A Visit to Catholic Answers Forum Part #2

Hello, this is Algo.

In my previous post I began sharing my recent visit to the Catholic Answers Forum.

I will now continue the discussion:

Dec 3, '11, 8:20 pm

po18guy Forum Master Prayer Warrior Radio Club Member Join Date: April 18, 2007 Posts: 13,717 Religion: One. Holy. Catholic. Apostolic.

Re: Imaculate conception of Mary or Jesus needing to be saved/redeemed; which is correct? Quote: Originally Posted by Algo1 And who's words am I twisting? First, I do not trust your quotes, your sources, or (particularly) your contexts. Second, not one of your sources was laying doctrine down. Since all were members of the unified Catholic Church, do you even realize what you are saying? Either they were stupid to remain in the Church, or the Church was stupid to keep them. Instead of tilting at windmills, why not, for once in your life, consider that the Church whose council and Pope authorized every single word in your bible, just might be right? You are clearly not here to learn. __________________ Notice how po18guy expresses his mistrust of my quotes, my sources and (particularly) my context. This is truly ironic in light of the fact that in this same thread he seems to affirm an alleged quote by Augustine:

Dec 5, '11, 2:47 pm

po18guy Forum Master Prayer Warrior Radio Club Member Join Date: April 18, 2007 Posts: 13,717 Religion: One. Holy. Catholic. Apostolic.

Re: Imaculate conception of Mary or Jesus needing to be saved/redeemed; which is correct? Quote: Originally Posted by Odell You like to quote Augustine "Rome has spoken; the case is closed" Augustine (Sermon 131:10) Ouch! Touche. __________________ Now anyone that has watched the White v. Stravinskas Debate on Purgatory will recall this famous exchange: "Roma Locuta Est" See also:

Augustine’s Sermon 131

I continue with my response to po18guy:

"First, I do not trust your quotes or your sources. " Well, at least I posted my sources unlike some folks that post at CAF. "Second, not one of your sources was laying doctrine down." That's because the idea of Mary's sinlessness was not a doctrine at the time of these writers. And in fact the notion of Mary's Immaculate Conception as defined by Ineffabilis Deus was nowhere taught in the early church (though Pope Pius IX claimed it was). "Since all were members of the unified Catholic Church, do you even realize what you are saying?" I agree, they were members of unified (c)atholic church, not the Roman Catholic Church. "Either they were stupid to remain in the Church, or the Church was stupid to keep them" No comment. "Instead of tilting at windmills, why not, for once in your life, consider that the Church whose council and Pope authorized every single word in your bible, just might be right?" Actually I have considered that and concluded that every word in my Bible was authorized by HE that breathed out every word. Long before their was a 'single' monarchial bishop in Rome or an official canon was defined at Trent. "You are clearly not here to learn." Actually I have learned a lot. Many of the questions and challenges here have compelled me to study more vigorously than I normally do.

continued: Augustine (354-430 AD): Hilary says that all flesh comes from sin apart from the flesh of the one who came without sin in the likeness of sinful flesh. He says that the one who cried out, I was conceived in iniquities (Ps 51:7), “was born from a sinful origin and under the law of sin. Saint Ambrose says that “the little ones who have been baptized are changed from their wickedness back to the original state of their nature.” He says that “by reason of his immaculate birth the Holy Lord Jesus alone of those born of a woman experienced no infection from earthly corruption. He says that we all die in Adam, because through one man sin entered the world (Rom 5:12) and his sin is the death of all. He says that in his wound “the whole human race would have died, if that Samaritan had not come down and healed his grave wounds.” He says that Adam existed and all existed in him, that Adam perished and all perished in him. He says that we are stained with infection before we were born and that a human being is not conceived free of iniquity, because, as he says, we are “conceived in the sin of our parents and we are born in their transgressions. Birth itself has its own infections, and nature itself does not have only one infection.” He says that the devil is a money lender to whom sinful Eve “put the whole human race in debt with succeeding generations subject to usury.” He says that Eve was deceived by the devil “in order to trip up her husband and place their descendants in debt.” He says that Adam was so wounded by the bite of the serpent “that we all limp because of that wound.” He says that through the union of the bodies of the man and the woman no one is immune from transgression, but that “the one who is immune from transgression,” that is, Christ the Lord, “is also immune from that manner of conception.” See John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., Works of Saint Augustine, Answer to the Pelagians III, Answer to Julian, Book I:7, 32, Part 1, Vol. 24, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1998), pp. 290-291. Augustine (354-430 AD): Say to this man [i.e., Ambrose] if you dare, that he makes the devil the creator of human beings who are born from the union of both sexes. He, after all, exempted Christ alone from the bonds of the guilty race, because he was born of a virgin. All the others coming after Adam are born under the debt of sin, the sin which the devil, of course, planted in them. Refute this man for condemning marriage, for he says that only the son of the virgin was born without sin. Charge this man with denying the attainment of virtue, since he says that vices are implanted in the human race at the very beginning of conception. See John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., Works of Saint Augustine, Answer to the Pelagians III, Answer to Julian, Book II:2, 4, Part 1, Vol. 24, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1998), p. 306. Augustine (354-430 AD): Moreover, when expounding the Gospel according to Luke, he [i.e. Ambrose] says: “It was no cohabitation with a husband which opened the secrets of the Virgin’s womb; rather was it the Holy Ghost which infused immaculate seed into her unviolated womb. For the Lord Jesus alone of those who are born of woman is holy, inasmuch as He experienced not the contact of earthly corruption, by reason of the novelty of His immaculate birth ; nay, He repelled it by His heavenly majesty.” NPNF1: Vol. V, Augustin’s Anti-Pelagian Works, The Grace of Christ And on Original Sin, Book II On Original Sin, Chapter 47-Sentences from Ambrose in favor of Original Sin. This same citation of Ambrose is likewise found in John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., Works of Ssaint Augustine, Answer to the Pelagians III, Unfinished Work in Answer to Julian, Book I:66, Part 1, Vol. 25, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1999), p. 91; and again later in the same work, 4:121, p. 485; as well as in His Answer to Julian, John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., WSA, Answer to the Pelagians III, Answer to Julian, Book I:4, 11, 7, 32, Part 1, Vol. 24, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1998), pp. 272 and 290. Augustine (354-430 AD) in answer to the charge of Julian that he had handed over Mary herself by the condition of her being born, said: We do not hand Mary over to the devil because of the condition of her birth, but we do not do this precisely because that condition is removed by the grace of rebirth. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., WSA, Answer to the Pelagians III, Unfinished Work in Answer to Julian, Book 4:122, Part 1, Vol. 25, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1999), p. 487. Huh? Did Augustine just say that Mary had a Rebirth? What did she need that for? continued:

Augustine (354-430 AD): See, here is Ambrose; see what he says about what you are attacking. He says, “He could not alone be righteous, since the whole human race went astray, if it were not that, because he was born of a virgin, he was not held by the law of the guilty race.” Listen further; listen and stop the impudent tongue of your effrontery by shedding tears: “For intercourse with a man did not open the gates of the Virgin’s womb; rather, the Holy Spirit poured spotless seed into that inviolable womb. For among those born of a woman the holy Lord Jesus was absolutely the only one who did not experience the contagion of earthly corruption because of the new manner of his immaculate birth; rather, he shrugged it off by his celestial majesty.” John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., Works of Saint Augustine, Answer to the Pelagians III, Unfinished Work in Answer to Julian, Book I:66, Part 1, Vol. 25, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1999), p. 91. See also this approval of Ambrose cited again later in the same work, 4:121, p. 485; as well as in His Answer to Julian, John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., WSA, Answer to the Pelagians III, Answer to Julian, Book I:4, 11, 7, 32, Part 1, Vol. 24, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1998), p. 272 and 290. Augustine (354-430): In a similar way we can speak of our Lord’s “sin,” meaning what sin brought about, because he assumed his flesh from that very stock that by sin had deserved death. To put it briefly: Mary, descended from Adam, died because of sin. Adam died because of sin, and the Lord’s flesh, derived from Mary, died to abolish sins. Works of Saint Augustine, John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., Expositions of the Psalms 33-50, Part 3, Vol. 16, trans. Maria Boulding, O.S.B. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 2000), Exposition 2 of Psalm 34 (35), p. 62. Latin text: Sic ergo peccatum Domini, quod factum est de peccato, quia inde carnem assumpsit, de massa ipsa quae mortem meruerat ex peccato. Etenim ut celerius dicam, Maria ex Adam mortua propter peccatum, Adam mortuus propter peccatum, et caro Domini ex Maria mortua est propter delenda peccata. In Psalmum XXXIV, Sermo II, §3, PL 36:335. Latin text: Sic ergo peccatum Domini, quod factum est de peccato, quia inde carnem assumpsit, de massa ipsa quae mortem meruerat ex peccato. Etenim ut celerius dicam, Maria [Note: [Col. 0335] Ita Lov. et maxima pars Mss. At Er., Maria ex Adam mortua propter peccatum Adae, Adam mortuus est propter peccatum, etc. Duo Mss. Vatic. et Colb., Maria ex Adam, Adam mortuus propter peccatum, etc. Flor., denique, Maria ex Adam primo, Adam secundus ortus ex Maria propter delenda peccata.] ex Adam mortua propter peccatum, Adam mortuus propter peccatum, et caro Domini ex Maria mortua est propter delenda peccata. In Psalmum XXXIV, Sermo II, §3, PL 36:335. Augustine (354-430): In the advice and admonition he gives that I rather apply my effort to stamping out this deadly heresy from the Churches, he refers to that same Pelagian heresy which I urge you, my brother, with all my strength, to avoid with the utmost care, whenever you either think or argue about the origin of souls, so that the belief may not steal upon you that any soul at all, save that of the unique Mediator, was free from inheritance of Adam, that original sin under which we are bound when we are begotten but from which we are freed by our second birth. FC, Vol. 30, Saint Augustine Letters 165-203, Letter 202A, To Optatus (New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1955), p. 420. Latin text: Quod vero admonet et hortatur, ut magis demus operam, ut perniciosissima haeresis de Ecclesiis auferatur; illam ipsam Pelagianam haeresim dicit, quam cautissime ut devites, quantum possum, frater, admoneo, cum de animarum origine sive cogitas, sive jam disputas; ne tibi subripiat esse credendum, ullam prorsus animam nisi unius Mediatoris, non ex Adam trahere originale peccatum, generatione devinctum, regeneratione solvendum. Epistola CCII, Caput VIII, §20, PL 33:937-38. Fulgentius, bishop of Ruspe (c. 467-532): For the flesh of Mary, which had been conceived in iniquities in the usual manner, was the flesh of sin which begot the Son of God in the likeness of the flesh of sin... For translation, see I. D. E. Thomas, The Golden Treasury of Patristic Quotations (Oklahoma City: Hearthstone Publishing, 1996), pp. 180-181. Latin Text: Caro quippe Mariae, quae in iniquitatibus humana fuerat solemnitate concepta, caro fuit utique peccati, quae Filium Dei genuit in similitudinem carnis peccati. Epistola XVII, Cap. VI, §13, PL 65:458. John of Damascus (652-750): But God made him by nature sinless, and endowed him with free will. By sinless, I mean not that sin could find no place in him (for that is the case with Deity alone), but that sin is the result of the free volition he enjoys rather than an integral part of his nature165 ; that is to say, he has the power to continue and go forward in the path of goodness, by co-operating with the divine grace, and likewise to turn from good and take to wickedness, for God has conceded this by conferring freedom of will upon him. NPNF2: Vol. IX, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book II, Chapter 12. Then it gets a bit emotional and rather odd:

Dec 3, '11, 10:28 pm

pablope Regular Member Join Date: September 29, 2010 Posts: 2,382 Religion: catholic

Re: Imaculate conception of Mary or Jesus needing to be saved/redeemed; which is correct? [quote=Algo1;8650101] Quote: Oh, so Tertullian is now blessed. I was almost certain that you were going to call him a heritic and throw him under the bus. And who's words am I twisting? And who are you that we are supposed to believe you? So is quoting the Church fathers...without taking the proper context and determining what they are really are writing about is supposed to prove something? And what does denigrating the very mother of God is supposed to accomplish? The church has always believed that Mary was sinless in her earthly life....so what is your problem with it? Do you think saying these things agains Mary is endearing you to her Son? Don't you think Jesus does not see what you are doing here? Don't you think attacking Mary is also not hurting her Son? Quote: Once again I will demonstrate that numerous Early Church Writers and Early Church Fathers claimed that "God alone is without sin." continued: The Bible actually says there is a couple who were also sinless...righteous in the eyes of God.....from Luke 1... 5 In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. 6 Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly. So, if both Zechariah and Elizabeth could both be righteous and blameless....here you have an example who were blameless....don't you think Mary could also be righteous and blameless...with the grace she was tasked to carry...the saviour of the world?

And one more from my friend po18guy:

Dec 3, '11, 11:27 pm

po18guy Forum Master Prayer Warrior Radio Club Member Join Date: April 18, 2007 Posts: 13,717 Religion: One. Holy. Catholic. Apostolic.

Re: Imaculate conception of Mary or Jesus needing to be saved/redeemed; which is correct? Quote: Originally Posted by Algo1 [b] That's because the idea of Mary's sinlessness was not a doctrine at the time of these writers. And in fact the notion of Mary's Immaculate Conception as defined by Ineffabilis Deus was nowhere taught in the early church (though Pope Pius IX claimed it was). First of all, dogma is declared in response to heresy. When a sudden challenge to Mary's state appeared on earth, the Church answered it. Quote: Originally Posted by Algo1 [b] I agree, they were members of unified (c)atholic church, not the Roman Catholic Church. Its headquarters were in Rome the minute that the Apostle Peter arrived there. That was sealed when Peter was martyred in 67. You clearly believe in division over unity. It's your choice, like believing or not. Quote: Originally Posted by Algo1 [b] Actually I have considered that and concluded that every word in my Bible was authorized by HE that breathed out every word. Long before their was a 'single' monarchial bishop in Rome or an official canon was defined at Trent. And, where did the Sacred Table of Contents come from? Study a little more history. Quote: Originally Posted by Algo1 [b] Actually I have learned a lot. Many of the questions and challenges here have compelled me to study more vigorously than I normally do. All you have learned is to entrench yourself in a belief system that is systematically falling apart day by day. I do not believe that, for one minute, the Church that you have been taught to hate was open to your serious inquiry. That is a tragedy. __________________ And then I got this:

Forum Message

Your account has been locked for the following reason: Contempt for Catholicism and proselytizing This change will be lifted: Never

My private interpretation of this message is:

"How Dare You Quote Our Fathers"

There are several more interesting quotes in that thread. In particular several from a poster named Cat Herder.

I hope to continue this series drawing from other threads of different topics that I attempted to interact with over the past year.

A Visit to Catholic Answers Forum Part #1

Hello, this is Algo.

Recently I was given the privilege of posting on the C.A.F Discussion Board. I enjoyed the interaction and found discussing the many topics to be quite challenging at times. I was engaged in an interesting discussion there not long ago and wanted to share some of the discussion here:

Imaculate conception of Mary or Jesus needing to be saved/redeemed; which is correct?

My first comment was in response to the following post:

Quote: Originally Posted by A G Mary was sinless. This Catholic dogma is called the Immaculate Conception of Mary. In other words, she was concieved without original sin. The Immaculate Conception of Mary does not mean that Mary doesn’t need a Savior. Mary herself said: "And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour." (Luke 1:47) Douay-Rheims Bible Jesus is Mary's savior. She was prevented from falling into original sin by the grace of God. The rest of us are born with original sin and therefore we need Jesus in order to save us from our sinning ways. Mary was saved from God before sinning. My Response:

According to one early church writer God alone is without sin. Tertullian (c. 160-c. 220): Thus some men are very bad, and some very good; but yet the souls of all form but one genus: even in the worst there is something good, and in the best there is something bad. For God alone is without sin; and the only man without sin is Christ, since Christ is also God. ANF: Vol. III, A Treatise on the Soul, Chapter 41. Tertullian (c. 160-c. 220): The Lord knew Himself to be the only guiltless One [Sciebat Dominus se solum sine delicto esse. De Oratione, Caput VII, PL 1:1162], and so He teaches that we beg “to have our debts remitted us.” A petition for pardon is a full confession; because he who begs for pardon fully admits his guilt. ANF: Vol. III, On Prayer, Chapter 7. This was followed up by Regular Member Odell's comments:

"He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption." Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235). "This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one." Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244). "Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary." Ephraim, Hymns on the Nativity, 15:23 (A.D. 370). "Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother." Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8 (A.D. 370). "O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides." Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71:216 (ante AD 373). "Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin." Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388). And:

Noah "a righteous man, blameless an righteous among the people" (gen 6:9) Job who is "blameless and righteous" (job 1:1) "prophets and righteous men" (Matt 13:17) "you Farnese the tomb of the righteous" (Luke 14:14) I can go on and on. Not to say that the righteous are sinless. But Protestants go as far as saying non are righteous. When scripture says otherwise. Now we can go into that is because of Gods grace not that these righteous have earned in a legal sense. But that God sees them as righteous the the lense of grace. "the lord looked with grace on Abel and his offering" Cain he did not look with grace (heb 11:4 Gn 4:4-5) If theses people can be righteous then how much more is Mary? Whom Christ received his flesh! And:

Also if you stand to this you would have to settle for scenario #2 where Jesus needed to be saved from original sin since he inherited our corrupt flesh as Protestants would put it. So could you provide us with scripture that will inform us at what point was Christ prevented by the Holy Spirit from fallen into or inheriting Mary's fallen nature?

My Response:

Note in the above quotes that only the last quote (by Ambrose) even mentions sin. What were the others referring to? Her chastity even as a faithful, married, Jewish woman? Or a woman that has not sinned since her birth, with no mention of what the dogma declares? " this doctrine always existed in the Church as a doctrine that has been received from our ancestors, and that has been stamped with the character of revealed doctrine. " And also: "Alexander VII, who authoritatively and decisively declared the mind of the Church: "Concerning the most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, ancient indeed is that devotion of the faithful based on the belief that her soul, in the first instant of its creation and in the first instant of the soul's infusion into the body, was, by a special grace and privilege of God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, her Son and the Redeemer of the human race, preserved free from all stain of original sin. And in this sense have the faithful ever solemnized and celebrated the Feast of the Conception." Source:

We are then joined by another poster:

#12 Dec 3, '11, 5:08 pm

po18guy Forum Master Prayer Warrior Radio Club Member Join Date: April 18, 2007 Posts: 13,711 Religion: One. Holy. Catholic. Apostolic.

Re: Imaculate conception of Mary or Jesus needing to be saved/redeemed; which is correct? Quote: Originally Posted by Algo1 According to one early church writer God alone is without sin. Tertullian (c. 160-c. 220): Thus some men are very bad, and some very good; but yet the souls of all form but one genus: even in the worst there is something good, and in the best there is something bad. For God alone is without sin; and the only man without sin is Christ, since Christ is also God. ANF: Vol. III, A Treatise on the Soul, Chapter 41. Tertullian (c. 160-c. 220): The Lord knew Himself to be the only guiltless One [Sciebat Dominus se solum sine delicto esse. De Oratione, Caput VII, PL 1:1162], and so He teaches that we beg “to have our debts remitted us.” A petition for pardon is a full confession; because he who begs for pardon fully admits his guilt. ANF: Vol. III, On Prayer, Chapter 7. So what? As blessed as he is, he does not set doctrine. He deferred to the Church. What is it with this obsession with twisting words? Really?

And my response:

Oh, so Tertullian is now blessed. I was almost certain that you were going to call him a heritic and throw him under the bus. And who's words am I twisting? Once again I will demonstrate that numerous Early Church Writers and Early Church Fathers claimed that"God alone is without sin." Basil of Caesarea (AD. 329-379): When thou hast blessed the Lord out of Scripture according to thy power, and hast sent up thy praise to Him, then begin to humble thyself and say, ‘I am not worthy, O Lord, to speak before Thee, because I am a sinner.’ Even though thou knowest nothing evil of thyself, thou must speak so; for none is without sin, but God only. For translation, see Richard Travers Smith, The Fathers for English Readers: St. Basil the Great (New York: Poit, Young and Company, 1879), pp. 145-146. Greek Text Ὅταν δὲ δοξολογήσῃς ἀπὸ τῶν Γραφῶν, ὡς δύνασαι, καὶ ἀναπέμψῃς αἶνον πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν, τότε ἄρχου μετὰ ταπεινοφρόσύνης, καὶ λέγε. Ἐγὼ μὲν, Κύριε, οὐκ εἰμὶ ἄξιος ἐπὶ σοῦ φθέγξασθαι, διότι σφόδρα ἁμαρτωλὸς τυγχάνω. Κὰν μὴ σύνοιδάς τι σεαυτῷ φαῦλον, οὕτω χρὴ σε λέγειν. Οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἀναμάρτητος εἰ μὴ μόνος ὁ Θεός. Constitutiones Monasticae, Caput I. §3. PG 31:1329. Ambrose (c. 339-97) commenting on Luke 1:35: For wholly alone of those born of woman was our Holy Lord Jesus, Who by the strangeness of His undefiled Birth has not suffered the pollutions of earthly corruption, but dispelled them by heavenly majesty. Saint Ambrose of Milan, Exposition of the Holy Gospel according to Saint Luke, trans. Theodosia Tomkinson (Etna: Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 1998), Book II, §56, p. 59. Latin Text Sed immaculatum semen inviolabili utero Spiritus sanctus infudit: solus enim per omnia ex natis de femina sanctus Dominus Jesus, qui terrenae contagia corruptelae immaculati partus novitate non senserit, et coelesti majestate depulerit. Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam, 2.56, PL 15:1572D-1573A. Ambrose (c. 339-97): No Conception is without iniquity, since there are no parents who have not fallen. For translation, see I. D. E. Thomas, The Golden Treasury of Patristic Quotations (Oklahoma City: Hearthstone Publishing, 1996), p. 258. Latin Text Nec conceptus iniquitatis exsors est, quoniam et parentes non carent lapsu. Prophetae David ad Theodosium Augustum, Caput XI, PL 14:873. Ambrose (c. 339-97): So, then, no one is without sin except God alone, for no one is without sin except God. Also, no one forgives sins except God alone, for it is also written: “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” And one cannot be the Creator of all except he be not a creature, and he who is not a creature is without doubt God; for it is written: “They worshipped the creature rather than the Creator, Who is God blessed for ever.” God also does not worship, but is worshipped, for it is written: “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shall thou serve.” NPNF2: Vol. X, On the Holy Spirit, Book III, Chapter 18, §133. Ambrose (c. 339-97): Let us therefore consider whether the Holy Spirit have any of these marks which may bear witness to His Godhead. And first let us treat of the point that none is without sin except God alone, and demand that they prove that the Holy Spirit has sin. NPNF2: Vol. X, On the Holy Spirit, Book III, Chapter 18, §134. continued:

A response from Odell:

Ambrose also had this to say "Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin." Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388). You have not answered my question I'll ask again. I added another so you are starting to get behind At what point was Christ prevented by the Holy Spirit from fallen into or inheriting Mary's fallen nature? Tell what you think immaculate, pure, tabernacle exempt from corruption, no flaw in thee, no stain, you are the Arc, undefiled, made inviolate means? Because it sounds awful like Catholic teaching here!

And my response to Odell:

I will let St. Augustine answer your first question below as he quotes St. Ambrose:

continued: Augustine (354-430): We have, my dearest Marcellinus, discussed at sufficient length, I think, in the former book the baptism of infants, — how that it is given to them not only for entrance into the kingdom of God, but also for attaining salvation and eternal life, which none can have without the kingdom of God, or without that union with the Savior Christ, wherein He has redeemed us by His blood. I undertake in the present book to discuss and explain the question, Whether there lives in this world, or has yet lived, or ever will live, any one without any sin whatever, except “the one Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all;” — with as much care and ability as He may Himself vouchsafe to me. NPNF1: Vol. V, On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants, Book II, Chapter 1. Augustine (354-430 AD) commenting on Psalm 87 (Actually the LXX rendering of Psalm 88:4-5): In these words the person of the Lord appears most plainly: for who else is free among the dead, if not he who, though living in the likeness of sinful flesh, was alone sinless among sinners? John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Part 3, Vol. 18, trans. Maria Boulding, O.S.B., Expositions of the Psalms, Psalms 73-98, Psalm 87.5 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 2002), p. 260. Latin Text: In his verbis maxime persona Domini apparet. Quis enim alius inter mortuos liber, nisi in similitudine carnis peccati inter peccatores solus sine peccato? In Psalmum LXXXVII Enarratio, §5, PL 37:1111. Augustine (354-430): This being the case, ever since the time when by one man sin thus entered into this world and death by sin, and so it passed through to all men, up to the end of this carnal generation and perishing world, the children of which beget and are begotten, there never has existed, nor ever will exist, a human being of whom, placed in this life of ours, it could be said that he had no sin at all, with the exception of the one Mediator, who reconciles us to our Maker through the forgiveness of sins. NPNF1: Vol. V, On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants, Book II, Chapter 47. Augustine (354-430): Let us hold fast, then, the confession of this faith, without filtering or failure. One alone is there who was born without sin, in the likeness of sinful flesh, who lived without sin amid the sins of others, and who died without sin on account of our sins. “Let us turn neither to the right hand nor to the left.” For to turn to the right hand is to deceive oneself, by saying that we are without sin; and to turn to the left is to surrender oneself to one’s sins with a sort of impunity, in I know not how perverse and depraved a recklessness. “God indeed knoweth the ways on the right hand,” even He who alone is without sin, and is able to blot out our sins; “but the ways on the left hand are perverse,” in friendship with sins. NPNF1: Vol. V, On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants, Book II, Chapter 57 [XXXV]. Augustine (354-430 AD): Did you not read there that, when the bishop I just mentioned [i.e., Ambrose] was teaching the birth of Christ from his virgin mother, he said, “And so he was tempted in every way like a human being and endured all things like human beings, but as born of the Spirit he held back from sin. After all, every human being is a liar (Ps 116:11), and no one is without sin but the one God. The principle, then, was preserved that no one born of a man and woman, that is, through the union of bodies, is seen to be immune from transgression. But the one who is immune from transgression is also immune from that manner of conception.” John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., WSA, Answer to the Pelagians III, Answer to Julian, Book I:4, 11, Part 1, Vol. 24, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1998), p. 272. continued: See Next Post Part # 2. Algo

A Visit to Catholic Answers Forum Part #1 http://forums.catholic.com/forumdisplay.php?f=20

A Different Type of Christmas Concert

Just when you think you've seen it all:

Community Christian Church is presenting Let It Be Christmas: "Let It Be Christmas is a Rock-Opera Nativity Story, told in one act, using the timeless music of the Beatles to tell the greatest story of all time . . .(no, not the Prodigal Son story), the story of Jesus'birth!"

Real Catholic TV: Luther and the Immaculate Conception

I just listened to Dr. White's recent evaluation of Real Catholic TV's video on the immaculate conception.  When Roman Catholics find a Luther tidbit about Mary that seems to support Mariolatry, they run with it, even if the context contradicts the evidence they're using. This quote is being taken entirely out of context. It has nothing to do with Mary's immaculate conception. Rather than discussing Mary’s sinlessness, Luther's later writings insist Christ’s sinlessness was due entirely to the miraculous work of the Holy Spirit during His conception. The quote isn't about Mary's conception in her mother's womb, it's about Christ's conception in Mary's womb.

Here is the quote in context. In 1532 he preached:

Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according thy word.
14. That day, that moment when Mary assented to the angel Gabriel's announcement, Christ was conceived. In that hour when she said, "Be it unto me according to thy word," she conceived and became the mother of God; and Christ, therewith, became true God and true man in one person. Even though he is a tiny fetus, at that moment he is both God and man in Mary's womb, an infant, and Mary is the mother of God.

15. The Turks and the Jews make fun of this article of faith and feel that they have excellent reason to deride it. For that matter, we could banter about it as well as they. But as Christians, we must firmly hold onto this article of faith and never waver. From the beginning of time it has been prophesied that God's Son would become man and that his mother would be a virgin. The first prophecy given Adam and Eve soon after the fall (Gen. 3:15) stated: "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shall bruise his heel." God does not say the seed of the man, but rather the seed of the woman. Therefore, the mother of this serpent crusher must be a virgin. Later the patriarchs and the prophets also prophesied of this, until finally the beloved apostles proclaimed it to all the world. We have been baptized into this faith and are called Christians because we believe and confess it to be true. Let us, therefore, persevere unwaveringly in this faith. And if, as time goes on, sectarian spirits deny it, let us take a staunch stand in behalf of it.

16. This article is really the bottom line. Christ wanted his beginning to be like ours, but without sin, because he wanted to sanctify us wholly. We begin life in sin, we are conceived in sin, born in sin, no matter whether we be emperor, king, prince, rich, or poor; every human being is conceived in sin according to Psalm 51:5. Only Christ has the distinction and the honor to have been conceived by the Holy Ghost's power. Since from our conception we are sinful, we are people whose flesh and blood and everything about us are soiled by sin, as indeed we see in ourselves; or when we look at those around us in the world, beset by evil desire, pride, multiple devils, and miserable unbelief. Thus we are conceived and born. For all of mankind is conceived and born in accord with creation's decree, as recorded (Gen. 1:28): `Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth." Christ could not be subject to such impure sinful conception and birth. He, indeed, was a genuinely true, natural human being, but not conceived or born in sin as all other descendants of Adam. That is why his mother had to be a virgin whom no man had touched, so that he would not be born under the curse, but rather conceived and born without sin, so that the devil had no right or power over him. Only the Holy Spirit was present to bring about the conception in her virgin body. Mother Mary, like us, was born in sin of sinful parents, but the Holy Spirit covered her, sanctified and purified her so that this child was born of flesh and blood, but not with sinful flesh and blood. The Holy Spirit permitted the Virgin Mary to remain a true, natural human being of flesh and blood, just as we. However, he warded off sin from her flesh and blood so that she became the mother of a pure child, not poisoned by sin as we are.

17. Thus what the angel spake came true: "He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest." For in that moment when she conceived, she was a holy mother filled with the Holy Spirit and her fruit is a holy, pure fruit, at once true God and truly man, in one person. In time, then, this godly mother gave birth to God's Son, a genuine man, but without any sin. Undoubtedly, his blood was red, his flesh, white; he suckled at his mother's breasts, ate porridge, cried, and slumbered like any other child; but his flesh and blood were holy and pure. He is a holy person, the son of a pure virgin and God's Son, true God and man in one person. [Sermons of Martin Luther Vol. 7 (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000), pp. 291-292].

In 1534 Luther explained that Christ was “born of a young maiden, as you and I are born of our mothers. The only difference is that the Holy Spirit engineered this conception and birth, while in contrast we mortals are conceived and born in sin.”[Ibid., 294.]. As Jaroslov Pelikan has noted, Mary functioned in Luther’s theology as “the guarantee of the reality of the incarnation and of the human nature of Christ.”

Justification and Imputed Righteousness

"Algo" in the combox recently pointed me to some good videos by R. C. Sproul on the issues of Justification and Imputed righteousness vs. Infused righteousness. These videos are good additions to the list of resources on the doctrine of Justification by Faith alone and more resources, and John Piper's sermons below.

1. R. C. Sproul on Justification and Imputed Righteousness

2. R. C. Sproul on Imputed Righteousness vs. Infused Righteousness - Part 1

3. Imputed Righteousness vs. Infused Righteousness - Part 2

The Big Picture of God's Sovereignty, Adam's Sin, Death, and the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to Believers

John Piper demonstrates from Romans 5 and other passages - the big picture of God's Sovereignty, our sinning in Adam, and our only hope of salvation - the Righteousness of the Obedience of Christ; which God graciously imputes to those who receive Christ and all that He is and has done.

"The Fatal Disobedience of Adam and the Triumphant Obedience of Christ"

By John Piper. © Desiring God. Website: desiringGod.org

A More Detailed Expository Series by John Piper through Romans 5:12-21:

Adam, Christ, and Justification - Part 1

Adam, Christ, and Justification - Part 2

Adam, Christ, and Justification - Part 3

Adam, Christ, and Justification - Part 4

Adam, Christ, and Justification - Part 5

By John Piper. © Desiring God. Website: desiringGod.org

Other good books on Justification and Imputation

Jesus' Blood and Righteousness: Paul's Theology of Imputation., by Brian Vickers. (Brian Vickers is Assistant Professor of New Testament Interpretation at the Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. )

This is an excellent book that I am working through, full of fresh exegetical insights and theological rigor.

I found a review of this book at Reformation 21.

Here is another review; this time by Denny Burk.

This is to add to the list that I put together recently.

Louis pointed out that I should have had John Owen's work on this list. Yes, I need to read that also; and I am sure there are many others, like John Murray and James Buchanan and Francis Turretin and J. V. Fesko.

Justification: Understanding the Classic Reformed Doctrine, by J. V. Fesko

Roman Catholic Propaganda on Luther Invoking the Saints

Here's a clip I found from a Roman Catholic periodical called "The Manchester Illuminator and General Catholic Record" dating from 1849-1850.  I found it while working on this blog entry. There are indeed a handful of quotes from Luther affirming the invocation of the saints. Those quotes typically date pre-1521 or 1522. Typically, after that, Luther did not approve of or teach such a practice. Whoever compiled these quotes (the citations all come from very early editions of Luther's works) does not explain the purpose or intent. I can really only think of one: propaganda.

Only a few years after Luther wrote his exposition of the Magnificat (some of which is cited above), He wrote to a group of Bohemians,

“… I certainly would not call you heretics, as our sophists do, because you do not honor or call upon the mother of God or any of the saints, but cling alone to the only mediator, Jesus Christ, and are satisfied that in heaven as well as on earth each one is obligated to pray for the other. For there is nothing in the Scriptures about the intercession of dead saints, nor about honoring them and praying to them. And no one can deny that hitherto through services for these saints we have gone so far as to make pure idols out of the mother of God and the saints. We have placed more confidence in them, on account of the services and works which we have done for them, than we have placed in Christ himself, with the result that faith in Christ has perished.” [LW 36:299]

The Dome of the Rock Inscriptions – Why no mention of the denial of the crucifixion in Surah 4:157?

There is no Evidence of Surah 4:157 in the Hadith collections, nor on the Dome of the Rock !

The Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, containing some of the earliest, if not the earliest attested inscriptions of the Qur'an in history, 691-692 AD! (aside from the claims of the Muslims of the copies of the Qur'an themselves that go back to Uthman, 650-656 AD)

You can see the Dome of the Rock inscriptions here in a very helpful article and diagram by Muslims. (the web-site, Islamic Awareness)

Surah 4:157 is the denial that Jesus was crucified and died. Because of this one verse, Islam denies the main teaching of Christianity and Islam denies undeniable history. "they did not kill him nor was he crucified; . . . for certain he was not killed"

Here is the full text of the verse, that is NOT part of the inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock:

وَقَوْلِهِمْ إِنَّا قَتَلْنَا الْمَسِيحَ عِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَٰكِن شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ ۚ وَإِنَّ الَّذِينَ اخْتَلَفُوا فِيهِ لَفِي شَكٍّ مِّنْهُ ۚ مَا لَهُم بِهِ مِنْ عِلْمٍ إِلَّا اتِّبَاعَ الظَّنِّ ۚ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ يَقِينًا

(Surah 4:157) That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-


Dr. White said in his opening in his debate on the Crucifixion with Shabir Ally:

“And what is truly amazing to me is this: when the Qur'an contradicts the Christian teaching of the deity of Christ, it does so repeatedly, and forcefully. We likewise find references to this in the hadith. But when it comes to this one single ayah, these 40 lonely Arabic words that pop into the Qur'an out of nowhere, we likewise cannot find any meaningful commentary on these words in the hadith literature. Think of it. Muslims for two hundred years could not think of any commentary by Muhammad on this ayah. And yet, I, as a Christian, am to believe these 40 Arabic words, written over half a millennium after the Christ event, in a different language from far away are to be taken to be sufficient to overthrow the entirety of the New Testament and the testimony of eye witnesses and martyrs.”

Dr. James White, introductory statement in his debate with Shabir Ally on the Crucifixion of Christ.

I wonder why there is no commentary on this verse for 200 years after the Hegira (or Hijra) (Muhammad’s flight to Medina, 622 AD) ?

Again, let it sink in: "Think of it. Muslims for two hundred years could not think of any commentary by Muhammad on this ayah."

Remember, the 6 most authoritative Sunni Hadith collections are dated in the mid to late 800s AD. (Scroll down to the end of the article on the Debate, "Can God Become a Man".)

Likewise, there is no mention of Surah 4:157 on the Dome of the Rock, build in 691-692 AD.

Why is this significant? Because it contains lots of anti-Christian polemic against the Deity of Christ and His Sonship, yet has nothing regarding the crucifixion. It seems obvious that the Dome of the Rock was built for the purpose to show the superiority and truth of Islam over the Christians in Jerusalem and surrounding areas, and the Qur’anic verses on the structure demonstrate this. It was meant to rival the church of the Holy Sepulcher, but doesn’t mention the main issue of the cross and resurrection.

It would seem only reasonable and consistent with Islam’s teachings and claims that they would put such an important verse on the Dome of the Rock, on the place where the Jewish temple stood for centuries, which was destroyed in 70 AD; and near the place where the Christians and the NT claims that Jesus was crucified. The book of Hebrews demonstrates that Christ fulfilled the sacrifices of the temple, by being the final sacrifice for sin. What better place to put the Islamic one verse that seeks to overturn that?

It makes a thinking person wonder.

It is very interesting that it has Surah 19:33, which seems to indicate that Jesus would die, as it is the same statement about John the Baptist in 19:15; and yet the Dome of the Rock does not have Surah 4:157. Because of Surah 4:157, Muslims are forced to interpret the day that Jesus’ dies in 19:33 as referring to after He returns (the second coming of Christ) and gets married and lives a full life on earth.

The Dome of the Rock has Surah 4:171, a clear denial of the Deity of Christ, the Sonship of Christ, and a denial of what the Muslims thought the Trinity was. (“Say not three”; ie, “three gods” or “the Father, the Son, and the Mother” (see Surah 5:116; 6:101 – A false understanding of the Trinity.)

The inscriptions of the Dome of the Rock has Surah 112, several verses from Surah 19 and Surah 3 (the two main Surahs that have the most information in the Qur'an about Jesus and Mary, in comparison with others) and others that deny God can have a Son. ( All of the references: 64:1 and 57:2b (twice); 17:111; 33:56; 19:33-36; 3:18-19; 3:47c; 3:51.) It also contains a few other phrases not exactly in the Qur’an ("He (Allah) has no associate" - clearly meant to be preaching to the Christians in Jerusalem), and blessings on the prophet Muhammad. Some of the grammar from the Qur'an is changed and some minor introductory phrases are left out from the Qur'anic verses. You can see the full text of the inscriptions of the Dome of the Rock with the Qur'anic references at this article by Estelle Whelan; scroll down, see under "Quranic Inscriptions". (Also at the Islamic Awareness website)

Since the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ is one of the most established facts of ancient history, confirmed by Roman historians (Tacitus, Annals XV.44) and the Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities XVIII. 63-64) and by the New Testament writings (48-96 AD), and by many early church fathers and writers and others for 600 years, it is indeed curious that the Dome of the Rock does not have this one little verse from the Qur’an, Surah 4:157.

Indeed, it makes a thinking person wonder.

The Reformers on the Book of James

I recently came across the pdf article, “A Right Strawy Epistle”: Reformation Perspectives on James" by Timothy George (Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, Fall 2000).  While I'm not a big fan of Dr. George, this is a good article to chew on the meat and spit out the bones (like spit out his seeming approval of the Anabaptist view that Luther practiced or taught "cheap grace"). The article is interesting because it compares and contrasts Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Anabaptists, and Roman Catholic views on the book of James. Much of the Luther information has similarities to my paper Luther’s View of the Canon of Scripture. While I wouldn't agree with some of George's conclusions, the article shows that Martin Luther's view of James was not followed by either Zwingli or Calvin.

Revised April 2026

Internet Offenses and... Bogus Outrage?

If an image someone posts is so offensive as to cause outrage, I can certainly understand making a fuss.


I was reminded of an old incident on another blog in which a Roman Catholic blogger posted an offensive image without realizing it. I called it out, and the image was removed.  You'll search my blog in vain to find that offensive image documented.

If a posted image is taken down by the alleged offending party, what does it say about the offended party if the image is still plastered on their own web site? It leads me to wonder if the offended party was really offended to begin with. The image is either offensive or it isn't. If my Roman Catholic friends really take venerating images so seriously, they need to be consistent and demand that all such offensive pictures be removed, entirely, even from their own websites.

Christmas Gifts for the Reformers in Your Life

This past week I've been listening back and forth to conservative talk radio and liberal National Public Radio (NPR). While it's certainly two wildly different ways of looking at the current state of things, both are concerned about the economy. So, here's my meager attempt to help the economy. The following are a few gift ideas for that (rare) special someone in your life that reads the same sort of stuff I do.

Luther's Works on CD-ROM is now being offered by Concordia Publishing House for $159.99 [You Save $99.01 (38%) Free shipping on orders of $75 or more]. The disc contains 55 volumes. I've used it for years, and it's an excellent resource. Back when I purchased it, I paid... well, let's just say I paid a lot more.  This CD-ROM also gives you the Logos / Libronix Bible software program, which allows you to add on other resources, like the recent publication of volume 69 of Luther's Works (which Concordia is now offering for $14.99 [You Save $22.00 (59%)]. Back when I purchased it, I paid... well, let's just say I paid a lot more.

The Calvin 500 Collection CD-ROM is another mega-resource product featuring 108 resources on John Calvin.  I've been watching this product since its release. It's gone from around $1000 to $389.95. While I like the inexpensive Ages Calvin collection,  I'm fond of the Logos versions of things. The Ages software tends to be a bit clunky and cumbersome (and also, the Ages website doesn't appear to work anymore, simply try to purchase one of their products).  Also, make sure to check out the Calvin 500 blog which posts specifically on John Calvin.


Logos says their mission is "to serve the church." So, Logos software decided to cash in on the Roman Catholic market. For around $420 you can get the Catholic Library Builder (238 vols.). Serving the church? They state of this collection, "The Catholic Library Builder is a massive library of 238 books worth over $6,000 in print that gives you the resources necessary to study Sacred Scripture deeply and with the mind of the Catholic Church." Well, I guess I could do that in a purely academic way, but I don't think that's what they mean. Study Sacred Scripture deeply? I deny that adding an infallible authority and adding some vague category named "[T]radition" would produce the result Logos says it will.

Calvin Said What?

Originally posted on the aomin blog, 02/23/2007

It's been a while since Tiber Jumper's Crossed The Tiber has been in the spotlight. Every so often, this Catholic convert provides quotes from the Reformers. It amazes me how Catholic converts become so seemingly fluent in Reformation history and writings (I do wonder, though, how much of the Reformers writings actually are read prior to Catholic conversion). This time, John Calvin gets center stage as a supporter of the Roman Catholic view of baptism. Calvin's position is said to be so similar to the Catholic Catechism that he could have written this:

"The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation. Sacramental grace is the grace of the Holy Spirit, given by Christ and proper to each sacrament. The Spirit heals and transforms those who receive him by conforming them to the Son of God. The fruit of the sacramental life is that the Spirit of adoption makes the faithful partakers in the divine nature by uniting them in a living union with the only Son, the Savior" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1129).

Rome's view holds sacraments infuse grace into a person: "The sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1131). Now, whether or not you agree with Calvin's view of the sacraments, his view definitely was not that of the Roman Church. Tiber Jumper says, "We Sacramentalists in agreement with the writings of the Early Church and Sacred Scripture insist that a little water does indeed regenerate a person." Well, Calvin does not agree. Calvin says,

"The schools of the Sophists have taught with remarkable agreement that the sacraments of the new law (those now used in the Christian church) justify and confer grace, provided we do not set up a barrier of mortal sin. How deadly and pestilential this notion is cannot be expressed and the more so because for many centuries it has been a current claim in a good part of the world, to the great loss of the church. Of a certainty it is diabolical. For in promising a righteousness apart from faith, it hurls souls headlong to destruction. Secondly, because it draws the cause of righteousness from the sacraments, it binds mens pitiable minds (of themselves more than enough inclined to earth) in this superstition, so that they repose in the appearance of a physical thing rather than in God himself" (Institutes IV:14:14).

"Now, it is clear how false is the teaching, long propagated by some and still persisted in by others, that through baptism we are released and made exempt from original sin, and from the corruption that descended from Adam into all his posterity; and are restored into that same righteousness and purity of nature which Adam would have obtained if he had remained upright as he was first created. For teachers of this type never understood what original sin, what original righteousness, or what the grace of baptism was" (Institutes IV: 15:10).

Crossed The Tiber used an obscure Calvin quote to base his comparison. The quote is from Calvin's 200th Sermon on Deuteronomy 34, preached July 15, 1556. My copy is in old English, and I don't think a contemporary English version exists. What amazes me about Roman Catholics is their ability to locate obscure quotes, rather than simply reading major available works. Calvin wrote many pages on the sacraments. Rather than citing a rare book few have, citing him from the Institutes would be my chosen method. The quote is filled with theology, and unless one does the work to understand Calvin, it could be easily misconstrued. Tiber's obscure Calvin quote is as follows (emphasis his):

"So then we must ever come to this point, that the Sacraments are effectual and that they are not trifling signs that vanish away in the air, but that the truth is always matched with them, because God who is faithful shows that he has not ordained anything in vain. And that is the reason why in Baptism we truly receive the forgiveness of sins, we are washed and cleansed with the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, we are renewed by the operation of his Holy Spirit. And how so? Does a little water have such power when it is cast upon the head of a child? No. But because it is the will of our Lord Jesus Christ that the water should be a visible sign of his blood and of the Holy Spirit. Therefore baptism has that power and whatsoever is there set forth to the eye is forthwith accomplished in very deed." John Calvin, Sermons on Deuteronomy, p. 1244

Note the bolded words this Catholic convert picked out. This is a perfect example of seeing what one wants to in a text, and not having any idea of what Calvin is talking about. In context, the quote is not saying grace is dispensed through the sacrament. Rather, Calvin held that spiritually we are washed and cleansed with the blood of Jesus. The water serves as a visible sign of a heavenly reality.

Calvin goes on to discuss the Lord's Supper, saying, "When we come to that holy table, we must assure ourselves that our souls are nourished with the spiritual food which we see not, and that our faith must mount up unto heaven, there to be joined with our Lord Jesus Christ. Here we have to note that when the Scriptures speak unto us of the signs which we have in us according to God's ordinance, the very truth of them is present with them. That is, the sacraments are signs of a spiritual reality." For Calvin, somehow in the mystery of the Lord's Supper by the power of the Spirit, Christ does not come down from Heaven but we are taken up to heaven, and there we commune with our ascended Lord himself. Similarly in baptism, the sign points to the actual spiritual reality of our mortification and renewal in Christ, as well as being symbolic of all our sins being washed away, even those committed after baptism.

In Sermon 200, Calvin goes on to criticize the Roman practice of baptism. He points out that the practice of "charming" the water before baptism is meaningless and an invention of men. In the Institutes, Calvin says that the water itself is not what is important: ."..[B]aptism promises us no other purification than through the sprinkling of Christ's blood, which is represented by means of water from the resemblance to cleansing and washing. Who, therefore, may say that we are cleansed by this water which attests with certainty that Christ's blood is our true and only laver? Thus, the surest argument to refute the self-deception of those who attribute everything to the power of the water can be sought in the meaning of baptism itself, which draws us away, not only from the visible element which meets our eyes, but from all other means, that it may fasten our minds upon Christ alone" (Institutes IV:15:2).