 7:22–23; 9:14–16] abolish the sabbath, to show us that the sabbath was given to the Jews alone, for whom it is a stern commandment. The prophets referred to it too, that the sabbath of the Jews would be abolished. For Isaiah says in the last chapter, “When the Savior comes, then such will be the time, one sabbath after the other, one month after the other,” etc. This is as though he were trying to say, “It will be the sabbath every day, and the people will be such that they make no distinction between days. For in the New Testament the sabbath is annihilated as regards the crude external observance, for every day is a holy day,” etc.

Now if anyone confronts you with Moses and his commandments, and wants to compel you to keep them, simply answer, “Go to the Jews with your Moses; I am no Jew. Do not entangle me with Moses. If I accept Moses in one respect (Paul tells the Galatians in chapter 5[:3]), then I am obligated to keep the entire law.” For not one little period in Moses pertains to us [LW 35:164-165].

Conclusion
If this is the context, those who "attempt to intimidate you with his stupid Ten Commandments" are the "enthusiasts" the sought to mix and bind Mosaic law with the gospel. The mystery here is why the English word "stupid" was used by Roman Catholic writers. Perhaps these Roman Catholic authors took "seinen" (his) in a pejorative sense, and then interpolating "stupid" to convey that exaggerated eisogesis. "Das mag mir eine Übersetzung seyn!" (ht: Matthew Carver).

The editors of Luther’s Works provide a helpful explanation of Luther's theology here:

“How, then, is “Moses” Word of God, and how is “Moses” law? How do Word of God and law relate to each other? Here Luther makes sometimes the most contrary statements. On the one hand “Moses” is completely abolished: “Moses does not pertain to us.” On the other hand we hear Luther expressing the wish “that [today’s] lords ruled according to the example of Moses.” Anyone who, like the enthusiasts, erects Mosaic law as a biblical-divine requirement does injury to the preaching of Christ. Just as the Judaizers of old, who would have required circumcision as an initial requirement, so also the enthusiasts and radicals of this later era do not see that Christ is the end of the Mosaic law. For all the stipulations of that law, insofar as they go beyond the natural law, have been abolished by Christ. The Ten Commandments are binding upon all men only so far as they are implanted in everyone by nature. In this sense Luther declares that “Moses is dead.”

Besides, the Jewish assembly of Sinai and of the decalogue has been replaced by the Christian congregation of Pentecost and of the new covenant. The era of Mosaic law extends from Sinai to Pentecost. In this era the Jewish people served its particular purpose, for this people, alone among all the peoples, was during that time span both state and church. It was just one national ethnic group among others on earth, but at the same time it was a peculiar people set apart for God as an instrument of his plan for all peoples.

So far as “Moses” is simply the Sachsenspiegel or law code of the Jewish people as a national ethnic group, it can be listed as just one code of laws among many, features of which may or may not be considered desirable in another age or nation. But so far as the Mosaic law is the law of the Old Testament congregation of God, it has a prophetic and promissory significance comparable to nothing in the laws of other peoples; and it has a continuing relevance not to any people simply as people but only to the post-Pentecost church of God spread among all peoples [Source: LW 35:158].

Addendum 2/10/16
I came across this same quote being used in this webpage: Martin Luther- The Bare Truth Unfolded. Here's how they cite and document the quote:

If Moses should attempt to intimidate you with his stupid Ten Commandments, tell him right out – chase yourself to the Jews” (Letter to Melanchthon, August 1, 1521, American Edition, Luther’s Works, vol. 48, pp. 281-82)

I'm mentioning this in case someone come across this ridiculous Shoebat.com webpage and ends up here looking for some information on this quote. All the information above applies to this quote. One thing though must be pointed out about Shoebat.com's use of it: the documentation is completely bogus. Yes, there is a section of a letter to Melanchthon in LW 48 from Aug. 1, 1521 on pp. 281-282, but there isn't anything in the letter similar to this quote, at all. The citation they provide is actually to Luther's famous "sin boldly" comment.

An Evangelical Introduction to Church History (Introduction - Part 1)

A Short Summary View


Much of the following information has been mentioned separately here at Beggar’s All before and other Reformed apologetic web-sites (see sources at the end), but I thought I would try to give a summary of some of the clearest issues in the early church for the Protestant side, so you can see them all at one time in one article.

By no means exhaustive, here are some highlights from early church history with references and sources for further study that show that Protestant Evangelicals can be deeper in understanding church history properly and more Biblical and stand against the false claim of John Henry Newman, that “to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”, that has been attracting so many to Rome in recent years.

What follows will be a short outline summary of some examples from early church history that lean more toward the Protestant understanding of doctrines and Scripture, rather than the modern Roman Catholic view. In future articles, Lord willing, I will elaborate more on each issue and writer; for now it is valuable to see an overview of the evidence for an early church that is not Roman Catholic, and compatible with what will later become Protestantism in the 16th and 17th centuries.

Clement of Rome ( 96 AD) - Presbyters and Bishops are the same office – I Clement 44, confirming Acts 14:23; 20:17, 28; Titus 1:5-7; I Peter 5:1-4.

Clement also has an early statement on justification by faith apart from good works wrought by us within us. I Clement 32. See also Mathetes, Epistle to Diognetes (9)

Irenaeus (writing around 180-200 AD) – bishop of Lyons, France. (On the “rule of faith”, “tradition”, “the preaching”, and “the faith”, these are all early Biblical Trinitarian doctrinal statements, similar to what will become the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed; not the RC understanding of tradition).

Against Heresies, 1:10:1 to 1:11:1; 1:22:1; 3:4:2

About Gnostic Secret oral traditions, viva voce (living voice) and using other sources and accusing the Scriptures of being unclear – Against Heresies 1:8:1 and 3:2:1

Irenaeus did not believe in the Perpetual virginity of Mary, as demonstrated in Against Heresies, 3:21:10 and 3:22:4.

Tertullian, died around 220 AD – Carthage, North Africa, wrote five books against Marcion and other works against Gnostics and other heresies.

Tertullian understood that Mary and Joseph had a normal sexual relationship within marriage after Jesus was born and so the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ is biblical and historical, but the “brothers and sisters of the Lord” are truly the children of Mary of Joseph. (see “On the Flesh of Christ”, chapter 23; On Monogamy, 8; and Against Marcion, 4:19)

For the believer’s baptism or credo-baptism position, Tertullian also cautioned against baptizing young children who could not understand the gospel yet, or repent or trust in Christ yet, see On Baptism, 18

Tertullian on the Rule of Faith, similar to Irenaeus –
Prescription Against Heretics 13:1-6
Against Praxeas 2:1-2

Cyprian (bishop of Carthage, died in 258 AD), executed under the persecution of Valerian) (he was right in his disagreement with Stephen, bishop of Rome).

Cyprian did not hold to a primacy of jurisdiction of Rome. He and 86 other bishops disagreed with Stephen, bishop of Rome, and they wrote, "no one sets himself up as bishop of bishops". See the Seventh Council of Carthage under Cyprian: This fact alone is enough to destroy any idea that the early church believed in a Papacy.

Athanasius (died 373) (deacon at the Council of Nicea in 325 and bishop of Alexandria from 328 – 373, when he died) He was exiled 5 times in his defense of the Deity of Christ and the Trinity against the Arian heretics who had taken over the churches. (Dr. White/ Webster/King all demonstrate he, along with many of the other early church writers, had a closer view of Scripture as the final authority - closer to Protestantism than the RCC view of Scripture and tradition; without claiming that he was a full blow Protestant.)

After listing the 27 books of the NT in his famous Easter Letter of 367 AD, Athanasius writes,

“These are the fountains of salvation that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness.” (Festal Letter 39) Notice the word "alone" here.

“Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faiths sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrines so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture.” (De Synodis, 6) (On the Councils, 6)

“For indeed the holy and God-breathed Scriptures are self-sufficient for the preaching of the truth.” (Against the Gentiles, 1:3)

Augustine (died in 430 AD right before the barbarian Vandals took Carthage.) Augustine influenced Luther and Calvin on the bondage of the will of man in sin (with John 8:34 and Ephesians 2:1-3); and God’s grace and sovereignty in election and effectively calling and drawing His people. (Grace must precede repentance and faith and decision for Christ, agreeing with John 6:44 and Acts 16:14 and many other passages.).

(See, for example, Augustine, The Enchiridion, chapter 30)

Jerome (347-420 AD) (his view on the Apocrypha is the right view).
“As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two Volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church. ( Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, Vol. 6, St. Jerome, Prefaces to Jerome's Works, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs; Daniel.)
See also: (NPNF2, Vol. 6, St. Jerome, Prefaces to Jerome's Works, The Books of Samuel and Kings, pp. 489-490).

Origen (254 AD), Basil (379 AD), and Chrysostom (407 AD) all denied that Mary was sinless.

Basil of Caesarea (379 AD) on Scripture as the final infallible authority over customs/traditions:

“What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth." (Basil of Caesarea, Letter 189, 3)

Most of this information, I have learned over the years from these books and web-sites:

Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible, especially chapter 2 by Dr. White, “Sola Scriptura and the Early Church”. (General Editor, Don Kistler, Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1995. (other Chapters by John McArthur, R.C. Sproul, Robert Godfrey, Sinclair Ferguson, and others.)

Scripture Alone by James R. White. Bethany House. 2004.

Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, (3 volumes) by David T. King and William Webster. Christian Resources, 2001,

The Church of Rome at the Bar of History by William Webster (Banner of Truth, 1995)

www.aomin.org

www.christiantruth.com

Jason Engwer’s massive and well-researched articles at Triablogue (I have yet to have made it through all of these, though I hope to soon.)

Turretinfan's exhaustive and tenacious research (I confess I don't think I will ever get to the bottom of reading all of this amazing material.)

James Swan’s very important articles on Luther and Justification and on Alister McGrath and his work on Justification

An Army of Scholars Studying Ancient Rome, the Church of Ancient Rome, and the Book of Romans

Some time ago, it was pointed out to me that Peter Lampe was a flash in the pan. That his work was insignificant.

Several days ago, Steve Hays suggested to me and several other of us that we look up Robert Jewett’s commentary on Romans (a $90.00 retail value!) and check out the information on Romans 16 and the early Roman church.

Matthew Schultz has done so, and the link to the pages is here. I highly recommend you take a look at this, if you’re interested in what the church in ancient Rome was like – my hope is to go through this and post some of the more relevant passages, but for now, this is an exceptionally rich source.

Meanwhile looking up more information on Robert Jewett, and I came across this:

D. THE ROMANS ARCHIVE IN HEIDELBERG
A large bibliography of critical studies on Paul's letter to the Romans written from 1830 onwards has been assembled and many of the articles and monographs have been copied and gathered into a research archive now located in Heidelberg. The list of titles is presently more than 1000 pages long, single spaced, and will probably grow to 1500 pages when the project is compete. At present approximately 25% of this bibliography is available either in duplicated form in the files of the Heidelberg archive or in the monograph collection associated with the project.

The plan is to scan the entire bibliography and in cooperation with the university computer office, to place it on a website that would be available to students and scholars around the world. Since more has been written on Romans, verse for verse, than on any other biblical writing, or indeed, any other classic in the western world, and since only partial bibliographies are presently available, this project would provide a significant service. We hope that by 2004 the photographic scans of the bibliography would be available to scholars, and that by 2008 each item would be available in a version that could be downloaded and searched. In view of the thematic range of Romans, this bibliography would be useful to scholars in a number of fields.

Background and Development of the Project
The initial bibliography has been collected by Peter Lampe in connection with his book, Die Stadtrömischen Christen in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1987, 1989); English translation, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003) and by Robert Jewett in connection with writing the Hermeneia Commentary on Romans since 1980, including a series of preliminary publications. The agreement to create a united research archive was made in 1995, to be located in Kiel where Lampe was serving as Professor of New Testament. When he was called to the chair in Heidelberg in 1999, an invitation was extended for Jewett to become a guest professor in connection with locating the archive here. An agreement on this was reached as Lampe negotiated his post with the university. The Evanston research archive was brought to Heidelberg in the summer of 2000 and was joined with Lampe’s archive in a renovated portion of the WTS building at Kisselgasse 1.

The scanning project is associated with the Forschungsstelle für die Wirkungsgeschichte des paulinischen Briefes an die Römer, attached to Lampe’s chair in Heidelberg.

[W]ith the commencement of a research grant for the bibliography project from the University of Heidelberg at the beginning of 2002, many of the technical aspects of the project have been researched and resolved; arrangements with the university computer center and the university library are in progress; the first staff persons were engaged; and the process of scanning with newly purchased equipment will begin later this spring.

The Need for a Comprehensive Bibliography on Romans
Romans is the only biblical book for which no comprehensive bibliography has been published; it remains the sole biblical writing on which a bibliographical article in the Theologische Rundschau article has never appeared. The reason for this is that the bibliography is so immense that no one has been able to master it...

While it is self evident that reliable, comprehensive bibliographies are needed in every field, the crucial role that Paul’s letter to the Romans has played in theological development since the Reformation makes this an urgent desideratum. Now that computerized techniques of assembling bibliographies are available, and scanning techniques well developed, it is possible to break this deadlock and make this rich research available to scholars everywhere. Since so many of the items in the current bibliography that have been located through library and journal searches are available only in limited locations, they are available only to those with the means and time to travel. Most scholars and theological students around the world do not have such resources. The development of an on-line bibliography with the full texts of these studies will thus contribute to the productivity of scholars. Increased access to the scholarship of other nations and earlier generations will also encourage ecumenicity.

The Scope and Organization of the Bibliography
The Romans bibliography is organized in three sections: introductory issues; studies related to specific pericopes; and theological, thematic studies. In view of the range of the argument of Romans and its decisive role in ecclesiastical debate over the centuries, the latter section includes most of the important themes in biblical theology. The table of contents for the bibliography is attached.

Scholarly studies from all over the world are included. Since there is such a large polemical literature on Romans, only critical items of scholarly interest are included For the most part such articles discuss the Greek terms and the historical and cultural background of the argument. Important theological studies are included but merely polemical articles defending ecclesiastical traditions are not. If all articles and books related to Romans were included, the bibliography would be twice or three times as large, and far less useful for scholarly work. Although Romans research in Europe and North America has long restricted its bibliographic interest to the North Atlantic, Joseph A. Fitzmyer’s commentary in 1993 listed hundreds of Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and Latin American items for the first time, some of which predated the development of the bibliographic surveys in Biblica, New Testament Abstracts, and Internationaler Zeitschriftenschau für Bibelwissenschaften und Grenzgebieten. Fully one third of his commentary consists of bibibliography he gathered over the years of working in the libraries of Italy and Spain. Jewett has conducted similar bibliographic surveys in Switzerland, Scandinavia, Germany, Great Britain, and the United States. The plan is for Lampe and Jewett to extend such surveys into the Netherlands and eastern Europe over the course of the next several years...

I'm amazed at the power of the Internet; I have said in the past that I believe that the Internet in our day will have the same kind of effect on the message of the Reformation that the printing press had in Luther's day.

As I said, I just found this off the cuff. It would seem as if the sheer weight of this effort has already had an immense effect on Roman thinking on the papacy. (See my articles on the non-existent early papacy). It will be interesting to follow up and see where all of this continues to lead.


Update: I do need to apologize. It was not Blogahon who was arguing that Lampe wasn't a serious scholar. On the other hand, Sean was noting that Lampe was "arguing from silence":

you should expand your reading a bit. There are many very smart and equally challenging Catholic theologians who don't argue from silence as much as Peter Lampe and who don't draw the same conclusions as your go to set of texts.

http://deregnisduobus.blogspot.com/2008/08/god-said-it-i-believe-it-but-what.html

And again:
You are very selective in the church historians that you embrace...very selective. Lampe's argument is one from silence and even if it wasn't it does not destroy the papacy.

http://deregnisduobus.blogspot.com/2009/01/bono-luther-and-seeds-of-modernity.html


It was another writer over there who was saying that Lampe was essentially not a serious scholar.

I have been unable to turn up any indication that serious scholarship is interested in his work. I haven't found any reviews discussing his work or that other scholars are basing their work on his. This suggests to me that Lampe is not quite in the mainstream as you think he is....

Again, Lampe doesn't seem to have made much inroad into scholarly discussions. Fly-leaf recommendations don't count, particularly if they are from liberal Catholics like Duffy who are on record as advocating for a weakening of the authority exercised by John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger.

http://deregnisduobus.blogspot.com/2008/09/scratching-surface-of-pivotal-passage.html

Good Morning Pope Starshine, part 2

Why do popes write the things they do? It stands to reason that you don’t work all your life to grow up and be pope, just to say things and have them be ignored. No, you want to be pope so you can command obedience!

Pius XII, himself a pope (who knew the difference between an ex cathedra pronouncement and an ordinary one, because he had done both, only our fusion into unity with him, makes us bearers of the promise.” (33) This goes far beyond the Protestant notion of Union with Christ. That union is accomplished through the Holy Spirit – and the New Man.

But fast forward to July 2009, in an address in Aosta, Italy, Benedict again, as pope, cites Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and his pantheistic vision, far beyond what was said in “Introduction to Christianity” and claims that “the cosmos becomes a living host”:

“Let Your Church offer herself to You as a living and holy sacrifice”. This request, addressed to God, is made also to ourselves. It is a reference to two passages from the Letter to the Romans. We ourselves, with our whole being, must be adoration and sacrifice, and by transforming our world, give it back to God. The role of the priesthood is to consecrate the world so that it may become a living host, a liturgy: so that the liturgy may not be something alongside the reality of the world, but that the world itself shall become a living host, a liturgy. This is also the great vision of Teilhard de Chardin: in the end we shall achieve a true cosmic liturgy, where the cosmos becomes a living host. And let us pray the Lord to help us become priests in this sense, to aid in the transformation of the world, in adoration of God, beginning with ourselves.

In other words, “we are the world.”

Paul’s letters frequently follow the pattern of theology --> application, and his letter to the Romans follows this same pattern. Here is the citation of the selection that the pope is quoting:

I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. 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.

For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned. For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.

Schreiner, in his commentary, does not see pantheism in this text. “Paul is not merely saying that [these] sacrifices are spiritual in nature. His point is that it is eminently reasonable, given the mercies of God, for believers to dedicate themselves wholly to God.” (Commentary on Romans, 644-645). “The worship described does not relate to public assemblies but to the yielding of one’s whole life to God in the concrete reality of everyday existence.”

I’ve written about this, too, in a post entitled The Real Body of Christ.

Here, Ratzinger openly embraces the Platonic concept of “body” and rejects Scriptural meaning as he openly states, “Communion means the fusion of existences. Just as in the taking of nourishment the body assimilates foreign matter to itself, and is thereby enabled to live, in the same way my “I” is “assimilated” to that of Jesus, it is made similar to him in an exchange that increasingly breaks through the lines of division.”

Now, it could not be more clear, in analyzing the texts of Paul’s letters, that this is in no way what he is talking about. But the Roman self-infatuation, in its desires to perpetuate its grandiose claims about itself, effectively repeats the promise of Satan: “You will be like God.”

I’ll refer you to that link for more about this topic, but for now, it should be enough to provide a biblical picture of our future:

See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed. He is able to open the scroll and its seven seals.”

Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing at the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. The Lamb had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth. He went and took the scroll from the right hand of him who sat on the throne. And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of God’s people. And they sang a new song, saying:

“You are worthy to take the scroll
and to open its seals,
because you were slain,
and with your blood you purchased for God
persons from every tribe and language and people and nation.

You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God,
and they will reign on the earth.”

Then I looked and heard the voice of many angels, numbering thousands upon thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand. They encircled the throne and the living creatures and the elders. 12 In a loud voice they were saying:

“Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain,
to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength
and honor and glory and praise!”

I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”

He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!” Then he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.”

He said to me: “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give water without cost from the spring of the water of life. Those who are victorious will inherit all this, and I will be their God and they will be my children.

It will be time for Lewis’s “Great Dance”. No pantheism allowed.

A word about "intellectual converts"

I've been asked several times (and it's been pointed out to me from the other side) that, while there is a steady stream of people out of Roman Catholicism, there's also a small but vocal group of "really smart people" who are converting to Rome. How do we account for that?

Here's a post that I've found in several places. Arturo Vasquez is what you might call a real, life-long Roman Catholic. His bio says he is a native of Hollister, California, who spent five years in religious life as a seminarian and a monk. He has no trouble criticizing these "converts":

One common thread that I find in these English Catholic converts such as Baring, Chesterton, and to a much lesser extent, Waugh, is that they have some sort of nostalgia for something that they know nothing about. Or they are at the very least nostalgic for something that they feel is missing in their post-Victorian, rationalistic, dry lives. Newman probably is the one who started that mess, with his desire to find the pristine Apostolic church, only to suffer from afar the cronyism and realpolitik of the court of Pio Nono[the infallible pope Pius IX]. The protagonist in the Barring novel “finds his humanity” in the tumultuous melting pot of 19th century Russia, with all of its politicial and cultural anachronisms slamming full speed into the modern age. Chesterton’s schtick always seems to boil down to pointing out how “medieval superstition” is so much more rational than skeptical modernity. In other words, their message always seems to be a variation of: “Want to be a better modern? Try Catholicism.”

I have a couple of major objections to such a formula. One is that I don’t think it has the slightest clue as to what Catholicism and its culture actually are in any real historic sense. Perhaps here I am thinking most of the “peasant Catholicism” that I saw in my family growing up, or even the cultural Catholicism you saw in Italy. I don’t think such cultures can carry the ideological burden that they seem to place on it. Real life is a far cry from romanticist fantasy.

This meshes nicely with a comment about Chesterton that was floating around several months ago:

"In these books [his later Catholic non-fiction works] Chesterton becomes a Pangloss of the parish; anything Roman is right. It is hard to credit that even a convinced Catholic can feel equally strongly about St. Francis's intuitive mysticism and St. Thomas's pedantic religiosity, as Chesterton seems to. His writing suffers from conversion sickness. Converts tend to see the faith they were raised in as an exasperatingly makeshift and jury-rigged system: Anglican converts to Catholicism are relieved not to have to defend Henry VIII's divorces; Jewish converts to Christianity are relieved to get out from under the weight of all those strange Levitical laws on animal hooves. The newly adopted faith, they imagine, is a shining, perfectly balanced system, an intricately worked clock where the cosmos turns to tell the time and the cuckoo comes out singing every Sunday. An outsider sees the Church as a dreamy compound of incense and impossibility, and, overglamorizing its pretensions, underrates its adaptability. A Frenchman or an Italian, even a devout one, can see the Catholic Church as a normally bureaucratic human institution, the way patriotic Americans see the post office, recognizing the frailty and even the occasional psychosis of its employees without doubting its necessity or its ability to deliver the message. Chesterton writing about the Church is like someone who has just made his first trip to the post office. Look, it delivers letters for the tiny price of a stamp! You write an address on a label, and they will send it anywhere, literally anywhere you like, across a continent and an ocean, in any weather! The fact that the post office attracts timeservers, or has produced an occasional gun massacre, is only proof of the mystical enthusiasm that the post alone provides! Glorifying the postman beyond what the postman can bear is what you do only if you're new to mail."

Emphasis supplied. Of course, I'm sure that not all of the intellectual converts can be described this way.