The Storm of War and the Battle for Truth

Highlights from Al Mohler’s “Thinking in Public” Podcast.

Audio: This is well worth your listen, and I emailed Al Mohler and I hope it will be reprinted and published widely. (After typos and omissions are corrected in the transcript.)

http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/09/07/the-storm-of-war-and-the-battle-for-truth-a-conversation-with-historian-andrew-roberts/

“The Storm of war and the Battle for Truth” – Al Mohler interviews historian Andrew Roberts.

Andrew Roberts is the author of The Storm of War: A New History of the Second World War. (And other books also, but this one is the focus of this interview.)

Several things about this interview really struck me.

1. The combination of events and issues that led to the rise of Hitler and World War 2. And, especially noteworthy, is the comparison of the economic troubles of right now with the economic troubles of Germany before World War 2.

2. The statement “a feeling of hatred toward capitalism” - by the Germans in between World War I and World War II. (This is a solemn warning to leftists, marxists, socialists, anarchists, liberals, and the Occupy Wall street crowd.)

click on the picture in order to see all the text in it.
Note: I first saw this picture at Triablogue a few days ago. Brilliant!

3. The comparison between Hitler as a charismatic leader vs. Churchill as an inspiration leader, and that Churchill’s speeches are based on the power of argumentation and reason and truth, rather than Hitler’s emotion and oratory manipulation.

(This should be a solemn warning to people to not be fooled by someone who can sway crowds with oratory, like the Word of Faith heretics, etc. and politicians who are all packaging and externals but no substance.) See more on this issue of the greed and manipulation tactics of the Word of Faith heretics at the end of the article.

Kenneth Copeland, one of the worst heretics of the last 50 years.

4. The implications of the reality of our post 9-11-01 world in Islamic Fascism and Islamic terror; and I would add, the desire of many Muslims for the restoration of the Caliphate. The Caliphate was abolished in 1924 by Mustapha Kemal Ataturk, the secular founder of the modern state of Turkey, precisely because he saw that the unity of the religion of Islam with the political and military power was a dangerous thing, and proof of that is that the Ottoman Empire joined Germany in World War I and the Caliphate was in power in Sunni Islam at that time; and also the historical facts of the friendly ties of Hitler with Haj Al Amin Housseini, the Mufti if Jerusalem in their hatred of the Jews, during the time of the Holocaust in Germany and World War 2.

If the Islamic Caliphate is restored, then the moderate Muslims would be forced to stand behind any call for Jihad, for even the modern and moderate Muslims admit that a legitimate Caliph can call for Jihad against the west, etc.

Haj Muhammad Effendi Amin Al Hosseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem from 1921-1937, meeting with Adolf Hitler.

5. That we must know history well in order to fight revisionists from their propaganda, like Christopher Hitchens and others who have trashed Churchill, and like Pat Buchanan, who thinks that World War II was an un-necessary war for America to get involved in and that the Holocaust was not as bad as it is reported to be. Sounds dangerously close to sentiments expressed by Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, the President of Iran, and other Muslims associated with Hamas and Al Qaedah and Hezbollah types.

6. Understanding why most of Europe looks at World World II with a very negative feeling; even given the fact that the Allies won; it is still negative to the European psyche because of the sheer number and percentage of loss and carnage; whereas Americans look on it in a very positive light, the classic story of good winning over evil; and that the Allies did it by coming from behind and being the "underdogs". The contribution of the Soviet Union to the defeat of Hitler must not be underestimated.

7. The theme of knowing the difference between right and wrong, good and evil, and understanding history from a Christian Worldview and truth is very important. A mind saturated and trained in the truth of the Scriptures will help us battle evil.

Here are some excerpts that really struck me. There are some typos in the written transcript, which I have emailed Al Mohler about; the worst is that the transcriber left out the word “not” in the following:

Al Mohler: Well, as we’ve said, you’ve now made the point once again that it did not have to happen this way; that there could have been incredible alternatives. What could have happened between the wars in Germany, in particular to have prevented this? And in other words, what could have prevented the rise of Nazism? Or to the contrary, why did it happen?

Andrew Roberts: Well, of course actually if one is to look at the true reason for the rise of Nazism you have to look here in New York, where I am at the moment, and Wall Street and the great Wall Street crash, and The Great Depression, and the inflation that hit Germany even harder than it hit your country. And that of course was the dynamic by which Hitler, who until 1923 was really only winning about 2.3% of the German popular vote, but by 1932 he was in a position to grant power, which of course he did, when he became Chancellor in January 1933. So it is very deeply concerned with the unemployment problem, and lots of economic factors, which are pretty rarely and properly, given their due. Many people talk about anti-Semitism, quite rightly of course. Many people talk about the Versailles Treaty, but one has to remember that on their own these would not have brought the Fuhrer to power, really also took this after sense of utter desperation, a feeling of hatred towards capitalism and of course also Bolshevikism in Russia, was much more reason, to make ordinary Germans feel that this fanatic Adolf Hitler was their savior.
. . .
“The moral perspective of history is absolutely indispensable.”
. . .

The embolding in the following was not left out, but I am just emphasizing it here:
Mohler makes some very insightful closing comments:

“I am very thankful for the view of leadership that is illustrated by the men Churchill and Hitler considered by Andrew Roberts in one of his previous works, it is really important to understand that distinction between charismatic leadership and inspirational leadership. A charismatic leader who can evince a personality and use all kinds of manipulative means in order to sculpt a public image and a brand or a persona, that could be lead to manipulate millions of people, versus an inspirational leader who does have undeniable rhetorical talents, as did Winston Churchill and an inflexible and indomitable will. But also the force of argument, and I appreciate what Andrew Roberts makes clear and that is it had to be won on the force of argument. Churchill’s point had to be not only more convincing, it had to be true. And it was upon the truth of that understanding of that world, and that understanding of Hitler, and that understanding of right and wrong, that there were those who were willing to fight a war, and to endure all of its carnage and all of its hardship and all of its terrors in order to defeat something that was even worse than the reality of war.
When we look at the study of history it is very important that we understand that it is not merely an academic discipline, though it is a very important academic discipline. It is an essential mechanism for understanding who we are. We have no idea who we are; we have no idea how to understand ourselves without putting ourselves in an historical context. Thus it is a matter of our very important intellectual stewardship as Christians that we intentionally do our very best to frame an historical understanding that is true and that is meaningful through the lenses of the Christian worldview. We look back at history not only as an event, lest we look back at it not only as a chronicle. We look back at it not only for crying out loud like did Henry Ford as one event after another. We look back in order to say, it could’ve been different. It did happen this way. Moral actors are responsible. Individually and collectively, history has its victors and its victims; and sometimes they are the right victors and sometimes they are the wrong victors. And it really does matter, it is very important that history is not just one thing after another, it is a moral test of human beings. It is indeed a diorama of Genesis 3 in fallen humanity. In reading a book like The Storm of War, and I very much hope that you will read it, will for Christians remind us that when we look at history and we consider the present, with the eyes of the gospel, we are to yearn for the kingdom yet to come. Human history underline as does perhaps no other knowledge the reality of the need for redemption.”

Another major typo:
Also, should have been - "It was not until 1941 that Hitler started believing Goebbels", not "stopped believing Goebbels", etc.

"Only in 1941 did he stop [sic] believing Joseph Goebbels, his propaganda minister’s statements that he was the greatest warlord of all time, and all of these victories came as a result of his willpower, as you mentioned."

Roberts actually said "started", not "stopped".

What is that famous phrase that many of us have learned? “Those who don’t learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them”

Note:
By having pictures of Kenneth Copeland and Joel Osteen, I am not equating them with the evils of Hitler, but they have the emotional and oratory trickery of manipulating many people by mixing in some Scripture verses here and there, and promising people wealth and health (if they just give their money to them); and so the only parallel is the skill in manipulating crowds. It is obvious by the large crowds that Copeland, Benny Hinn, Creflo Dollar, Joel Osteen, and other Word of Faith teachers generate, that, 1. these people are desperate and will 'accumulate to themselves teachers according to their own desires" ( 2 Timothy 4:3-4) and 2. These people do not read the Bible verses in their context, paragraphs, chapters, and the specific book that the verse is in in order to understand the author's intended meaning. They don't do good hermeneutics.

This makes these false teachers all the more dangerous for the "regular people" who are struggling in life; the masses and crowds who are desperate for jobs and money and healing.

Luther: "It makes no difference whether you leave your wife, flee from your lord, or are unfaithful to every obligation"

Recently, I was sent this obscure Luther quote:

“God only obliges you to believe and to confess (the faith). In all other things He leaves you free, lord and master to do whatever you will without any danger to your conscience; on the contrary, it is certain that, as far as He is concerned, it makes no difference whether you leave your wife, flee from your lord, or are unfaithful to every obligation. What is it to Him if you do or do not do such things?”  Werke, Weimar ed., XII, pp. 131 ff.;  Franca, p. 446

If you search out this quote you'll come across a few pages of similar content. For instance this web page is entitled: Luther Thought He Was Divine! The quote is one of a handful of out-of-context quotes painting Luther as a gross antinomian. With this quote, the "shock" is the notion "it makes no difference whether you leave your wife, flee from your lord, or are unfaithful to every obligation." The argument is thus: if all that is needed is faith, then it makes no difference how one lives.

Polemical Source
The quote was admittedly taken from a Roman Catholic secondary source: Fr. Leonel Franca, S.J., A Igreja, a Reforma, e a Civilização [The Church, the Reformation, and Civilization] (Rio de Janeiro, 1934). "Fr. Leonel Edgar da Silveira Franca, S.J., one of the founders of the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and its first Rector (1941 -1948)." The quote can be found on page 396 of his book:

I. RIVIUS escreve em 1547: "Se és adúltero ou libertino, dizem os pregadores, crê simplesmente e serás santo. Nem temas a lei, porquanto Cristo a cumpriu e satisfez pelo homem... Semelhantes discursos levam à vida ímpia". 52 Em 1525 JORGE, duque de Saxônia, escrevia ao corifeu reformador: "Quando se viu maior número de adultérios como depois que escreveste: se uma mulher é estéril, una-se a outro e os filhos sejam alimentados pelo primeiro marido. E outro tanto façam os homens?" 53 E como não haveria de ser assim quando se ouvia LUTERO ensinando de 1523: "Deus só te obriga a crer ea confessar. Em todas as outras coisas te deixa livre e senhor de fazer o que quiseres, sem perigo algum de consciência; antes é certo que, de si, ele não se importa, ainda mesmo se deixasses tua mulher, fugisses do teu senhor e não fosses fiel a vínculo algum. E que se lhe dá, se fazes ou deixas de fazer semelhantes coisas?" 54

54. Weimar, XII, 131 ss; Cabe aqui a observação que em 1565 fazia JOANNES JACOBUS na obra sobre a sua conversão: "entre os católicos os pecados atribuem-se às pessoas, entre o luteranos às doutrinas e às pessoas". RÄSS, Die Convertiten seit der Reformation, Freiburg . B., 1866, I. 522.

Primary Source
Whoever pulled this quote from Franca's The Church, the Reformation, and Civilization had to translate it into English, so it's twice removed from the original German or Latin. However, the reference was helpful: "Werke, Weimar ed., XII, pp. 131 ff." Here is WA 12, 131 (I've actually addressed this reference before). However, the "ff" typically may mean the quote spans multiple pages. In this instance though, the quote is found in one section.

WA 12, 131 is a page from Luther's commentary on 1 Corinthians 7. The English translation is found in LW 28 (WA 12, 131 can be found here: LW 28:44-45).

Context
Commenting on 1 Cor. 7:18-19,, Luther holds "everyone should lead the life to which God has called him "(LW 28:40). One can be circumcised or uncircumcised married or single."...[I]f you are a heathen, uncircumcised and outside the Jewish law, you should not think that this is wrong and that you must be circumcised; this is optional. Faith alone justifies you, and it alone fulfills the commandment of God" (LW 28:40-41). "...[N]either Jewish nor heathen birth or customs can of themselves hinder or advance us in God’s sight, but only faith" (LW 28:41).

"In the same way one should also say to our people: Marriage is nothing, and celibacy is also nothing. To have a heathen spouse is nothing, and to have a Christian spouse is also nothing. Those who are married should stay married. Those who are unmarried should not marry—that is, they should not be disturbed in their consciences as to whether they should marry or not. Here is another example. To be a monk is nothing, and to be a layman is also nothing; to be a priest is nothing, and to be a nun is also nothing. The layman should not become a monk, and the monk should not become a layman; all of which is to say that it should not be a matter of necessity or conscience whether one is a monk or a layman. Rather each should remain as he is, provided that faith is pure and unshaken. For where faith cannot be maintained, there the monk should abandon his order just as a married person should leave an unchristian spouse who drives or keeps him away from the Christian faith" [LW 28:41]

Commenting on verse 23 (You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men), Luther then states:

That this is his true meaning is demonstrated in his words: “You were bought with a price.” By this he means Christ, who with His own blood bought us and set us free from all sin and law, as we see in Gal. 5:1. But this purchase does not work itself out according to the way of the world and does not affect the relations men have with one another, such as that of a servant toward his master or that of a wife toward her husband. These relationships are all left intact, and God wants them maintained. The effect of this purchase is spiritual and takes place in our conscience. Therefore before God no law any longer binds or imprisons us. We are all free from all things. Before we were bound in sin, but now we are rid of all sin. Whatever outwardly remains of relationship or freedom is neither sin nor virtue but only outward tranquillity or trouble, joy or suffering, as is all other bodily good and ill, in both of which we can live free and without sin [LW 28:44-45].

The obscure quote the follows in Luther's Comment on 1 Corinthians 7:24 (So, brethren, in whatever state each was called, there let him remain with God). Luther states:

Here Paul repeats this conclusion concerning Christian freedom for the third time: that all outward things are optional or free before God and that a Christian may make use of them as he will; he may accept them or let them go. But here the apostle adds the words “with God.” This means, to the extent that it is of importance between you and God. For you are doing no service for God if you marry, remain unmarried, whether you are in bondage or free, become this or that, eat this or that; on the other hand, you do not displease Him or sin if you put off or reject one or the other. Finally, you owe God nothing but to believe and confess; He releases you from all other things so that you can do as you please without endangering your conscience. This is so thoroughly true that He does not inquire on His own behalf whether you have let your wife go, have run away from your master, or have not kept your agreement, for what does He profit whether you do these things or don’t do them? [LW 28:45]

Now before one thinks Luther is teaching blatant antinomianism, he then immediately states:

But because in this relationship you are bound up with your neighbor and have become his servant, it is God’s will that no one be deprived of what is his by means of His freedom but rather that those things of your neighbor be protected. For although God pays no attention to these things on His own account, He pays attention to them on account of your neighbor. This is what he means with the words “with God,” as though He were admonishing us: “I did not make you free among men or with your neighbor, for I do not wish that which is his taken from him until he gives you permission. But you are entirely free with Me and cannot ruin yourself in My sight by keeping to or refraining from outward things.” Therefore notice this and differentiate between the freedom existing in your relation to God and the freedom existing in your relation to your neighbor. In the former this freedom is present, in the latter it is not, and for this reason: God gives you this freedom only in the things that are yours, not in what is your neighbor’s. There differentiate between what is yours and what is your neighbors. That is why no man can leave his wife, for his body is not his own but his wife’s, and vice versa. Likewise the servant and his body do not belong to him himself but to his master. It would be of no importance to God if the husband were to leave his wife, for the body is not bound to God but made free by Him for all outward things and is only God’s by virtue of inward faith. But among men these promises are to be kept. In sum: We owe nobody anything but to love (Rom. 13:8) and to serve our neighbor through love. Where love is present, there it is accomplished that no eating, drinking, clothing, or living in a particular way endangers the conscience or is a sin before God, except when it is detrimental to one’s neighbor. In such things one cannot sin against God but only against one’s neighbor.
And it should be emphasized that this little word “call” does not in this context mean the social status to which one is called, as when one says, “Your status is ‘married,’ ” or, “His status is ‘priest,’ ” and so on, as everyone has his calling from God. Here St. Paul is not speaking of this calling. He speaks instead of the evangelical call, which is as much as to say: “Remain in that calling to which you were called, that is, where you receive the Gospel; and remain as you were when you were called. If the call comes to you in the married state, then remain in that wherein you were found. If you are called in slavery, then remain in the slavery in which you were called.”
But what if the Gospel calls me in a state of sin, should I remain in that? Answer: If you have entered into faith and love, that is, if you are in the call of the Gospel, then sin as much as you please. But how can you sin if you have faith and love? Since God is satisfied with your faith and your neighbor with your love, it is impossible that you should be called and still remain in a state of sin. If, however, you remain in that state, then either you were not called as yet, or you did not comprehend the call. For this call brings you from the state of sin to a state of virtue, making you unable to sin as long as you are in that state. All things are free to you with God through faith; but with men you are the servant of everyman through love.
From this you will see that monasticizing and making of spiritual regulations is all wrong in our time. For these people bind themselves before God to outward things from which God has made them free, thus working against the freedom of faith and God’s order. On the other hand, where these people should be bound, namely, in their relations with other men and in serving everyman in love, there they make themselves free, serving no one and being of no use to anyone but themselves, thus working against love. Therefore they are a perverse people, perverting all the laws of God. They want to be free where they are bound and bound where they are free, and yet they hope to be seated much higher in heaven than ordinary Christian people. But they who make such a hellish prison out of heavenly freedom and such a hostile freedom out of loving service shall sit in the deepest hell [LW 28:45-47].

Finger of God: How to Respond?

Ken's recent blog entry has prompted me to post a video series that a good Pentecostal friend recently attempted to indoctrinate me with: Finger of God. My friend was quite smitten by the entire thing. After we watched most of it, we had a lengthy (and at times intense) discussion. In my opinion, it is a detailed theology of glory.

I post this for my Reformed brothers and sisters. Watch a little of it, and let me know in a paragraph what you think the basic flaw is.





This is part one. The rest can be found here:

Part Two

Part Three

Part Four

Part Five

Part Six

Part Seven

Part Eight

Part Nine

Part Ten

The Disturbing Greed of the Health and Wealth Heresy

Todd Friel of Wretched TV and Radio is right, this is probably one of the most disturbing things yet from the heretical and greedy Health and Wealth Teachers,(also known as "The Word of Faith Movement", the "Prosperity Gospel", "Name it Claim it' or "positive confession" teaching) In this video, false teachers Leroy Thompson and Creflo Dollar walk and run over the money that people put on the altar and think they can anoint the money with their feet! This video does not show how Leroy Thompson manipulated the people into giving and putting the money on the steps - I saw it months ago, but that video has been removed from You Tube. It seems they are embarrassed by it. It showed Leroy Thompson leading the audience in a claiming exercise by saying (shouting) several times that "money is coming to me" and pulling their greedy hands and arms into themselves, (how selfish! James 4:3-4 condemns this) - by giving to the heretics' "ministry", or tithing to this so called "church", these preachers manipulate people to give by promising them that God will give them 100 fold in return. Later, when it doesn't happen, and people question them, they say, "you don't' have enough faith". They learned the false teaching and manipulation tactics from other false teachers like Kenneth Copeland, the late Kenneth Hagin, and the late Oral Roberts. Other false teachers in this movement are Benny Hinn, Paula White, Joyce Meyer, Joel Osteen, Jesse Duplantis, Eddie Long, T. D. Jakes, Paul and Jan Crouch of TBN, and many others.

Not only was that the goofiest, weirdest, nuttiest thing I have ever seen; it just oozes with greed and pride, which is part of what 2 Peter warns about in chapter 2.

"But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep." (2 Peter 2:1-3 NASB)


". . . Daring, self-willed, they do not tremble when they revile angelic majesties, whereas angels who are greater in might and power do not bring a reviling judgment against them before the Lord. But these, like unreasoning animals, born as creatures of instinct to be captured and killed, reviling where they have no knowledge, will in the destruction of those creatures also be destroyed, suffering wrong as the wages of doing wrong. They count it a pleasure to revel in the daytime. They are stains and blemishes, reveling in their deceptions, as they carouse with you, having eyes full of adultery that never cease from sin, enticing unstable souls, having a heart trained in greed, accursed children; forsaking the right way, they have gone astray, having followed the way of Balaam, the son of Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; but he received a rebuke for his own transgression, for a mute donkey, speaking with a voice of a man, restrained the madness of the prophet." (2 Peter 2:10-16)

New Volume of Luther's Works: Volume 60 (Prefaces II / 1532 - 1545)

Each year Concordia Publishing releases a new volume of Luther's writings in English. The next volume will be Volume 60 (Prefaces II / 1532 - 1545). It's due out December 1. Information on ordering can be found here.

On Concordia's main page, there isn't any advertisement yet on this upcoming book (at least none that I could find!). Nor is this new volume featured prominently on their Luther page (yet). As a subscriber, I'm set up for automatic delivery which saves 30% off the price.

However, they do offer a lengthy pdf sample from this new volume that I came across quite by accident.

About this Volume:
This volume contains Luther’s prefaces to the works of others from 1532 to 1545. Amid the outpouring of print in the wake of the Reformation, Luther—especially in the prefaces to his own works—sometimes expressed the wish that his own books might disappear and give place to the Bible alone. In his prefaces to the works of others, however, Luther developed the opposite rhetorical strategy, hailing their books as faithful guides to the Scriptures or as edifices that, because of their confession of Christ, would “surely stand secure on the Rock upon which they are built.” Although he complained of the many “useless, harmful books” with which the Gospel’s opponents flooded the world, the multiplication of “good books” in print—of which there could never be too many—was a sign of God’s present blessing on the church in restoring the light of the Gospel, and Luther was pleased to encourage the works of faithful colleagues and friends. Many of the works for which he wrote prefaces he declared superior to his own for their insights, style, and more refined approach. Luther was grateful for help in the shared work of Evangelical literary production in all its genres, in constructive work as well as in polemics, and his prefaces give a broad survey of the Reformation’s literature.

Luther Thought he was Divine?

Recently, I was sent this obscure Luther quote:

"Does this Luther not appear to you to be eccentric? As far as I am concerned, I think he is God. Otherwise, how could his writings or his name have the power to transform beggars into lords, asses into doctors (of learning), falsifiers into saints, slime into pearls!” Werke, Ed. Wittenberg, 1551, IV, pp. 378; Franca, p. 190

If you search out this quote you'll come across a few pages of similar content. For instance this web page is entitled: Luther Thought He Was Divine! After providing a handful of out-of-context quotes painting Luther as a gross antinomian, this web page states,

All these insanities explain how Luther reached the frenzy of satanic pride, saying of himself: “Does this Luther seem to you an extravagant man? As for me, I think that he is God. Otherwise, how could his writings or his name have the power to transform beggars into lords, asses into doctors, swindlers into saints, and slime into pearls?” (Ed. Wittenberg, 1551, vol. 4, p. 378, in ibid., p. 190).

Polemical Source
The quote was admittedly taken from a Roman Catholic secondary source: Fr. Leonel Franca, S.J., A Igreja, a Reforma, e a Civilização [The Church, the Reformation, and Civilization] (Rio de Janeiro, 1934). "Fr. Leonel Edgar da Silveira Franca, S.J., one of the founders of the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and its first Rector (1941 -1948)." The quote can be found on page 180 of his book:

Este LUTERO não vos parece uma homem extravagante? Quanto a mim, penso que ele é Deus. Senão, como teriam os seus escritos eo seu nome a potência de transformar mendigos em senhores, asnos em doutores, falsários em santos, lodo em perolas!" Orgia do orgulho satânico ou caso de patologia mental? (Ed Wittemb.1551, t. IV, p. 378)

Primary Source
A quote like this presents a few difficulties. First whoever pulled it from Franca's The Church, the Reformation, and Civilization had to translate it into English, so it's twice removed from the original German or Latin. Second, the reference given is to the earliest collected edition of Luther's Works: The Wittenberg Edition. Third, if you search out some of the key phrases from the quote, you'll quickly discover that it is truly an obscure quote. It took me quite a while to figure out where it came from.

The first helpful clue came from Audin's History of the Life, Writings, and Doctrines of Luther, Volume 2. On page 331, Audin mentions (Roman Catholic) John Faber's work against Luther, and Luther's reaction:

Faber's work had caused amusement. But Luther was angry. "I shall not reply," he said, "either to Cochlaeus or Faber: there is not an ass that does not obtain the degree of doctor as soon as he attacks Luther. Luther is a god who makes beggars lords, asses doctors, scoundrels saints, and changes dirt into precious stones: it was I who raised Adrian to the tiara, and you shall see that I will make Faber a cardinal." 

Audin provides the following documentation: "Adversus iteratum Edictum Episcopi Misnensis pro Communione sub una Specie: a pamphlet which Sockendorf calls 'vehemens et aculeatum.' " This roughly translates to Against the bishop of Meissen repeated edict for Communion under one species.

The second clue came from W.H.T. Dau's Luther Examined and Reexamined. On page 239 - 240 Dau states:

Luther was aware that he was probably the worst-hated man of his times. He declares his belief that in the last hundred years there has not lived a man to whom the world was more hostile than to himself. (22,1660.) Persons praising him, he says, are regarded as having committed a more grievous sin than any idolater, blasphemer, perjurer, fornicator, adulterer, murderer, or thief. (9, 553.) Anything that Luther has said, he observes, is denounced as corning from the devil; what Duke George (one of his fiercest enemies), Faber, or Bucer say or do is highly approved. (4, 1606.) Like Elijah, he was charged with having disturbed Israel: before he began preaching there was peace and quiet, now all is confusion. (9, 587.) He is held responsible for the Peasants' Revolt and the rise of the Sacramentarian sects. (22, 1602.) A laborer whom his wife had hired became drunk and committed murder; at once the rumor was spread that Luther kept a murderer as his servant. (21 b, 2225.) What he writes is represented as having been inspired by envy, pride, bitterness, yea, by Satan himself; those, however, who write against him are regarded as being inspired by the Holy Ghost. (18, 2005.) He observes that beggars become rich, obtain favors from princes and kings, remunerative positions, honors, and bishoprics by turning against him. (18, 2005.) Some attribute the election of Adrian VI as Pope to Luther (this Pope was believed to favor reforms: he did not last long); and Luther expects that he is helping Dr. Schmid to become a cardinal because he is opposing him. (19, 1347.) Dunces become doctors, knaves become saints, and the most besotted characters are glorified when they try their vile mouths and pens against Luther. (19, 1347.) The easiest way for any man to become a canonized saint even during his lifetime, though he were a person of the stripe of a Nero or Caligula, is by hating Luther. (18, 2005.)

The references are to the old St. Louis edition of Luther's works. The relevant citation is 19,1347, which can be found here. This page is part of the treatise Bericht an einen guten Freund , von beider Gestalt des Sacraments, auf Bischofs zu Meissen Mandat. 1528. This appears to be the German version of the same Latin treatise Audin quoted. It roughly translates to Advice to a Dear Friend on Both Forms of the Sacrament in reply to the Mandate of the Bishop of Meissen, 1528 (found in WA 36:560, Erl. 30:373, but not found in LW).

Context
In this treatise Luther argued against an edict from the bishop of Meissen  that reaffirmed the Roman church's distribution of the sacrament in only the form of bread to the laity. The obscure quote in question comes early in the treatise.




Conclusion
As Dau and Audin infer above, the quote isn't a claim to divinity, but is rather a sarcastic comment. Luther saw that those who opposed him sometimes gained from such an endeavour: "The easiest way for any man to become a canonized saint even during his lifetime, though he were a person of the stripe of a Nero or Caligula, is by hating Luther."

This wasn't an isolated statement from Luther either. A few years later he made a similar comment:

Before my time, it required a great to-do, and an enormous expense, to canonize a dead monk. But now, there is no easier way for canonizing even living Neroes and Caligulas, than the declaration of hatred against Luther. Only let a man hate and bravely curse Luther, and that, immediately, makes him a saint, equal almost to our holy Lord, the servant of the servants of God. But who could ever believe that hatred against Luther would be attended with so much power and advantage? It fills the coffers of very beggars; nay, it introduces obscure moles and bats to the favour of princes and of kings; it procures prebendaries and dignities; it procures bishoprics; it procures the reputation of wisdom and of learning to the most consummate asses; it procures to petty teachers of grammar, the authority of writing books; nay, it procures the crown of victory and of glory, eternal in the heavens! Nay, happy are all who hate Luther, for they obtain, by that one vile and easy service, those great and mighty things, which none of the most excellent of men could ever obtain with all their wisdom and their virtues; no, not even Christ himself, with all his own miracles, and the miracles of his apostles and all his saints!

The source of this other quote can be found here. It's from a letter found at the end of an old English translation of The Bondage of the Will (To Amsdorf March 11, 1534 WA Br 7:27-40, no. 2093). I mention this because it appears this is the only English translation of this lengthy letter that Luther wrote about Erasmus. It's very interesting Reformation reading.

Answers to Questions about Codex Sinaiticus and Mark 1:1

Paul Williams, a British convert to Islam, has critiqued Nabeel Qureshi's video lecture defending the Deity of Christ. "Is Jesus God? 02 The Synoptic Picture"
Paul Williams critique of Nabeel's video.

The photo above of Codex Sinaiticus of Mark 1:1, is from an article by Trevor J. Major, who has also written a good article defending Mark 1:1 against Bart Ehrman's attacks. You can see the smaller υυθυ that was added in by the first corrector of the ancient manuscript. υυ = υιου (Son) and θυ = θεου (God), "Son of God".

I am only focusing on the issue of the textual variant at Mark 1:1 here in this article. There is much more to respond to about Paul William's critique. Lord willing, I will write more later on other points he has tried to make.

I responded to his first point about Mark 1:1 in Codex Sinaiticus and that the copyist accidentally left out "the Son of God". According to the photo image above of the Codex Sinaiticus of Mark 1:1, it shows that the first corrector of the manuscript corrected the mistake and added "Son of God" back in. see more below.

I have added a few more comments/details in my article here to my original comment at Paul's blog.

Christians admit that Codex Sinaiticus, at first, in Mark 1:1, did not contain “the Son of God” ( υιου θεου ). But it appears that another copyist corrected this mistake. Christians are honest and open about our textual variants. Are most Muslims even aware of the textual variants in the history of the text of the Qur'an?

It appears that the first corrector of the manuscript inserted it back in, because he realized the earlier copyist made a mistake. Do you know why he made that mistake? Because of the similar endings of ou of several words in a row and the issue of writing the nomina sacra (the sacred name) the way they did in abbreviated form with a line over the top of it. They abbreviated the sacred names with first and last letters with a line over it. Since Evangeliou – ευαγγελιου (Gospel) also ended in ou, the copyist made an eye mistake of thinking he wrote it all down. Someone later came back and corrected it, according to Philip Comfort, “before it left the Scriptorium.” ( p. 92, The New Testament Text and Translation Commentary.) The copyist wrote in capital Greek letters (Uncials) and they were all crammed together with no spaces between them. I have been greatly blessed and encouraged by purchasing Philip Comfort's book and the NET Greek Novum Testamentum (Greek-English Diglot; NA 27) at www.aomin.org.
__________
Ιυχυυυθυ

Ιυ = Ιησου = Jesus
Xu = χριστου = Christou / Christ
(originally, I had typed Xρυ, but I see that now that the abbreviation for Christ is just Xυ with a line over it)
UU = υιου = Son
Θυ = θεου = God


However, the teaching that Jesus is the Son of God is all through the Gospel according to Mark:

Mark 1:11 - the voice that came out of heaven is obviously meant to be the Father, and the Father says, "You are My Beloved Son, in You I am well pleased."

Mark 1:24 - the demons know that Jesus is the Son of God - "the Holy One of God" - 'ο 'αγιος του θεου - similar teaching in Luke 1:34-35 - "therefore, the holy offspring shall be called the Son of God."

Mark 3:11 - the demons declare that Jesus is the Son of God.

Mark 5:7 - demons again declare that Jesus is the Son of the Most High God.

Mark 9:7 - the Father's voice again comes from heaven, from the cloud that descended from heaven that formed around Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration - "This is My beloved Son, listen to Him."

Mark 14:61-64 - this one is especially strong, for it shows that the Jews believed that the Messiah would be "the Son of the Blessed One", i.e., the Son of God, and they crucified Jesus because they thought He committed blasphemy, which agrees with John 19:1-7.

Mark 15:39 - The Roman Centurion confesses that Jesus is the Son of God.

Paul, so, it is more likely that originally it had the “Son of God” in verse 1, based on this evidence. So, your point one is very weak. Mark, the author of this gospel, who wrote for Peter, the apostolic eye-witness, shows he intended his entire gospel to be a proclamation that Jesus is the Son of God, agreeing with the other canonical gospels. Muslims try to attack the gospel of Mark, but it stands up to the attacks. Liberals and skeptics like Bart Ehrman try to attack it, but it stands up to the attacks. So, there was no evolutionary development of the doctrine of who Jesus was, supposedly started out as only a prophet and evolving into the eternal Son of God, as Shabir Ally claimed in his debates with Dr. White. No; Mark presents Jesus as the eternal Son of God, agreeing with John and Matthew and Luke. Jesus is the Word of God, the Kalimat'allah. کلمه الله - the way John 1:1 and 1:14 is translated into Arabic and Farsi کلمه خدا (Kalame ye Khoda). The Qur'an calls Jesus "the Word of God" in Surah 4:171, but denies that it means Deity. It is sad that Muhammad seems to have heard about the truth that Jesus is the Word of God, but couldn't read it for himself, and Muslims have changed the original meaning of it to mean "only a prophet"; that Jesus was the result of God's spoken word "be" in the womb of Mary.

The Word of the Lord abides forever (Isaiah 40:8) and is living and active and sharper than any double-edged sword and is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the human heart. (Hebrews 4:12)

Dr. White also has a good article on Mark 1:1 and Islamic Apologetics here.

Also, Trevor Major points about that Irenaeus has Mark 1:1 with "the Son of God" and Irenaeus wrote around 180-200 AD, long before the Council of Nicea and the dating of Codex Sinaiticus, around 325 AD. Against Heresies, Book 3, chapter 16, paragraph 3.

Furthermore, Codex Vaticanus, dated from around the same time as Codex Sinaiticus, does have "the Son of God" at Mark 1:1.

Addendum:
Dr. White's lecture on Reliability of the NT Text.

His material and his book, The KJV Only Controversy and Dan Wallace's material and the books I ordered from aomin have been all together very helpful and enabled me to even attempt to write this article.

Luther: I am now more negligent than I was under the Pope

Recently, I was asked about this obscure Luther quote:

"I confess... and many others could undoubtedly make an equal confession, that I am now more negligent than I was under the Pope: and there is now nowhere such an amount of earnestness under the Gospel, as was formerly seen among monks and priests" (Walch, IX.1311).

This quote is used by Roman Catholics in a variety of ways. First, it sometimes serves as proof Luther admitted his personal life was characterized by sin, or that once he was freed from Rome, his moral and spiritual life became worse (see below). Second, it's sometimes used as proof that the doctrine of justification by faith alone does not produce good works, and Luther here admitted it. This blog entry uses the quote as an answer to this statement: "...if Sola Fide is correct, the Catholic Church falls, but if it is not right, then Protestantism crumbles. We will start by reading what Luther had to say about himself after leaving the Catholic Church." Another blogger uses the quote as proof Luther had "regrets as to the relative failure of the 'Reformation' " and "the lower state of general morality." Martin Luther regretted the Reformation? No, he didn't.

Documentation
If you search around on the Internet for this quote, you'll probably not find any of Rome's current defenders producing a primary context. What you'll typically find is the reference "Walch IX 1311." I doubt any of Rome's current defenders actually possess or have read this old source. Most of them couldn't tell you if this statement was from a treatise, letter, sermon, or a Table Talk recording. Their "deep into history" triumphalism is often abandoned when Luther is the subject. Where did Luther say it? What's the context?  These basic questions should be asked by anyone thinking of using this quote. My best guess is this quote was popularized by Father Patrick O'Hare's The Facts About Luther. On page 131 (page 125, 1987 Tan version reprint) O'Hare stares:

The new Gospel did not even make Luther himself better. He said: "I confess . . . that I am more negligent than I was under the Pope and there is now nowhere such an amount of earnestness under the Gospel, as was formerly seen among monks and priests." (Walch, IX. 1311.)

A similar interpretation and citation can also be found in Henry O'Connor's Luther's Own Statements. It appears Father O'Hare may have plagiarized O'Connor (it is a source he used). On page 56 O'Connor states exactly,

The new Gospel did not even make Luther himself better. He writes: "I confess that I am much more negligent, than I was under the Pope, and there is now nowhere such an amount of earnestness under the Gospel, as was formerly seen among Monks and Priests." (Walch IX.1311)

A similar version of the same quote was used by Hartmann Grisar in the third volume of his massive biography of Luther. On page 206, Grisar states:

"I confess of myself," he says in a sermon in 1532, "and doubtless others must admit the same [of themselves], that I lack the diligence and earnestness of which really I ought to have much more than formerly; that I am much more careless than I was under the Papacy; and that now, under the Evangel, there is nowhere the same zeal to be found as before." This he declares to be due to the devil and to people's carelessness, but not to his teaching. (Werke, Erl. ed., 18 2 , p. 353).

O'Hare and O'Connor cite "Walch, IX. 1311." "Walch" refers to a set of Luther's works published 1740-1753 by Johann Georg Walch. The set was revised from 1885-1910 (in St. Louis), and may not match up with the earlier set. It appears O'Connor used the 18th Century edition. Here is volume IX, 1311 from the old set.  Grisar refers to "Werke, Erl. ed., 18 2 , p. 353." This volume is also available. Page 353 can be found here. The writing in question is a lengthy sermon on 1 john 4 16-21. It can be found in WA 36:416 - 477, with the quote being found on page 469.  The text reads:

The document this paragraph comes from is a lengthy sermon from Luther's Kirchen-Postille (Church Postil).  This sermon has only recently become available in English (LW 78:365-405). The quote can be found at LW 78:399.


Context: Overview of Luther's Sermon
A cogent and concise overview of this sermon by a leading Luther scholar is available.  Paul Althaus devoted a few pages to it in The Theology of Martin Luther (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966). The context has nothing to do with Luther admitting the failure of the Reformation or admitting how sinful his life was. Rather, the sermon is on love: the love God and the love of neighbor. Before tackling the quote, here is part of the overview from Althaus (pp. 450-455):

In 1532, five years later, Luther again interprets I John 4:17 in a series of sermons on I John 4:16 This later interpretation is quite different from that of 1527. It also differs from his interpretation of the corresponding passage, I John 3:19. He now recognizes that perfect love includes the love which Christians have. This corresponds to his exegesis of I John 3:19f. in the lectures. However, the confidence or joy which love gives is no longer understood in terms of man's relationship to God. Luther rather distinguishes a twofold joy (or "courage" or "boast") and correspondingly a twofold fear which is overcome by the Christian's joyfulness. This victory results in a corresponding increase in joy. On the one hand, the Christian on the day of judgment stands before God the Lord as his judge and must fear his wrath. This is the "fear which falls down from above."

Before God, every man is lost because he is guilty when judged by the high standards of God's commandments. "I am a sinner in your sight"' On the other hand, however, when death and the day of judgment come—yes, even before this, in life itself--Satan, death, the world, and the neighbor against whom I have become guilty, so very guilty, rise up to accuse me. They accuse me of lacking good works and transgressing God's commandments. And this, too, I must fear. This is the fear which comes from below, that is, from the world.

The first fear, the "basic fear before God," cannot be overcome in any other way; and my joyfulness and my confidence before God cannot be established in any other way than with Christ and with God's work of salvation in him, that is, by faith in Christ. The fear which we feel toward God because of our sins "is conquered only through faith." Faith works the "most important joyfulness," and our "chief glory." The fear which "falls down from above" cannot be overcome "except through baptism and the gospel. This gives great courage that we cannot find in ourselves but only in Christ."

But the fear which I feel because Satan, death, the world, and my neighbor accuse me, must be overcome in another way. And my joyfulness in the face of it must have another foundation. This is given by good works and love. Before God we always have a bad conscience. But in relationship to demonic powers and to men we should, like Paul (I Cor. 4:4; II Cor. 1:12; II Tim. 4:7), have a good conscience because of the manifest love for our neighbor toward whom we in our calling have fulfilled the Ten Commandments. This love is definitely not perfect before God. And the Apostle John does not intend to say that when he says that love is perfect. Love is perfect when it has content and is not a mere empty husk, not false, and not "only a rattling of our teeth" with "nothing behind it." In view of Paul's statement, Luther asserts that it is possible for a Christian to have love that is perfect in this sense, that is, it is possible that the Christian has fulfilled his obligation to his neighbor. Thus "through firmly grasping right works" love silences the accusations of the others and no longer needs to fear. I can fully and faithfully fulfill my calling in an orderly fashion; and in every case that is a service of love. Luther personally asserts that he has fulfilled the office of the ministry in this way. For this reason the glorying and courage of a good conscience does have a place.

Under no circumstances, however, does it mean adequacy before God. The Christian standing before God and under God's observation may, in opposition to accusations made by demonic powers and men, well boast that he has faithfully fulfilled his calling in love, but he may never do this in order to establish his relationship to God" For no man can stand under the commandments as God himself interprets them. Luther thus sharply distinguishes a twofold oughtness in God's commandments: on the one hand, that which God expects of me and, on the other hand, that which my neighbor and the world can expect of me. God the Lord demands more than my neighbor and the world can demand. There is all the difference in the world between having to answer to God and to my neighbors and the men and the powers who accuse me. "I will not come to terms with God in any other way than through Christ" "I must speak differently with God," that is, than with men and powers. I can only speak to God in such a way that I point to Christ and hold fast to him.

Thus I can insist that I have acted in love only when I speak with men and demonic powers but never when I speak with God. I neither can nor may think that I have been saved by acting in love or have created my own salvation. Luther never tires of emphasizing this. Two completely different dimensions are involved. And Luther says that his opponents are constantly confusing the two. That fear which produced Psalm 6 ("Rebuke me not in thy anger, nor chasten me in thy wrath") is cast out not by our love but only by Christ and by faith in him."

On the other side, however, living and working in love and the joy which it gives on the day of judgment is of great significance for the Christian when he confronts his accusers—even though it does not establish his salvation. To have to appear on that day without works of love would mean to be afraid and, according to I John 4:18, fear has to do with punishment. For the accusations of men and of other authorities do strike our conscience. "Whoever is terrified feels great agony for the conscience is the greatest cross on earth." If we have no works, our heart becomes fearful and trembles under the accusations of Satan and of men. "It pains a man to have to admit: 'I have not done right. I have despised authority and have not honored my teacher and my spouse." "That hurts" is Luther's translation of John's "fear has to do with punishment" (RSV). And this is in addition to the fear of God's wrath which every man must have. How can a man get rid of this double burden? "If you want to take the sting out of what your neighbor and the devil say and out of God's wrath you have a doubly difficult task. Yes, dear fellow, it is more than you can do." Luther can say, "I must also bring that glory [which comes from works of love] with me or God will not treat me in a friendly way.""He can also say that it "damages" faith to have no work. It must be exercised "and kept moving." "It is difficult for a Christian to believe in the hour of death if he has no experience or signs of faith. "It is difficult to hang only on the mere grace of God." This is how far Luther goes in urging that faith be exercised in love and its works. Faith is in trouble when it has not been tested in life and when it lacks the "signs" which such testing produces.

This may be also put positively. Entering into judgment with works of love does not bring anyone salvation. Salvation comes only from God's forgiving grace. These works of love are, however, the "crown" of which the Apostle Paul speaks in II Timothy 4:8, "Henceforth, there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that Day." Although the Christian is and remains a sinner before God, God will give the crown to him because he has tirelessly continued to serve the world in spite of its unthankfulness. Luther thus distinguishes between blessedness and salvation on the one hand and the crown or the praise, the honor, the glory on the other.

This glorying in view of one's works of love is admittedly a very minor sort of glory when it is compared with faith's glorying for the sake of Christ. The confidence which it brings is of a lower grade and yet we must have it so that the world cannot accuse us before God.

On the other hand that is not yet the final word. Luther's pastoral theology must also speak a word to those who, because of their lack of works, are so terrified by the accusations of men and of the authorities that they completely collapse in despair. God does not want that to happen. The fear which arises from a lack of love in our lives admittedly causes agony. But Luther constantly emphasizes that the Christian still should not collapse in despair. For God has commanded us to believe and to be joyful in him. "Faith and not fear should be in control"; even though, as we have already heard, faith is "weakened" when it is not tested in love and through sins against the commandments. But Luther's reference does not imply that a man will be damned because of such weakness. Whoever does not have works should really not despair; he too can be saved through faith in God's grace. Luther in his lectures on I John 3:19 f. in 1527 had said that we should certainly be concerned to have the good conscience that comes from living in love. But even if we have no works or if our works against love accuse us, that is, if we cannot achieve that living love described in vs. 19 which "reassures our heart before God," we are still not left without comfort. Rather, we should remind ourselves that God not only advises but expressly commands us to hope in him. Therefore whatever may happen we should not despair. For the highest commandment, the sum total of the gospel, is that we should in faith grasp the grace which is offered to us; and this makes us worthy before God.

Thus the dialectic of the relationship between faith and love is adequately treated on all sides. We are saved only through faith in that grace offered to us in the gospel and through nothing else. True faith, however, demonstrates itself in love. If it is missing, then it is difficult for faith to be faith and to overcome the accusation of a bad conscience with the joyful certainty of salvation. Yet we cannot tell anyone in such a situation to do anything else than to believe. If you have no works, then do not be without faith.

The Quote in Context

This is what St. Paul meant when he preaches about love."If I speak in the tongues of angels;" and again: :If I had all faith so that I could move mountains, but did not have love, then I would still be nothing," etc. (1 Corinthians 13[:1-2]) If a person goes off securely in the thought that he has faith, and yet never experiences it, he must decay and dry up; his faith will be found nowhere at all when it comes to the point that it should be found.

The dear apostles certainly saw this, and we experience it. The world always either boasts falsely about faith, or wants to be holy without faith. If we preach about faith and grace, no one wants to do works. If we promote works, no one wants faith. Those who keep to the true middle course ave very rare. Indeed, it is even hard for righteous Christians. 

I confess for myself- and without a doubt others must also confess, that I lack the diligence and seriousness, which I should now much more than before; I am much more careless than I was under the papacy. Nowhere is there now the seriousness with the Gospel which we saw previously among the monks and priests, when people established and built so much, and no one was so poor that he would not give something. However, now there is not one city which would support a preacher, and nothing except only robbing and stealing among the people, and no one restrains it. Where does such a shameful affliction come from? They cry out: "From the doctrine they teach, that people should not rely on works!"  However, it is the devil himself who falsely blames this on the pure, saving doctrine; it is the fault of his and people's malice who misuse this doctrine- as well as our old Adam who always wants to follow the forest trail to nowhere- and think that it is unnecessary, even if we do not do many good works and so become unintentionally lazy and negligent and stale, until we completely lose the strength and savor of faith. 

Conclusion
Ripped from its context, one can make a quote say whatever one wants to. Luther's goal in this statement is balance. The entire sermon is an exposition on faith and works, and achieving that balance. Does the quote serve as proof that the doctrine of justification by faith alone was to blame for a lack of works? Luther says no: " ...it is only Satan who can blame such things on pure and salvific doctrine." To place the blame on the doctrine of faith would be to admit works are to be trusted in for salvation. Luther was not admitting his "new Gospel did not even make himself better" (O'Hare and O'Connor). For under the papacy in Luther's day, works were stressed over faith. It was an unbalance. I could just as easily picture an ex-Jehovah's Witness state "When I was under the Watchtower, I excelled in works, now under the Gospel, I struggle to maintain a healthy balance."

Note also what Luther links his admission to in regard to his hearers: donating and building.  Under the papacy, there was a works oriented zeal to give to the church.  Luther's statement is a preaching exhortation to both himself and his hearers- that faith should produce fruit. That fruit though is not salvific, it is done out of heartfelt gratitude to what God has done through Christ.

Addendum #1(2017)
This blog entry is a revision of an entry I posted in 2011. 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.

Addendum #2
In previous version of this entry, some fellow-bloggers provided translations of the sermon. Here are those translations:

Brigitte translated the surrounding context of this quote:

This is what St. Paul meant when he preached about love, 1. Cor. 13 (verse 1): if I speak in tongues of angels; similarly (verse 2): if I had all faith so that I could move mountains, but have not love, so I would be nothing, etc. Because when a person goes along in security with the illusion that he has faith but never experiences it, it must decay and dry up, and nothing is found when it comes to the point in time when some is supposed to be found.

The dear apostles understood this quite well; and we experience it, too. Because the world always remains this way, that it praises itself falsely because of its faith, or otherwise it wants to be seen as quite holy without faith.

But if a person preaches regarding faith and grace, nobody wants to perform works; and if a person urges works, then nobody seeks faith. Those people are quite rare who can hold to the right middle of the road; yes, it becomes difficult even for the pious Christian.

I confess even of myself, and no doubt so will many others also, that I, too, lack the diligence and earnestness, which I should now have in greater measure than before, but rather am more slack than I was under the papacy, and nowadays there hardly is such earnestness under the gospel as one used to see previously under the monks and priests, when there was a great deal of donating and building, and none was so poor, that he did not desire to give something.

But now, no town which can support a preacher, and nothing except robbing and stealing is going on among the people with no one there to stop them.

From where comes such a plague? There are those who scream that it is due to the teaching that one should not build upon and trust in works. But no, it is the pesky devil who blames this condition falsely on the salutary doctrine; also it is our old Adam who wants to always break out to the side onto the wrong path, and believes that it does not matter whether or not we do many good works; and thus we become quickly lazy and careless, persisting in this way until we lose the sap and strength of faith altogether.

Alternate translation (ht: Rhology):

The world invariably offers one of the two following options/aspects: either we boast falsely of a faith that we really don't have, or we pretend to sanctify ourselves without faith. Either way, we lack faith. Whether we preach faith and grace, each one believes that he is doing his own works and we neglect faith. Nothing is stranger, even among people who are truly pious, than those who know how to choose the middle road.

I confess for my own part, and many other people could no doubt say the same, that I am much more negligent than when I was under Papism and that I lack also the discipline and the zeal that, today more than ever, I should have. There is nowhere in the Gospel the ardor and the zeal that one demonstrated once in the priests and monks, whereas everywhere we used to see pious foundations laid at great cost, and no one was so poor as not to desire to contribute for something. There is no town today that does not, instead, demonstrate its ill will when it comes to providing for their pastors' living. Theft and banditry are those things for which we demonstrate zeal. So to what shall we attribute this shameful complaint? "To doctrine", say the shouters, "to the doctrine that teaches us that we must not place our trust in works". But no, it is only Satan who can blame such things on pure and salvific doctrine.

Recent Statement from Harold Camping

Message from Mr. Camping

In this 5 minute mp3 recording, there are not any new dates for the end of the world. The most fascinating comment is an apology from Mr. Camping that back in May he should not have said that those who did not believe May 21 was the rapture date probably had not become saved. "I should not have said that. I apologize."

Reformed Tiber Swimmers

Originally posted on the aomin blog, 07/01/2010

Here's yet another converts tale. A Reformed person swimming the Tiber has made a fallible decision to submit to a self-proclaimed infallible authority. He set out four possible authority options to submit to now that he's decided to leave his Reformed church. The one that appealed to him is the following:

Submit to a form of Christianity that does not subscribe to Sola Scriptura and which has a interpretive authority which can plausibly claim to be led by the Holy Spirit, so as to remove myself as the authority.

The submission to that authority still rests on private judgment, the very thing scorned throughout this conversion story (read it for yourself). Other infallible authorities make claims that their authority rests on plausibility. Who decides which infallible authority is plausible? Why it's none other than our potential convert. Rather than removing himself as the authority, he makes himself his own authority in choosing the correct infallible interpreter. He continues:

This makes the most sense. Catholic and Orthodox ecclesiology takes into account the fact that people will disagree about the content of Divine revelation. Not that disagreement implies errancy or fallibility, but without a magisterium that is supernaturally protected from error, there is no way for me to be sure I am getting the interpretation that is the right one.

It may make sense in theory, but in practice our convert is still left with a Bible to interpret. Neither of these alleged authorities has done a good job in infallibly interpreting the content of divine revelation. A while back I mentioned how Roman Catholic apologist Tim Staples stated "There is a lot of freedom with regard to the interpretation of Scripture." Tim affirmed that even the verses infallibly defined by the Roman Catholic Church "are left open to other interpretations as long as you don't deny that which has been infallibly interpreted." How many verses has Rome defined? Some say only a small handful of verses have an infallible interpretation, others deny the Church has defined the literal sense of any single passage. Roman Catholics aren't even united on a basic issue like the inerrancy of Scripture.

The problem for Roman Catholics is compounded even more, because the church also says that a doctrine can be defined, but the scriptural proofs used to support it utilized by the church's theologians might not actually support it. In other words, one can have certainty for a doctrine, but not have certainty in the scriptural proof texts for that doctrine. The infallibility is in the decree, not in the reasoning to that decree. The Catholic Encyclopedia states, ''the validity of the Divine guarantee is independent of the fallible arguments upon which a definitive decision may be based, and of the possibly unworthy human motives that in cases of strife may appear to have influenced the result. It is the definitive result itself, and it alone, that is guaranteed to be infallible, not the preliminary stages by which it is reached." Note the words of Roman Catholic theologian, Johann Mohler: "Catholic theologians teach with general concurrence, and quite in the spirit of the Church, that even a Scriptural proof in favour of a decree held to be infallible, is not itself infallible, but only the dogma as defined." [Source: Johann Adam Mohler, Symbolism: Exposition of the doctrinal Differences between Catholics and Protestants as evidenced by their Symbolic Writings, trans James Burton Robertson (New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1997), p.296].

As to a "a magisterium that is supernaturally protected from error" our Tiber swimmer needs to answer fundamental questions. Isn't this simply a presuppositional claim? On what basis does one determine a church is infallible? It is merely assumed. All sola ecclesia groups assume their authority. In regards to Romanism, when asked how the Roman Catholic Church can establish her authority, notice it's most often proved by the testimony of the Scriptures. That is, they will rarely admit to simply assuming it. Rather they quote a handful of Biblical proof-texts. This is a circular argument. Roman Catholics prove the authority of the Scriptures by the Church, and the authority of the Church by the Scriptures.

In regard to being sure he's got the right interpretation once he joins Romanism, once again he ignores the simple fact that it's his decision to trust in Romanism. He'll never be able to escape himself and his own fallible decisions. His certainty will always be a fallible certainty because he's fallible. He continues:

If I am able to toss out the 7th ecumenical council (as nearly all Protestants do) because it doesn't match my interpretation, where will the tossing out stop? If church councils themselves are to be judged by a 21st century layman, theologically untrained, and unordained Christian like me, what is the point then of church councils other than to provide some really good advise from some really great men from the history of our faith? If they were not being guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit in these councils, with the expectation that all believers should submit to their decisions, then what use are they other than to help me form my own interpretation to submit to? The ecclesiologies that claim to have living, breathing successors of the apostles which are Divinely gifted with the ability to define doctrine in certain situations are the only ecclesiologies that make sense.

I have nothing against the church meeting in council, but this type of argument assumes more than some of the early councils did. Did they think they were infallible? This is pure anachronism. The Fathers did not profess to be the standard of truth, either in or out of council.

This paradigm also suffers from ignoring the church of the Old Testament. God's people were able to discern God's voice and work, this without an infallible magisterium. They knew which books were Scripture (Romans 3:2) without the aid of any infallible authoritative conciliar declaration. Christ and the apostles held the Jews responsible for knowing and properly interpreting the Scriptures. Never once is it recorded in Scripture that the Jews complained that they didn't have an infallible magisterium. It was assumed by the New Testament writers that God's truth was clear.

As conversion stories go, this one was a typical example of someone who bought the claims of Roman Catholicism without applying the same scrutiny to Romanism. It's one thing to tear down sola scriptura, it's quite another to apply the same scrutiny to Romanism. If one is going to argue against the sole infallible authority of Scripture, they should at least work just as hard to apply the same standards of scrutiny to their new infallible authority. Let's try to point this Reformed Tiber swimmer back to the right shore. I'm fairly confident he'll be reading this, so he can begin with this Primer On Roman Catholic Epistemology. He can follow this up with a positive defense of sola scriptura.

John Calvin: Luther was a Madman and a Beast?

While searching for something else I came across a rather bizarre quote from John Calvin in regard to Martin Luther:

Luther was coarse in some of his modes of expression, especially when irritated at aspersions cast on any of his opinions. The fashion indeed seemed to have prevailed at that time to have recourse to low and vituperative terms to enforce conviction either on the party addressed or the world at large. Calvin thought it not beneath him to address Luther in such terms as these: "Your whole school is nothing but a stinking stye of pigs; dog, do you understand me? Do you understand me, madman? do you understand me, you great beast!" [source]

Initial Source: "The Library" by George Crabbe
If you Google search this quote, you'll get hits from a number of 19th Century books, and even a few from the 18th Century. I found what I think to be the source. This book mentions that the quote comes from "the poet Crabbe." This is probably a reference to George Crabbe (1754-1832). In The Poetical Works of the Rev. George Crabbe comes the following 1781 poem, The Library. In the original version is the following:

Calvin grows gentle in this silent coast,
Nor finds a single heretic to roast;
Here, their fierce rage subdued, and lost their pride,
The Pope and Luther slumber side by side.

 The quote from Calvin about Luther comes in a footnote to the following verse:

Against her foes Religion well defends Her sacred truths, but often fears her friends; If learn'd, their pride, if weak, their zeal she dreads, And their hearts' weakness, who have soundest heads: But most she fears the controversial pen, The holy strife of disputatious men ; (1) Who the blest Gospel's peaceful page explore, Only to fight against its precepts more.

(1) ["Your whole school is nothing but a stinking sty of pigs. Dog! do you understand me? Do you understand me, madman? Do you understand me, you great beast ?" — Calvin to Luther.]

Joachim Westphal as Beast and Madman, Not Luther
I've read quite a number of things on Calvin's view of Luther, and I don't ever recall such a statement. Perhaps the best overview I've ever read was B.A. Gerrish, "John Calvin on Luther" found in Interpreters of Luther, Essays in Honor of Wilhelm Pauck (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968) pp. 67- 96. This article is well worth tracking down. Gerrish presents an excellent overview of Calvin's statements about Luther throughout his career. Overall, Calvin's statements in regard to Luther are positive, this despite the controversies between the Lutherans and the Swiss. If this statement was really made by Calvin about Luther, it's indeed quite odd that Gerrish didn't include it. 

I searched around a bit more, and it appears the quote in question is not directed to Luther at all, but rather Joachim Westphal. Here is one quote from a number of hits to old books that mention Westphal: 

"In very truth," said Calvin," Luther is extremely corrupt., ..(cited by C. Schlusomberg,) would to God that he had been attentive to discover his vices." (Theol. Calv. L. 11. fol. 126.) Calvin elsewhere speaks very contemptuously of the Lutheran Church; (in his reply to Westphal) he says, " Thy school is nothing but a stinking pig-stye; dost thou hear me, thou dog? dost thou hear me, thou mad-man? dost thou hear me, thou huge beast?"[source]

Conclusion
In Calvin's Last Admonition to Westphal, Calvin says,

"But who is not horrified at the monstrous blindness of Westphal, who seeks a color for his doctrine from suffrages which might rather cover the sun with darkness? Since he has chosen this vile pig-stye for his school, let him regale himself on the husks which are fit for him: only let the reader remember the proof he gives of his shameful poverty when he is forced to bring his judges from the lowest dregs of the Papacy."

 Here in this book Calvin is said to have admitted calling Westphal a "beast," and then later retracting the comment. Perhaps somewhere, the entire comment on Westphal exists, but I lack the time to search it out.  The interesting thing about Calvin's debates with Westphal is that one of the issues was actually the correct interpretation of Luther, but that's a subject for another time. 

Is it Prideful to Claim the Book of Judith has Historical Errors?

Originally posted on the aomin blog, 11/17/2008

Back in 2004 I attended Dr. White's debate with Catholic apologist Gary Michuta on the Apocrypha. The cross-examination period was the key moment in determining whose position actually made the most sense of the historical facts. One of the questions Dr. White asked Mr. Michuta was about the historical accuracy of the book of Judith. Judith claims Nebuchadnezzar reigned from Nineveh (Judith asserts Nebuchadnezzar was the king of Assyria, ruling from Nineveh). The problem Catholic apologists face is that the historical and Biblical evidence does not bear these claims out. Nebuchadnezzar was actually the king of Babylon, and did not rule from Nineveh.

Here is a brief MP3 clip of the actual question and answer from the 2004 debate. In Mr. Michuta's response, he assumes Judith is scripture, and appeals to problems of Biblical inerrancy as an answer. That is, non-Christian scholars have attempted numerous times to indict the Bible of an historical error, only to eat their words when either archaeology or textual analysis resolve the alleged error or contradiction. Michuta assumes the same is the case with the historical claims of Judith. He concludes that he isn't going to answer the question, because in actuality, it presupposes a non-Christian worldview. He treats Judith as an historical work. Since it is Scripture, any errors must be alleged errors.

In his book, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, Michuta reaffirms this method of response: "The best way out of this dilemma is not to enter it at all. Biblical inerrancy is not based upon our feeble abilities to solve every problem" (p. 322). Michuta further states, "The problem at the heart of this line of argumentation [by Protestants pointing out historical errors in the Apocrypha] is one of pride. It places the intellect in the role of judge, allowing it to sit in judgment upon the Word of God" (p. 323).

But it appears it's not only Protestants who struggle with pridefully using their intellect to judge the Bible. Those in charge of The Jerusalem Bible likewise struggle with this pride. They state, "...[H]istorically he was king of Babylon and was never styled 'king of Assyria,' and Nineveh was not his capital city." I hear the complaint already, "The Jerusalem Bible was produced by liberal Catholics." Okay, well the New Catholic Answer Bible likewise seems to have a pride problem. It states, "Any attempt to read the book directly against the backdrop of Jewish history in relation to the empires of the ancient world is bound to fail. The story was written as a pious reflection on the meaning of the yearly Passover observance" (p. 442).

But the most fascinating example of pride comes from a very recent broadcast of Catholic Answers Live. Tim Staples was asked directly about the historical errors in the book of Judith. Tim answers by stating Judith is not strict history, but is rather an extended parable, and he reluctantly uses the phrase "didactic fiction." Here is the brief MP3 clip of the actual question and answer from Catholic Answers Live. I've never done a study on this, but I wonder how many Biblical "extended parables" actually contain seemingly historical facts that are in error, but get passed over because they were not meant to be correct facts. Staples position implies that if Judith is actual history, it is indeed in error.

Tim goes on to further assert that the book of Jonah is not a historical book, but is rather a "timeless story." Ironically, Michuta chastises higher critics in his book for attacking Jonah and the rest of Scripture with charges of historical error (p.323), and by doing so I assume he considers Jonah a historical and prophetic narrative. (As an ironic aside, one of the popular Catholic charges against Luther is that he denied Jonah as history).

Michuta concludes someone with humility would simply accept the canon of Scripture as given to the Roman Catholic Church:

"It takes humility to accept the canon of Scripture as given to the Church. But once we have made such an act all the glories of the Bible open up to us. we may humbly submit our intellect to the text, sitting at the Master's feet like little children, knowing that even if the power to solve all difficulties is beyond us, there is nevertheless a solution. To do otherwise would be not only anti-Protestant (since it violates Sola Scriptura), but anti-Catholic and anti-Christian as well" (p. 323).

Catholic Answers often promotes Mr. Michuta's book as the definitive source for information about the Apocrypha. I wonder if Gary Michuta considers Tim Staples "anti-Catholic" for his position on Judith and Jonah? That would be a "Catholic Answer" I'd like to have. He probably would not. I'd probably get an answer that states since Staples doesn't treat the book as history, he doesn't fall under the condemnation of "pride."

Rome's authoritative statements on issues like this are rare, if not completely absent, so a Catholic apologist is able to affirm what another Catholic apologist denies. Where is Rome's infallible help on this issue? Is the book history or an extended parable? I think before any Catholic apologist ventures into an Apocrypha debate or offers a "Catholic Answer," perhaps they should at least figure out which genre the book is before they decide what is really prideful or humble.