Interpreting the Actions of a Pope... Even Popes Make Mistakes

...and exactly who in the Papacy allows her apologists to make judgements like the following:

For my part, I freely, if reluctantly, grant that there were some seriously problematic things the late Holy Father did that I dearly wish he had not done (e.g., kissing a Koran, the Assisi inter-religious prayer events, allowing altar girls), as well as one thing in particular that I dearly wish he had done but didn’t: namely, to have sacked at least a few of those notoriously malfeasant, corrupt, and publicly heterodox bishops who did such tremendous damage to the church during the wasting years of their devouring regimes.

But that’s just me.

For the record, I love and esteem Pope John Paul II and am convinced of his heroic personal sanctity. And yet, I also recognize that the variegated aspects of his pontificate are a needed reminder of the hard lesson that even good and holy and courageous popes like him, are imperfect and can make mistakes in how they govern the Church. [source]

Note the use of the word "mistakes." Kissing the Koran was simply a mistake. Not "sacking" "a few of those notoriously malfeasant, corrupt, and publicly heterodox bishops who did such tremendous damage to the church during the wasting years of their devouring regimes" was a mistake. "Inter-religious prayer events" were a mistake.

Luther: I shall not have my teaching judged by any man, not even by any angel

The following is an exercise in presuppositions. If the Luther quote below is read from the perspective of Roman Catholicism, Luther shows himself to be an arrogant heretic, perhaps claiming his own infallible authority. If on the other hand the basic "infallible authority" / Rome=the True Church  presuppositions of Romanism are denied, what Luther says isn't arrogant, heretical, or a claim of infallible authority.

I. Introduction: Luther On the Internet
This Martin Luther quote runs rampant across the Internet in various forms:

. . I shall no longer do you the honor of allowing you - or even an angel from heaven - to judge my teaching or to examine it. . . . I shall not have it judged by any man, not even by any angel. For since I am certain of it, I shall be your judge and even the angels' judge through this teaching . . . so that whoever does not accept my teaching may not be saved - for it is God's and not mine. Therefore, my judgment is also not mine but God's.

Alternate version:

I do not admit that my doctrine can be judged by anyone, even by the angels. He who does not receive my doctrine cannot be saved.

II. Roman Catholic Polemics
This quote has been used against Luther for quite a long time by Roman Catholics. Cochlaeus (a contemporary of Luther's) cites it as a savage and rebellious statement. Jacques Maritain cites it as an example of "egocentrism: something much subtler, much deeper, and much more serious, than egoism; a metaphyiscial egoism." Patrick O'Hare alludes to the quote as an example of Luther's "disregard for all authority save his own." Henry O'Connor uses it as an example of Luther claiming his own authority and infallibility: "Did any Pope ever proclaim his Authority and Infallibility in a more unmistakeable manner?" J. Verras cites it as Luther's "high opinion of himself" and "inexpressible contempt for all who dare to oppose him or to disagree from him." Hartmann Grisar uses it as an example of Luther's growing insistence on private revelation from God. An old copy of Catholic Weekly infers that Luther may have been insane by making such a statement.

A quick Google search of this quote reveals a number of contemporary Roman Catholic interpretations as well: One Romanist calls it an example of Luther's "colorful, sadly self-deluded, megalomaniacal language" and "Dogmatic Self-Proclaimed Super-Duper Infallibility and Virtual Inspiration." Another says it shows "the classic mindset of the heretic" who will not bend, refusing "to even allow others to examine his teaching." Another says it's an example of a lack of humility and pride. Another says these words demonstrate "immense arrogance."

If one simply reads the quote as cited by one of the above Romanists, the words often appear without a context or historical background. Luther is simply portrayed as unwilling to have his words scrutinized or evaluated, or worse, an unstable heretic simply claiming to be "right". If on the other hand the treatise this quote comes from is read, quite a different image comes forth. One finds that Luther spends quite a number of pages proving (or arguing) his "teachings" are from the pages of Scripture, and then finally asking his readers to make their own judgment.

III. Documentation
The treatise the quote comes from is Wyder den falsch genantten Standt des Bapst und der Bischoffen (1522). It can be found in Erl. 28:144 and WA 10 (2): 106. It wa translated into English as Against the Spiritual Estate of the Pope and the Bishops Falsely So-Called, and can be found in LW 39: 248-249.

IV. Historical Background
This treatise was in part provoked by the sale of indulgences. Note the "gospel" of indulgences put forth from Rome that Luther opposed in his treatise:

On September 15, 1521, Archbishop Albrecht of Mainz celebrated the annual festival of relics at his newly built cathedral, the Church of St. Moritz and Mary Magdalene in Halle, with the official announcement that indulgences would be granted to all visitors to the exhibition of relics. Anyone who prayed at a shrine and gave alms was promised an indulgence of four thousand years; anyone who confessed his sins to one of the priests hearing confessions in the cathedral during the ten days of the celebration would receive a plenary indulgence. Pope Leo X had issued a bull in 1519 granting the cathedral of Halle the same privileges granted to the Church of St. Peter in Rome: its confessors were authorized to absolve cases usually absolved only by the apostolic see in Rome; in addition, they could convert vows into financial contributions for the completion of the Halle cathedral—privileges not unusual in the established indulgence practice of the Roman curia. (LW 39:241).

Luther wrote against this and other severe results of the "gospel" of Papalism as well in an earlier treatise that was blocked from publication by Elector Frederick, and its possibility of "a threat to public peace" (LW 39:241). An angered Luther then went on to compose a similar but more general writing against indulgences: Against the Spiritual Estate of the Pope and the Bishops Falsely So-Called.  LW notes, "Luther... was more concerned with the evil of the indulgences than with the person of the archbishop of Mainz. 'I wanted to put an end to ungodliness,' he wrote to Melanchthon on January 13, 1522" (LW 39:243).LW 39 also explains: "Luther’s highly polemical and satirical language, more evident in this treatise than in others, was prompted by the recurrence of the indulgence traffic in the territory of Albrecht of Mainz" (LW 39:244). Included also were arguments for the right of priests to marry, and the right of an individual to criticize or correct an authority when that authority is corrupt. 

The quote in question is found in the very first section of this treatise entitled, "Jesus." Below is the entirety of that first section.

V. Context
Martin Luther, ecclesiastic in Wittenberg by the grace of God: To the papal bishops [I offer] my service and self-understanding in Christ.

Although I might be regarded as a fool by you, dear lords, because of the haughty title I call myself, an ecclesiastic by the grace of God, you should know that I am not at all surprised by this. You curse, slander, condemn, persecute, and possibly even burn me as a heretic for the sake of a high and noble cause. In this you act as you please, according to the pleasure of your idol. As a result of God’s disfavor you have the virtue that you do not want to listen. Neither do you want to give an answer. Instead, like the hardened Jews you blasphemously and stubbornly want to condemn me without a hearing, without investigating the cause, without overcoming me. You are not even ashamed of letting a man defy you so frequently with such good reason. Very well then, since it is a question of lowering the horns and acting with brute force, I too have to lower my horns and risk my head for my Lord. In order to get things started, I call myself an ecclesiastic by the grace of God in defiance of you and the devil, although you call me a heretic with an abundance of slander. And even if I called myself an evangelist by the grace of God, I would still be more confident of proving it than that any one of you could prove his episcopal title or name. I am certain that Christ himself, who is the master of my teaching, gives me this title and regards me as one. Moreover, he will be my witness on the Last Day that it is not my pure gospel but his. Thus your raging and raving is not going to help you at all. Rather, the more you rage and rave, the haughtier we shall be toward you, with God’s help, and [the more we] shall despise your disgrace. Even though you might take my life, since you are murderers, you will annihilate neither my name nor my teaching. For you too will have to die at last and put an end to murder.

Now that I am deprived of my titles through papal and imperial disfavor and my bestial character is washed away with so many bulls that I need never be called either Doctor of Holy Scripture or some kind of papal creature, I am almost as shocked as an ass who has lost its bag. For these masks were my greatest shame before God. I too was once in error (which I learned from your crowd at great price and with great effort), a liar, a cheater, a seducer, and a blasphemer against God’s pure teaching, as you are now. But the Father of all mercy did not look at my vice, blasphemy, and my very sinful, evil life; instead, out of the infinite richness of his grace, he permitted me to know his Son, Jesus Christ, and to teach [him] to others, until we were certain of his truth. However, I need not have any title and name to praise highly the word, office, and work which I have from God and which you blind blasphemers defile and persecute beyond measure. I trust my praise will overcome your defiling, just as my justice will overcome your injustice. It does not matter if, with your blasphemy, you are on top for the moment.

Therefore, I now let you know that from now on I shall no longer do you the honor of allowing you—or even an angel from heaven—to judge my teaching or to examine it. For there has been enough foolish humility now for the third time at Worms, and it has not helped. Instead, I shall let myself be heard and, as St. Peter teaches, give an explanation and defense of my teaching to all the world [I Pet. 3:15]. I shall not have it judged by any man, not even by any angel. For since I am certain of it, I shall be your judge and even the angels’ judge through this teaching (as St. Paul says [I Cor. 6:3]) so that whoever does not accept my teaching may not be saved—for it is God’s and not mine. Therefore, my judgment is also not mine but God’s.

Finally, dear lords, let this be the conclusion: If I live you shall have no peace from me, and if you kill me you shall have ten times less peace, for I shall be, as Hosea says, a bear on the road and a lion in the street [Hos. 13:8]. No matter how you handle me, you shall not have your will until your iron head and stiff neck are broken with either grace or disgrace. If you do not improve as I would like to see you do, then it is agreed that you threaten with hostility and I do not care. May God grant that you know yourselves. Amen. [LW 39:247-249]

VI. Conclusion
It's obvious from the context that Luther was indeed "highly polemical," and I would add, seemingly angry.  That Romanist interpreters pounce on the singular statements they do is a telling sign of missing the point (and perhaps never even bothering to read the entire document this quote was taken from). Note the words typically left out in a Romanist version of the quote:

I shall no longer do you the honor of allowing you—or even an angel from heaven—to judge my teaching or to examine it. For there has been enough foolish humility now for the third time at Worms, and it has not helped. Instead, I shall let myself be heard and, as St. Peter teaches, give an explanation and defense of my teaching to all the world [I Pet. 3:15].

Luther had indeed subjected himself to the judgment of Romanism, and to what result? Obfuscation and subterfuge! Luther then states he's going to give an explanation and defense, which he indeed does. Towards the end of the treatise,  after pages of scriptural argumentation against Romanism, Luther sums it all by stating one needs to judge his arguments for yourself:

If someone said to me at this point, “Previously you have rejected the pope; will you now also reject bishops and the spiritual estate? Is everything to be turned around?” my answer would be: Judge for yourself and decide whether I turn things around by preferring divine word and order, or whether they turn things around by preferring their order and destroying God’s. Tell me, which is right: for them to turn God’s order around, or for me to turn their blasphemous devil’s order around? Do not look at the work itself but at the basis and reason for the work. Nobody should look at that which opposes God’s word, nor should one care what the consequences may or may not be. Instead, one should look at God’s word alone and not worry—even if angels were involved—about who will get hurt, what will happen, or what the result will be (LW 39:279).

Further, the quote in its historical context shows that there were two "teachings" in conflict. For instance, in regard to indulgences, there was that put forth by Luther (indulgences are not of divine authority) and that put forth by Romanism (indulgences are of divine authority). Luther states:

In all the indulgence bulls [the Pope] promises forgiveness of sins to all those who have repented and confessed. This is the worst poison and most harmful seduction emanating from that supreme seducer, the pope, and from his masks. Christ, Matthew 9[:2], did not say to the paralytic, “If you put money in the box your sins are forgiven.” Rather, he said, “Be of good courage,” or, “Trust firmly and your sins are forgiven.” These wolves and damned masks tear people away from this blessed faith and trust in God’s sheer grace which alone grants forgiveness of sins. Instead, they lead people to put their trust in bulls, paper, and money so that simple minds learn to rely on their own works and not on God’s grace. The accursed pretension of such bulls is abominable beyond imagining, because it condemns and destroys God’s first and foremost commandment, namely, the commandment which teaches trust in God’s grace alone. They teach trust in paper and wax, that is, in their invalid and accursed lies (LW 39:275).

In one instance during his treatise, Luther mentions that indulgences went as far as "to preach that people may keep their ill-gotten goods if they give them a portion of them and also let them have the profits from them" (LW 39:273). How does Luther respond, by declaring his authority? No, he refers back to the Scripture "You shall not steal." Throughout the treatise, Luther simply refers to the clear words of Scripture to refute Romanism. For instance:

St. Paul said to Titus that he should appoint a married and blameless bishop in every town [Titus 1:5–7]. That is undoubtedly God’s order, will, and opinion. Our papal bishops fight against this; they removed the bishops from every town and made themselves bishops over many towns. But St. Paul stands here—indeed, the Holy Spirit stands here firmly and strongly—saying that every town should have a bishop and that they must all be equals. St. Paul speaks of every town and considers all bishops to be equal (LW 39:278).

Previous to the quote in question in the (introduction) Luther states, "I am certain that Christ himself, who is the master of my teaching, gives me this title [ecclesiastic] and regards me as one. Moreover, he will be my witness on the Last Day that it is not my pure gospel but his." Luther is claiming he's been given his teaching from Christ. Does he claim, like Paul, that Christ appeared to him? No. What he's speaking about is the teaching of Scripture. This brief snippet from the Theological Quarterly of the Lutheran Synod of Missouri sums this up far better than I ever could:

Luther's claim to authority as a teacher of God's Word is the common claim of every Christian who proves his belief from the Scriptures. The infallibility of the Scriptures becomes the infallibility of the teachers of Scripture. They can challenge the world as Isaiah did: "To the Law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them"; or Christ: "The Scripture cannot be broken"; or Paul: "Though an angel from heaven preached other gospel to you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed!" —[source]

Did Dr. Geisler Fabricate a Quote from John Calvin?

Originally posted on the aomin blog in 2004?(I simply don't remember!). The Internet Archive's oldest catch is from April, 2004.

The following Calvin quote is given by Norman Geisler in Chosen But Free (page 156-157, 1st edition; pages 161-162, 2nd edition):

Eternal Predestination of God IX.5
Mark 14:24. This is my blood- I have already warned, when the blood is said to be poured out (as in Matthew) for the remission of sins, how in these words we are directed to the sacrifice of Christ's death, and to neglect this thought makes any due celebration of the Supper impossible. In no other way can faithful souls be satisfied if they cannot believe that God is pleased in their regard. The word many does not mean a part of the world only, but the whole human race: he contrasts many with one, as if to say that he would not be the Redeemer of one man, but would meet death to deliver many of their cursed guilt. It is incontestable that Christ came for the expiation of the sins of the whole world".

Geisler's Interpretation: The "many" for whom Christ died means the whole human race[1]

Geisler utilizes this alleged quote from Calvin's treatise, The Eternal Predestination of God. Unfortunately, the majority of this quote doesn't appear in that treatise, but is rather from one of Calvin's commentaries on the Gospels. Hence, the quote is somewhat of a fabrication: only the last sentence is from The Eternal Predestination of God. To prove this, first read through Calvin's comment on Mark 14:24 below. I have bolded the text used by Geisler. Observe how the sentence "It is incontestable that Christ came for the expiation of the sins of the whole world" is completely absent.

Mark 14:24. This is my blood. I have already remarked that, when we are told that the blood is to be shed according to the narrative of Matthew-FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS, these words direct us to the sacrifice of the death of Christ, without the remembrance of which the Lord's Supper is never observed in a proper manner. And, indeed, it is impossible for believing souls to be satisfied in any other way than by being assured that God is pacified towards them.

Which is shed for many. By the word many he means not a part of the world only, but the whole human race; for he contrasts many with one; as if he had said, that he will not be the Redeemer of one man only, but will die in order to deliver many from the condemnation of the curse. It must at the same time be observed, however, that by the words for you, as related by Luke- Christ directly addresses the disciples, and exhorts every believer to apply to his own advantage the shedding of blood Therefore, when we approach to the holy table, let us not only remember in general that the world has been redeemed by the blood of Christ, but let every one consider for himself that his own sins have been expiated.[2]

Where is the sentence "It is incontestable that Christ came for the expiation of the sins of the whole world"? It is found in Calvin's treatise, The Eternal Predestination of God. How did this happen? Did Geisler deliberately fabricate this quote? My judgment is no, it is probably not deliberate, it is rather sloppy scholarship. I went back and checked the source Geisler pulls from: R.T. Kendall's book Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649. A section of a lengthy footnote on page thirteen reads as follows:

"...'The word many', Calvin says, 'does not mean a part of the world only, but the whole human race'. Comm. Mark 14:24. It is 'incontestable that Christ came for the expiation of the sins of the whole world'. Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God (1961) (hereinafter called Predestination), 148."[3]

If Geisler utilized Kendall here, what seems to have happened is that whoever compiled this quote ignored a period and thought Kendall was quoting from only one source, when in fact he was quoting from two. However, when republishing this quote, Geisler (or someone) must have knowingly added a fuller context to the quote from Calvin's comments on Mark 14:24, and simply added the sentence in the extra sentence. Interestingly, Calvin's comment on Mark 14:24 is cited elsewhere in Chosen But Free, and the reference given is to Calvin's comment on Mark 14:24, so obviously Geisler must be aware of the correct reference, minus the added sentence.

The section from The Eternal Predestination of God is worth quoting at length. Calvin is responding to Georgius (a universalist) on unlimited atonement:

Georgius thinks he argues very acutely when he says: Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world; and hence those who wish to exclude the reprobate from participation in Christ must place them outside the world. For this, the common solution does not avail, that Christ suffered sufficiently for all, but efficaciously only for the elect. By this great absurdity, this monk has sought applause in his own fraternity, but it has no weight with me. Wherever the faithful are dispersed throughout the world, John extends to them the expiation wrought by Christ's death. But this does not alter the fact that the reprobate are mixed up with the elect in the world. It is incontestable that Christ came for the expiation of the sins of the whole world. But the solution lies close at hand, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but should have eternal life (Jn 3.15). For the present question is not how great the power of Christ is or what efficacy it has in itself, but to whom He gives Himself to be enjoyed. If possession lies in faith and faith emanates from the Spirit of adoption, it follows that only he is reckoned in the number of God's children who will be a partaker of Christ. The evangelist John sets forth the office of Christ as nothing else than by His death to gather the children of God into one (Jn 11.52). Hence, we conclude that, though reconciliation is offered to all through Him, yet the benefit is peculiar to the elect, that they may be gathered into the society of life. However, while I say it is offered to all, I do not mean that this embassy, by which on Paul's testimony (II Cor 5.18) God reconciles the world to Himself, reaches to all, but that it is not sealed indiscriminately on the hearts of all to whom it comes so as to be effectual. As for his talk about no respect of persons, let him learn first what the term person means, and then we shall have no more trouble in the matter.[4]

If in fact Geisler got this quote from Kendall's footnote, it should be immediately pointed out that Kendall has taken the quote out of context. Frederick Leahy explains,

"...those who appeal to Calvin's remarks on the "all" and "world" passages have been less than fair to him, at times, quoting selectively and even out of context. Such manipulation results in distortion. Thus Kendall quotes, out of context, from "Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God," it is "incontestable that Christ came for the expiation of the sins of the whole world." In context Calvin's intent becomes clear. He is discussing 1 John 2:2:

Wherever the faithful are dispersed throughout the world, John extends to them the expiation wrought by Christ's death. But this does not alter the fact that the reprobate are mixed up with the elect in the world. It is incontestable that Christ came for the expiation of the sins of the whole world. But the solution lies close at hand, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but should have eternal life (Jn. 3:15). For the present question is not how great the power of Christ is or what efficacy it has in itself, but to whom He gives Himself to be enjoyed.

When Calvin's statement, in italics above, is wrested from its context, it can convey a meaning opposite to the Reformer's intention."[5]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] CBF 156-157. Emphasis by Dr. Geisler.
[2] John Calvin, Commentary on The Harmony of The Gospels Vol. 3, in The Comprehensive John Calvin Collection (Ages Digital Library, 1998).
[3] R.T Kendall, Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649, (Waynesboro: Paternoster Press, 1997), 13. Emphasis by Kendall.
[4] John Calvin, Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, 148-149. The full context of this quote is available on line at: http://www.reformed.org/documents/calvin/calvin_predestination.html.
[5] Frederick S. Leahy, "Calvin and the Extent of the Atonement" Reformed Theological Journal 8 (November 1992), 60.

"We Have Apostolic Tradition"- The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary #2

Originally appeared on the aomin blog, 01/28/2009

Catholic apologists often let us know how crucial it is to have an infallible magisterium and church Tradition in order to interpret the Bible correctly. With so many Catholic apologists now commenting on sacred scripture, I thought it would be interesting to provide their commentary on the Bible. Let's see how they've been able to rightly divide the word of truth. I'll post their interpretations as I come across them.

In this MP3 clip, Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin was asked if the offering of Issac by Abraham in Genesis 22 was in accord with "reason":

Jimmy Akin Interprets Genesis 22

Instead of consulting "Tradition," Akin first consults the philosopher, Søren Kierkegaard (so much for consulting the Church Fathers). Ironically, Kierkegaard wasn't a Roman Catholic, but was raised a Lutheran. Akin explains Kierkegaard's interpretation of the offering of Isaac as "If God says Abraham should offer Isaac on the alter, then it's morally legitimate for Abraham to do that." In case this interpretation isn't satisfactory, Akin provides another: "He [God] is also showing Abraham and his descendants that you shouldn't commit child sacrifice because God stops him [Abraham] from actually slaying his son.... There could be an object lesson here that child sacrifice is ultimately not what God wants."

The most interesting aspect of Akin's answer on this passage is his lack of mentioning Christ, as well as the ram caught in the thicket. Rather than locating my old copy of Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling, notice how others in church history like Augustine have interpreted the passage:

"And on this account Isaac also himself carried to the place of sacrifice the wood on which he was to be offered up, just as the Lord Himself carried His own cross. Finally, since Isaac was not to be slain, after his father was forbidden to smite him, who was that ram by the offering of which that sacrifice was completed with typical blood? For when Abraham saw him, he was caught by the horns in a thicket. What, then, did he represent but Jesus, who, before He was offered up, was crowned with thorns by the Jews?" [source]

"But let us rather hear the divine words spoken through the angel. For the Scripture says, "And Abraham stretched forth his hand to take the knife, that he might slay his son. And the Angel of the Lord called unto him from heaven, and said, Abraham. And he said, Here am I. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou anything unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, and hast not spared thy beloved son for my sake." It is said, "Now I know," that is, Now I have made to be known; for God was not previously ignorant of this. Then, having offered up that ram instead of Isaac his son, "Abraham," as we read, "called the name of that place The Lord seeth: as they say this day, In the mount the Lord hath appeared." As it is said, "Now I know," for Now I have made to be known, so here, "The Lord sees," for The Lord hath appeared, that is, made Himself to be seen. "And the Angel of the Lord called unto Abraham from heaven the second time, saying, By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord; because thou hast done this thing, and hast not spared thy beloved son for my sake; that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand which is upon the seashore; and thy seed shall possess by inheritance the cities of the adversaries: and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice." In this manner is that promise concerning the calling of the nations in the seed of Abraham confirmed even by the oath of God, after that burnt-offering which typified Christ. For He had often promised, but never sworn. And what is the oath of God, the true and faithful, but a confirmation of the promise, and a certain reproof to the unbelieving?"[source]

Was the sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham in accord with "reason"? Akin is right, there is an object lesson here. If one keeps in mind the entire Bible has Christ as it's central focus, one has found the "reason" for Genesis 22.

"Authority", Luther vs. the Catholic Church.

How did I spend my summer vacation?

Every so often I refer to the long-running CARM thread, "Authority", Luther vs. the Catholic Church. Part one of this thread is now archived here. Part two (which is still active) can be found here. I stop in on this discussion every so often. There are months though when I don't even bother. This summer I spent quite a while there, particularly from July 23 to September 7.

Why post on CARM? Well, not in any effort to change the mind of the Roman Catholic (Tim) who has been on a tirade against the Reformation for a few years now. What intrigued me was his bold assertion on July 23,  "I Have Never Plagiarized a Thing" when in fact he had plagiarized a source for one of his posts only a few days before this declaration. He then offered to stop posting on CARM for 3 months if it could be proved he did indeed plagiarize. That I did. Did he have the integrity to live up to his 3 month offer? No, of course not. For all his talk about authority, he is his own authority.

That provoked me to get more involved in this discussion, and show that not only was this person a plagiarizer, his arguments were spurious and his use of reference material was questionable. He's been posting snippet quotes from different Luther-related books. Working through his use of the material was also a way for me to interact with the particular authors he gravitated towards. It's one thing to simply read a book. It's quite another thing to interact with the material one has read and someone else is quoting. Such an exercise will force one to read a text with even more care.

My schedule for the rest of 2011 will no longer allow for visiting CARM. I've posted on CARM for over decade, but not with the same frequency as I did years ago. One of the reasons I left CARM and started blogging was because I simply got tired of Matt Slick dumping all the contents of the discussion boards every few years: Poof! Gone! The blog was a way for me to keep track of the materials I worked through. So, thank you Matt Slick for deleting years worth of discussions and directing me towards a blog.

In order for me to have a record of exactly what I said and where in the "Authority", Luther vs. the Catholic Church thread, the following is set of links to my responses. This is simply for me to remember, so whenever (or if) I rejoin this folly, I can get a refresher of what I posted previously. It was difficult to sort this thread out, as multiple topics enveloped each other. In the beginning I hammered away at the simple fact that this person plagiarized, and then moved on to his other multiple topics. My hyper-linked posts are simply designated "JS Response."

Tim early on said "James I LOVE it when you spend time here." After a while, his tune changed, and he ceased responding to my comments.

1.Tim: "I Have Never Plagiarized a Thing". Tim promises to not post on CARM for three months if he's caught plagiarizing.
    JS Response: Tim caught as a plagiarizer: he uses multiple pages of a self-published Luther book.

2. Tim: I am not a plagiarizer. "As you well know James, none of those POSSIBLE miscitations are any form of plagiarism. I did not claim those citations as my own work."
    a. JS Response: Tim questioned on being a plagiarizer.
    b. JS Response:  A look at the Luther quote Tim cited, "Whoever teaches differently from what I have taught herein, or condemns me for it, he condemns God, and must be a child of Hell."
    c. JS Response: I am not a Luther expert.
    d. JS Response: "Whoever teaches differently from what I have taught herein, or condemns me for it, he condemns God, and must be a child of Hell" was plagiarized from a source that provided incorrect documentation.
    e. Tim: Backpedaling on being a plagiarizer.
    f. Tim: Insults and an attempt to change the subject.

JS Response: Tim questioned again on being a plagiarizer. Definition of plagiarism.

5. Tim: More backpedaling on being a plagiarizer.
    a. JS Response: John Martignoni allows for instances plagiarizing.
    b. Tim: Insults.
    c. JS Response: Tim violates CARM rules.
    d. Tim: denies being a plagiarizer.
    e. Tim: Who is John Martignoni?
    f. Tim: John Martignoni revisited. "James I LOVE it when you spend time here." Plagiarism comments.
    g. JS Response: Ever heard of Google?
    h. JS Response: get help from a friend.
     i. Tim: More Martignoni. "I have some advice for you James: Do NOT enter the ministry in any form." "Luther is your idol"
     j. JS Response: Martignoni / Google.
     k. JS Response
         l. Tim: Busted again
     m. JS Response

6. Tim: More backpedaling on being a plagiarizer.
     a. JS Response: Tim is a plagiarizer.
     b. JS Response: Tim is a plagiarizer.

7. Tim: Protestant Biographies of Luther.
8. Tim: Luther's superstitions.

9. Big Bear: Question on Hartmann Grisar.
    a. JS Response: Hartmann Grisar.
    b. JS Response: Grisar on Luther's syphilis
    c. PVB: Luther's Syphilis
    d. JS Response: Links to the debate on Romans 3:28 with Tim
    e. Tim: Hartmann Grisar, False legend of Luther."I post many quotes because they contain actual facts, the kinds of detail that you aren't going to find in a standard one volume biography." 

10. RR1213: Problems with cutting and pasting without documentation.
      a. JS Response: Give me a context!
      b. Tim: why is cutting and pasting wrong?
      c. JS Response: There's nothing wrong with cutting and pasting.

11. Tim: Topics: Swan spins facts, Swan claims to not have an anti-catholic bias, peasants war,  Luther plagiarized his Bible translation, Tim is not a plagiarizer.
   JS Response: Tim is a plagiarizer.

12. Tim: Luther's demonology (Vedder, Oberman, Erikson), Luther plagiarized his Bible translation.

13. Tim: Luther's demonology warning (Fife, Oberman, Marius)
      a. JS Response: Marius, Oberman
      b. JS Response:Marius
      c. JS Response: Erikson
          1. Tim: Erikson
          2. JS Response: Erikson
      d. JS Response: Vedder
          1. Tim: Vedder " Are you disparaging Baptist historians, or are you just hoping that people are going to think less of him and dismiss his comments BECAUSE he was a Baptist?" "I know how much you hate to expose your opinions"
          2. JS Response: Vedder
          3. JS Response: My opinions
     e. JS Response: O'Hare, Oberman
     f. JS Response: Erikson
     g. JS Response: Fife

14. Tim: "Luther's terror over his salvation and his (supposedly) "Scriptural discovery" of Salvation by Faith Alone, which again, nobody ever "noticed" before in the Bible." "It couldn't be more obvious that you are doing everything you possibly can to slow me down in this build up to those HONEST Protestant Scholars, which "connect the dots" between Luther's psychological problems"
      a. JS Response: Franz Posset / Saint Bernard
      b. JS Response: "Would you rather I don't comment on your posts? You've been hounding me for a long time to comment on your ramblings, and now you want me to stop?"

15. Tim: Peasants Revolt, Luther was a plagiarizer (so says Vedder)
      a. JS Response
      b. JS Response
      c. JS Response

16. Tim: Luther's demonology, Vedder, Grisar, Fife, Smith
       a. JS Response, Vedder
       b. JS Response, Grisar
       c. JS Response

17. JS: The Quotable Luther #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6

18. PVB: Luther's claim to authority
      JS Response

19. Tim: Luther the Plagiarizer/The False Legend, Vedder, Grisar, Emser, Dau
      a. JS Response, Vedder, Codex Teplensis, Schaff, Dau
      b. JS Response, Reu
      c. JS Response, Emser
      d. JS Response, Reu vs. Vedder
      e. JS Response, Emser
      f. JS Response, Schaff

20. Big Bear: No Patience in Reading Tim's Posts.
      a. Nic: Response
      b. Big Bear: Response
      c. Tim: Response
      d. JS Response
      e. JS Response (100 word rule)
      f. JS Response
      g. JS Response

21. Tim: Response on Luther's Demonology
      a. JS Response
      b. JS Response
      c. JS Response
      d. JS Response: Pelikan / Dolan

22. Tim: Response on Luther's Demonology
      a. JS Response
      b. JS Response
      c. JS Response
      d. JS Response
      e. JS Response
      f. JS Response

23. Tim: Tim's 14 Points Against Luther
      a. JS Response
      b. JS Response: Bigamy
      c. JS Response: Book of James
      d. JS Response: The Jews
      e. JS Response:  Peasants War
      f. JS Response: Putting Adulterers to death
      g. JS Response: Anabaptists, Romans 3:28, Scadanavian church, Luther's volatile language, false gospels
      h. JS Response: Luther didn't believe in hell, Marius
      i. JS Response: Masturbation

24. Tim: Nailed Again
     a. JS Response
     b. JS Response

24. Tim: Insults, etc.
      JS Response

25. Ridderbos: Manic Depression
      a. Ridderbos: Critique of Tim
      b. Ridderbos: Tim's arrogance
      c. Tim: response
      d. Ridderbos: response
      e. Tim: response
      f. Ridderbos: Response
      g. Tim: Response
      h. JS: Response
      i. JS: Response
      j. JS: Response
      k. JS: Response

26. Tim: Luther Enters the Monastery
      a. JS Response
      b. JS Response
      c. JS Response
      d. JS Response
      e. JS Response
      f. JS Response
         1. Nic: Response
         2. JS: Response
     g. JS Response

27. Tim: Luther Enters the Monastery #2
28. Tim: Luther Enters the Monastery #3

27. Tim: Humiliation
      a. JS Response: Tim-vective #1
      b. JS Response: Tim-vective #2
      c. JS Response: Tim-vective #3
      d. JS Response: Tim-vective #4
      e. JS Response: Tim-vective #5

28. Tim: You introduce the term "enemy"
      a. JS Response
      b. JS Response

29. rr123: Scrupulosity
      a. Tim: response
      b. rr123: Response
      c. rr123: Response
      d. JS Response
      e. JS Response

30. Tim's Vacation
      JS: Response: I'm so glad we had this time together.

"We Have Apostolic Tradition"- The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary #1

Originally appeared on the aomin blog 01/06/2009

Catholic apologists often let us know how crucial it is to have an infallible magisterium help one interpret the Bible correctly. With so many Catholic apologists now commenting on sacred scripture, I thought it would be interesting to provide their commentary on the Bible. Let's see how they've been able to rightly divide the word of truth . I'll post their interpretations as I come across them.

In this first installment, Catholic apologist Tim Staples explains Romans 5:12, "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned."

Listen to Tim's interpretation of Romans 5:12, here.

John Bugay: Myelodysplastic Syndromes

Triablogue's John Bugay's wife has been diagnosed with one of the Myelodysplastic Syndromes (a pre-leukemia cancer of the blood). For more information, see this link.  This illness has caused financial stress. If you can assist John in any way, please contact him via http://johnbugay.wordpress.com/.

Robert Sungenis on YouCat

Source: The Vatican’s “YouCat” Catechism: Weak on Homosexuality, Contraception, Euthanasia, Evolution, and Scripture

"A youth catechism, known popularly as “YouCat,” which is claimed to be modeled from the official 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church, contains dubious, suggestive and sometimes scandalous teachings on issues such as homosexuality, contraception, euthanasia, evolution, philosophy, and last but not least, biblical inerrancy."

"YouCat was released by the Vatican on April 4, 2011 and was translated in more than a dozen languages. Under direction from Pope Benedict, YouCat will make its big splash on World Youth Day in Madrid on August 16-21, 2011."

-snip-

"As dubious as YouCat’s teaching is in certain places, it makes Scripture’s teaching in certain places even more dubious. For example, Question 15 states: “How can Sacred Scripture be ‘truth’ if not everything in it is right?” Directly against the numerous official and infallible Catholic teachings on the total inerrancy of Scripture, YouCat implies that Scripture simply cannot be trusted. A whole generation of young people will now view the Bible as an assortment of historical mistakes and ignorant concepts, despite the fact that the Holy Spirit was supposed to have inspired it all."

"It is particularly egregious for YouCat to say that the biblical authors were “dominated by the errors” of the culture around them. If that were the case, why weren’t they dominated by the same “errors of the culture” when they were writing about the “way of salvation”? For example, maybe Jesus didn’t actually rise from the dead. Maybe it was just the “error of the culture” to believe that he did. Maybe Jesus really wasn’t God. It was just the “error of the culture” which was steeped in wishing for a divine Messiah that made the people think that way. If the biblical writers can make errors in science and history why can’t they make errors in salvation? Where does the Bible or the Church say that the biblical writers are only protected from error when they speak about salvation? For that matter, where does either the Bible or the Church say that only certain parts of the Bible are for the purpose of salvation? The answer to both questions is: nowhere. It has all been made up out of thin air by modern biblical scholarship which is bent on promoting its unproven scientific theories as fact."

Hurricane Irene's Gift

Luther: "There is not sufficient evidence from Scripture that one might justify the introduction of infant baptism at the time of the early Christians after the apostolic period"

I was sent a private message asking if I knew the source of this Luther quote:

"There is not sufficient evidence from Scripture that one might justify the introduction of infant baptism at the time of the early Christians after the apostolic period...But so much is evident, that no one may venture with a good conscience to reject or abandon infant baptism, which has for so long a time been practiced."

If you Google around for this quote, you'll find it ultimately referenced back to The Reformers and Their Stepchildren By Leonard Verduin, pages 203-204. Verduin documents the quote as being from WA 26:67.  This is an error, the quote is from WA 26:167. This can be cross-referenced over to LW 40:255

But this God would easily forgive me, since it was done in ignorance and more than that out of fear. I did not invent it. It came to me by tradition and I was persuaded by no word of Scripture that it was wrong. I would have been unwilling to do it, had I been convinced otherwise. It would be very much as when I preach the Word, also according to his command, among the unbelieving and without fruit, or as it is said, cast pearls before swine, or holy things to the dogs [Matt. 7:6]. What could I do? Here, too, I would rather sin in preaching fruitlessly than in refusing to preach at all. For in fruitless preaching I would not be guilty of a soul [being lost] while in refusing to preach I might be held accountable for many souls. That would be too much for any individual. This I say even if there were uncertainty about the faith of children in baptism, for we cannot set aside baptism which is certain, on account of faith which is uncertain. Baptism did not originate with us, but with the apostles and we should not discard or alter what cannot be discarded or altered on clear scriptural authority. God is wonderful in his works. What he does not will, he clearly witnesses to in Scripture. What is not so witnessed to there, we can accept as his work. We are guiltless and he will not mislead us. If we knew or believed that child baptism was useless, it would be a wicked thing to still baptize. So the Waldenses do, but that is to despise God and his Word.

In the second place, this is an important consideration: No heresy endures to the end, but always, as St. Peter says, soon comes to light and is revealed as disgraceful. So St. Paul mentions Jannes and Jambres and their like [II Tim. 3:8f.], whose folly is finally plain to all. Were child baptism now wrong God would certainly not have permitted it to continue so long, nor let it become so universally and thoroughly established in all Christendom, but it would sometime have gone down in disgrace. The fact that the Anabaptists now dishonor it does not mean anything final or injurious to it. Just as God has established that Christians in all the world have accepted the Bible as Bible, the Lord’s Prayer as Lord’s Prayer, and faith of a child as faith, so also he has established child baptism and kept it from being rejected while all kinds of heresies have disappeared which are much more recent and later than child baptism. This miracle of God is an indication that child baptism must be right. He has not so upheld the papacy, which also is an innovation and has never been accepted by all Christians of the world as has child baptism, the Bible, faith, or the Lord’s Prayer, etc.

You say, this does not prove that child baptism is certain. For there is no passage in Scripture for it. My answer: that is true. From Scripture we cannot clearly conclude that you could establish child baptism as a practice among the first Christians after the apostles. But you can well conclude that in our day no one may reject or neglect the practice of child baptism which has so long a tradition, since God actually not only has permitted it, but from the beginning so ordered, that it has not yet disappeared.

For where we see the work of God we should yield and believe in the same way as when we hear his Word, unless the plain Scripture tells us otherwise. I indeed am ready to let the papacy be considered as a work of God. But since Scripture is against it, I consider it as a work of God but not as a work of grace. It is a work of wrath from which to flee, as other plagues also are works of God, but works of wrath and displeasure.

Steve Ray: Luther's Imaginary Letter to Pope Leo X

While revisiting Roman Catholic apologists citing Patrick O'Hare's The Facts About Luther, I came upon this book recommendation from Steve Ray:

The Facts About Luther. Written by Msgr. Patrick O’Hare in 1916 and republished by TAN Books (www.tanbooks.com) in 1987. Even though this book is a bit polemic, it is nevertheless, an important read, telling the whole story of Luther that Protestant authors and historians have failed to tell. This book is a sobering, eye-opening, record-straightening analysis of the life, thought, and work of Martin Luther.

A few years back, O'Hare's book was popular with Roman Catholic Internet apologists. I had at least a few of Steve Ray's fans cite this book to me in dialog (it's no wonder, since Ray openly recommends it). It's bad enough that Ray would recommend such a pitiful source, but he makes things worse by what he goes on to say:

How many know that Luther wrote the following to Pope Leo X a year after posting his 95 Thesis? Luther wrote, “I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity. . . . That the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted. . . . Though nowadays everything is in a wretched state, it is no ground for separating from the Church. On the contrary, the worse things are going, the more should we hold close to her, for it is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better. . . . There is no sin, no amount of evil, which should be permitted to dissolve the bond of charity or break the bond of unity of the body.”

Steve Ray found this quote so interesting he went on to cite it in his books Crossing the Tiber and Upon This Rock. In both instances he cites The Facts About Luther as the source and also mentions the quote comes from Luther's letter to Pope Leo X, January 6, 1519.

I debunked this reference back in 2008: Luther's Imaginary Letter to Pope Leo X, January 6, 1519. The quote is not at all from any such letter (even if it were from Luther's January 6, 1519 letter, that letter was never sent). Father O'Hare used two quotes from two different sources, neither of which were any sort of letter to Pope Leo X (the details are here). As bad as that is, Mr. Ray mis-cited O'Hare as well. O'Hare first quotes Luther saying "I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity", and then mentions the alleged letter.

To help all who are anxious to come to a knowledge of the truth as it is in Christ Jesus and His Church, it may be well to recall that Luther before he formally separated himself from obedience to Rome and when he seemed to abhor such a course, declared "I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity." In a letter written by him in 1519 to the then reigning Pontiff Leo X. and quoted in the History of the Reformation by that partisan Merle D'Aubigne, he says, "That the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted. St. Peter and St. Paul, forty-six popes, some hundreds of thousands of martyrs, have laid down their lives in its communion, having overcome hell and the world; so that the eyes of God rest on the Roman Church with special favor. Though nowadays everything is in a wretched state, it is no ground for separating from the Church. On the contrary, the worse things are going, the more should we hold close to her, for it is not by separating from the Church we can make her better. ,We must not separate from God on account of any work of the devil, nor cease to have fellowship with the children of God who are still abiding in the pale of Rome on account of the multitude of the ungodly. There is no sin, no amount of evil, which should be permitted to dissolve the bond of charity or break the bond of unity of the body. For love can do all things and nothing is difficult to those who are united." (See De Wette, I, 233 ff.) [source].

O'Hare was not one for primary sources. In this instance, he says the alleged letter to Pope Leo can be found "quoted in the History of the Reformation by that partisan Merle D'Aubigne." That can be found here (see page 241). D'Aubigne does not say the statement is from a letter to the Pope. O'Hare mis-cited D'Aubigne.

Above in black bold face I highlighted one particular sentence from O'Hare's citation of Luther: "I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity." O'Hare doesn't document this sentence, so if one isn't careful, one may simply assume it's from the same source O'Hare goes on to quote. It is not. It is probably from Luther's debate with John Eck. Elsewhere D'Aubigne cites Luther stating, “I do not like and I never shall like a schism. Since on their own authority the Bohemians have separated from our unity, they have done wrong, even if the Divine right had pronounced in favor of their doctrines; for the supreme Divine right is charity and oneness of mind” (p. 258). McGiffert translates the same phrase as "Never have I taken pleasure in any schism whatsoever, nor will I to the end of time." I find it highly improbable that Father O'Hare translated this statement from the Latin primary source. O'Hare relied heavily on secondary sources, so eventually the source he used will surface.

As to the content of the quote itself, Steve Ray is ignoring what Boehmer calls "the conventional, curialistic style" and the accepted means of dialog with Rome, as well the politics of the Reformation.

This isn't the first time I've covered Mr. Ray's references to Luther. Probably the oddest thing Ray was doing in regards to Luther was selling Luther's Works on his website, well, until I mentioned it.

To be deep in history for some Roman Catholic apologists isn't really all that deep. I can almost understand somebody with a website posting unverified information, but shouldn't publishing information in a book be held to a higher standard? If Roman Catholic apologists recommend incompetent secondary sources, I'll have no shortage of blogging material.

Addendum
Here's a bit of tedium. The draft letter from Luther to Pope Leo X dates from either January 5 or 6, 1519 (see LW 48:100). There are some sources that date this letter March 3, 1519. For instance, Currie's The Letters of Martin Luther and Henry O'Connor's Luther's Own Statements. This appears to be a possible error these authors picked up from DeWette.

Two Excellent Quotes by C. S. Lewis on the Roman Catholic Church

Some Roman Catholics like to claim C. S. Lewis as their friend. However, these two quotes would seem to destroy whatever other evidence there is that he was sympathetic to the Roman Catholic Church, even though he seemed to have some strange views on some things, like a kind of purgatory.

C. S. Lewis wrote:

“The real reason why I cannot be in communion with you [Catholics] is not my disagreement with this or that Roman doctrine [but see his quote below on some disagreements with several Roman Catholic doctrines], but that to accept your Church means, not to accept a given body of doctrine, but to accept in advance any doctrine your Church hereafter produces. It is like being asked to agree not only to what a man has said but also to what he is going to say.”

“Christian Reunion”, in Christian Reunion and Other Essays, edited by Walter Hooper, London: Collins, 1990, p. 17-18. [My emphasis and comments in brackets.]


“The Roman Church where it differs from this universal tradition and specially from apostolic Christianity I reject. Thus their theology about the Blessed Virgin Mary I reject because it seems utterly foreign to the New Testament; where indeed the words “Blessed is the womb that bore thee” receive a rejoinder pointing in exactly the opposite direction. Their papalism seems equally foreign to the attitude of St. Paul toward St. Peter in the epistles. The doctrine of Transubstantiation insists on defining in a way which the New Testament seems to me not to countenance. In a word, the whole set-up of modern Romanism seems to me to be as much a provincial or local variation from the central, ancient tradition as any particular Protestant sect is. I must therefore reject their claim: though this, of course, does not mean rejecting particular things they say.”

June 16, 1945
Letter of C. S. Lewis to H. Lyman Stebbins, “The Boldness of a Stranger”

Both of these have been quoted here at Beggar's All before, in separate posts. I thought it good to bring both of them together.

Addendum: John Piper did an excellent job of summing up the good in C. S. Lewis, and the not so good. We must use discernment in all things. When Lewis got it right, he was an excellent communicator of Christianity for many people, and much of his work helped me immensely as a young Christian. Piper says that Lewis never explained why he did not become Roman Catholic, however, I think those 2 quotes above explain why. Piper probably did not know about those quotes, as they are hard to find.