A Reformation Debate on John Calvin from 1896

In doing some research I came across this:

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE REV THEOPHILUS LE MENANT DES-CHESNAIS BY RRV WILLIAM GILLIES, PRESBYTERIAN MINISTER, TIMARU.

Now, I realize this doesn't seem like a Reformation debate, but I assure you it is. It appears to be between a Presbyterian minister (Rev. William Gillies) and a Roman Catholic (The Very Rev. Theoppilus Le Menant Des Chesnais, L.M., Vicar General and Administrator of the Diocese of Christchurch), circa 1896.

The link is fascinating because it demonstrates how Rome's defenders- even back in the 1800's- quoted the Protestant Reformers.  Rev. Gillies simply nailed his Roman Catholic opponent when it came to documenting and quoting sources.  Rev. Theoppilus Le Menant Des Chesnais made a number of outrageous statements about John Calvin, Rev. Gillies simply went back to the primary sources and demonstrated they were false. Here's some of the things claimed about Calvin:

Calvin "admitted that praying for the dead was of Apostolic origin."

Calvin "in his commentary on the second chapter of the second epistle of St. Peter says: —  'Nine out of ten of the evangelical ministers embraced the Reformation simply to lead a life of debauchery.'"

"In his (Calvin's) book on scandals he declares that 'pastors of souls give this example of perversity and all vices.' I am astonished, he adds, that women and children do not cover them with mud and filth.'"

"When he (Calvin) was about to die he cried out, 'The future frightens me, I am afraid to think of it ; unless our Lord should come down from heaven, barbarity is going to swallow us up.'"

Rev. Gillies knocks all these down by simply going to the sources. The response from Rev. Theoppilus Le Menant Des Chesnais is included in the link. If you want to see a great example of obfuscation, read it. The response attempts to squirm out of every error by doing such acrobatics like: quoting Luther from other secondary sources (in response to a Calvin mis-citation!), referring to other secondary sources, passing the buck to blame those secondary sources for his own blunders: "We have all to take many quotations on trust, as it is impossible in all cases to procure the original text." Now that's funny: Rome's present day defenders have offered the same sort of response at times to me.

There appears to be a number of other layers to this discussion, perhaps available from the same website. So far, I've been able to locate a few others I'll highlight in future blog entries.

Addendum
I came across this old debate while looking for this Luther quote. Check out the interaction between these men, and how the quote is used:

Rev. Gillies:
You say that Calvin "in his commentary on the second chapter of the second epistle of St. Peter says: — " Nine out of ten of the evangelical ministers embraced the Reformation simply to lead a life of debauchery.' Such a statement as that bears on the very face of it the brand of falsehood. Had such been the case, would Calvin have been idiot enough to blazon it in the face of the world? I challenge you to produce any edition of Calvin's commentary in which that, or any such statement, is to be found. I have gone carefully over that chapter, and I affirm that nothing of the kind is there. The onus of proof lies with you. Produce the book, and I will be proved wrong, I will give you a very different quotation, for which I can produce the book, from his comment on that very chapter in Peter. On verse 19 he says : "The Papists turn and twist this passage against us, but they thereby betray their ridiculous impudence. For in the first place men of the filthiest life, in public houses and brothels belch out this charge, that we are the servants of corruption, in the life of whom they cannot point out anything reproachful."

Rev. Theoppilus Le Menant Des Chesnais:
You say "such a statement as that bears on the very face of it the brand of falsehood. Had such been the case, would Calvin have been idiot enough to blazon it in the face of the world?" Was Martin Luther an idiot? Hear how he speaks of the reformers: Alluding to his followers in Germany, he says that "everything is reversed, the world grows every day the worse for this teaching (of the Reformation); and the misery of it is that men are now-a-days more covetous, more hard-hearted, more corrupted, more licentious, and more wicked than of old under the Papacy." (Die Reform., vol. i., p. 279). Again, he says: " Our evangelicals are now seven-fold more wicked than they were before. In proportion as we hear the Gospel, we steal, lie, cheat, forge, and commit every crime." (Ibid., p. 197). For conformatory evidence see Austral Cath. Rec. Oct. 1895, p. 555-557, Most Rev. Carr. ("The Church and the Bible"). It the Rev William Gillies will take the trouble to take a five minutes' walk and go to the Catholic Presbytery, Timaru, he will be shown the viii. volume of Rohrbacher, Book lxxxviii., where he will find the confirmatory evidence of my statement, and much more about his favourite Calvin. I also invite him to read the " History of the Reformation " by the Most Rev Dr Spalding, Baltimore, 1870 — "The Reformation in Geneva," chap. xiv. He will find there a great deal more than what I have stated with the references to the authentic archives of Geneva, where all those facts brought against Calvin are mostly taken from. Those documents cannot be disproved, and show that Calvin and his followers were not holy, pious men, as represented by Beza, but, with few exceptions, quite the contrary.

JS: In fairness to Rev. Theoppilus Le Menant Des Chesnais, I attempted to locate "the viii. volume of Rohrbacher, Book lxxxviii." I admit to not completely understanding the reference, but I did search through a number of these volumes and came up with nothing.

Luther: the world grows every day the worse for this teaching; and the misery of it is, that men are nowadays more covetous, more hard-hearted, more corrupt, more licentious, and more wicked, than of old under the Papacy

Here's a closer look at a recent post from a participant at the Catholic Answers Forums in which the alleged "effects" of Luther's "revolt" against Rome are displayed in a despondent quote. In this second entry, I'm going to focus on the first part of this quote in which Luther is quoted as saying, "Every thing is reversed, the world grows every day the worse for this teaching; and the misery of it is, that men are nowadays more covetous, more hard-hearted, more corrupt, more licentious, and more wicked, than of old under the Papacy…" As I explained previously, the quote below is actually at least three quotes from three different contexts pasted together. Why would someone paste three different quotes together? My suspicion is dramatic effect at best, or perhaps a propaganda effort at worst.

Yesterday, 6:59 pm

total Catholic  Junior Member Join Date: February 22, 2014 Location: South Carolina Posts: 217 Religion: Catholic

VERY sad and telling quote from Martin Luther... ...as he begin to see the effects of his revolt against the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. “Every thing is reversed, the world grows every day the worse for this teaching; and the misery of it is, that men are nowadays more covetous, more hard-hearted, more corrupt, more licentious, and more wicked, than of old under the Papacy… Our evangels are now sevenfold more wicked than they were before. In proportion as we hear the gospel, we steal, lie, cheat, gorge, swill, and commit every crime. If one devil has been driven out of us, seven worse ones have taken their place, to judge from the conduct of princes, lords, nobles, burgesses, and peasants, their utterly shameless acts, and their disregard of God and of his menaces… Under the Papacy, men were charitable and gave freely; but now, under the gospel all almsgiving is at an end, everyone fleeces his neighbor, and each seeks to have all for himself. And the longer the gospel is preached, the deeper do men sink in avarice, pride, and ostention.” - Martin Luther Lutherans, we love you. Come home. You can read more: http://catholicism.org/the-devastati...nt-revolt.html

Documentation
The nuts and bolts of the documentation for this quote can be found in my previous entry. The quote was translated into English by the Dublin Review (Sept. 1848), and they claim they took it from Döllinger's Die Reformation: Ihre innere Entwicklung und ihre Wirkungen vol. 1 (The Reformation: It's Interior Development and Effects, 3 vols. 1846-1848), p. 297. The quote appears to based on this snippet from Döllinger:

Döllinger cites "Hauspostille Walch XIII. 19." This refers to a collection of Luther's sermons (the House Postil). "Walch XIII. 19": This edition of Luther's Works dates from 1740-1753,compiled by Johann Georg Walch. The sermon being cited by Döllinger appears to be on Matthew 21:1-9. There are a few different editions of Walch's House Postil. The one in which I located the quote can be found here (scroll to page 7, look for the reference to the left that says XIII, 19-21). The text in question reads:

This sermon wasn't preached at church to the general public. It was preached to his close circle of friends, family, and a few others at Luther's residence.  Documenting Luther's comments from the House Postil can be a little confusing. While Luther did certainly preach the sermon, he didn't really write the text to the House Postil. The sermons were written down by two people who heard them: Veit Dietrich and Georg Roerer, so it's possible that two versions of the same sermon exist (and they will at times have differences). Luther actually says in the introduction to the House Postil  that he wasn't aware they were taken down and he thought they "were long since forgotten." The Walch text I'm using dates the sermon at 1533.

This sermon has been translated into English. Dietrich's account can be found in Dr. Martin Luther's House-Postil, in the First Sunday in Advent sermon (Matthew 21:1-9). Roerer's version can be found in The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Volume 5 (Michigan: Baker Books, 2000) pp. 25-30. Both accounts are very similar, except that Dietrich's is longer, containing additional material at the end. Scholars say Roerer's transcriptions are more exact and trustworthy (see p.15 of The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Vol. 5 for more information). Döllinger appears to be relying on Dietrich's version.

Context
Luther first explains how the Jews expected a grand powerful king, not a meek man riding on a donkey. They expected a man of might and power like all earthly rulers. A king who could provide earthly riches and power, thrusting the Jews to a powerful place over all the nations. Rather, this man on a donkey had a different power: the forgiveness of sin and everlasting life:

For we are all poor sinners, but in baptism, and afterwards in our whole life, if we turn unto Christ, He comforts us, and says: Give me your sins and take my righteousness and holiness; let your death be taken from you, and put on my life. This is, properly speaking, the Lord Jesus' government. For all His office and work is this, that He daily takes away our sin and death, and clothes us with His righteousness and life.

Luther explains that a king with such extraordinary gifts should be most coveted, yet it is not. Here we find the first part of the quote in question:

"This announcement we should indeed hear with great joy, and every one should thereby be bettered and made more holy. But alas, the contrary is true, and the world grows worse as it grows older, becoming the very Satan himself, as we see that the people are now more dissolute, avaricious, unmerciful, impure and wicked than previously under the papacy." [Dietrich''s version]

"We must certainly receive this message eagerly and gratefully, by it becoming more pious and godly. Unfortunately there's the opposite side, that by this teaching the world becomes more and more hostile, wicked, and malicious; yet not through the fault of the teaching but of the people, thanks to the pernicious devil and death. Today people are possessed by seven devils, whereas before it was only one. The devil now bulldozes the people so that even under the bright light of the gospel they become greedier, slyer, more covetous, crueler, lewder, more insolent and ill-tempered than before under the papacy." [Roerer's version]

Notice in Roerer's version, Luther doesn't blame his teaching, but the people and ultimately Satan.
Luther goes on to say:

What causes this? Nothing else than that the people disregard this preaching, do not use it aright for their own conversion and amendment, that is, for the comfort of their conscience, and thankfulness for the grace and benefit of God in Christ; but every one is more concerned for money and goods, or other worldly matters, than for this precious treasure which Christ brings us. For the most of us, when we do not feel our misery, the fear of sin and death, would rather, like the Jews, have such a king in Christ as would give us riches and ease here on earth, than that we should comfort ourselves in Him in the midst of poverty, crosses, wretchedness, fear and death. The world takes no delight in this, and because the gospel and Christ do not give it what it desires, it will have nothing to do with Christ and the gospel.[Dietrich's version]

"Why so? Not through fault of the teaching but because the message is not met with thankful acceptance; people cast it to the wind and pay more attention to money and goods than to the blessed treasure which our Lord Christ brings to us." [Roerer's version]

In harmony with his earlier points, he explains people seek after earthly riches, not heavenly riches. Most people want the same powerful king the Jews expected, not the foolishness of Christ. With a pastoral heart, Luther warns:

Therefore our Lord in turn rebukes this world and says: Do you not rejoice in this, nor thank me, that through the sufferings and death of my only begotten Son, I take away your sins and death? Then I will give you sin and death enough, since you want it so; and where you were possessed of and tormented by only one devil, you shall now be tormented by seven that are worse. We see farmers, citizens and all orders, from the highest to the lowest, guilty of shameful avarice, inordinate life, impurity and other vices. Therefore let every one who would be a Christian be hereby warned as of God himself, joyfully and thankfully to hear and receive this announcement, and also pray to God to give him a strong faith, that he may hold fast this doctrine; then surely the fruit will follow, that he will daily become more humble, obedient, gentle, chaste and pious. For this doctrine is of a character to make godly, chaste, obedient, pious people.

Luther states those who accept this gospel will have fruit follow and "will daily become more humble, obedient, gentle, chaste and pious. For this doctrine is of a character to make godly, chaste, obedient, pious people." Then there are those who will not accept the gospel:

But those who will not gladly receive it, become seven times worse than they were before they heard it, as we see everywhere. And the hour will surely come when God will punish this unthankfulness. Then it will appear what the world has merited by it. Now, since the Jews would not obey the prophet, it is told to us that our King comes meek and lowly, in order that we may learn wisdom from their sad experience, and not be offended by His poverty, nor look for worldly pomp and riches, like the Jews; but learn that in Christ we have a King who is the Just One and Savior, and willing to help us from sin and eternal death. This announcement, I say, we should receive with joy, and with hearty thanks to God, else we must take the devil, with walling, weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Conclusion
The participant at the Catholic Answers Forums says this quote shows the "effects" of Luther's "revolt" against Rome. In a sense, the quote does show that. In context, it's the world which grows worse because of the gospel being preached. Those who accept the gospel are transformed by the gospel. Luther consistently held that the gospel would find great opposition, and would be attacked from all sides. The gospel would be used by the world as a licence to sin and all sorts of evil because of Satan. The gospel would indeed make those of the world worse. But what the participant at the Catholic Answers Forums seems to think is that the quote shows Luther regretted his proclamation of the gospel because of the "effects." This isn't the case at all.

Addendum
I've actually gone through this quote before. Roman Catholic apologist Steve Ray cited it in his book, Crossing the Tiber. See my link here: Luther: People are Worse Than They Were Under The Papacy.

In taking a fresh look at this quote, I came across an interesting old article from the Lutheran Quarterly, Vol. 15.  I found it interesting that this article came across the same sources I did and commented on them.

Catholic Answers Participant provides a " VERY sad and telling quote from Martin Luther..."

Here's a recent offering from a participant at the Catholic Answers Forums in which the alleged "effects" of Luther's "revolt" against Rome are displayed in a despondent quote from Luther. In this first entry, I'm going to provide the documentation needed to find the context(s) of the quote being cited. In future entries, I'll provide the contexts.

Yesterday, 6:59 pm

total Catholic  Junior Member Join Date: February 22, 2014 Location: South Carolina Posts: 217 Religion: Catholic

VERY sad and telling quote from Martin Luther... ...as he begin to see the effects of his revolt against the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. “Every thing is reversed, the world grows every day the worse for this teaching; and the misery of it is, that men are nowadays more covetous, more hard-hearted, more corrupt, more licentious, and more wicked, than of old under the Papacy… Our evangels are now sevenfold more wicked than they were before. In proportion as we hear the gospel, we steal, lie, cheat, gorge, swill, and commit every crime. If one devil has been driven out of us, seven worse ones have taken their place, to judge from the conduct of princes, lords, nobles, burgesses, and peasants, their utterly shameless acts, and their disregard of God and of his menaces… Under the Papacy, men were charitable and gave freely; but now, under the gospel all almsgiving is at an end, everyone fleeces his neighbor, and each seeks to have all for himself. And the longer the gospel is preached, the deeper do men sink in avarice, pride, and ostention.” - Martin Luther Lutherans, we love you. Come home. You can read more: http://catholicism.org/the-devastati...nt-revolt.html

Documentation
What appears to be a dismal ranting paragraph from Luther on the failures of the Reformation is actually a few quotes strewn together using a complicated web of secondary sources going back to the mid-1800's. This is the standard operating procedure for many of Rome's defenders.

The first place to begin the investigation is by following the "You can read more" link over to the article, Some Causes and Consequences of the Protestant Revolt (March 5, 2012) by Br. David Mary, M.I.C.M., Tert. The author states,

Before going on to describe the Revolt in the rest of Europe, let us hear Luther himself comment on the moral results of his “glorious” reform: “Every thing is reversed, the world grows every day the worse for this teaching; and the misery of it is, that men are nowadays more covetous, more hard-hearted, more corrupt, more licentious, and more wicked, than of old under the Papacy… Our evangels are now sevenfold more wicked than they were before. In proportion as we hear the gospel, we steal, lie, cheat, gorge, swill, and commit every crime. If one devil has been driven out of us, seven worse ones have taken their place, to judge from the conduct of princes, lords, nobles, burgesses, and peasants, their utterly shameless acts, and their disregard of God and of his menaces… Under the Papacy, men were charitable and gave freely; but now, under the gospel all almsgiving is at an end, everyone fleeces his neighbor, and each seeks to have all for himself. And the longer the gospel is preached, the deeper do men sink in avarice, pride, and ostention.” 68 [68 Quoted by the German historian Döllinger from Luther’s writings near the end of his life. This extract can be seen in History of the Protestant Revolt , Vol. I, p. 260.]

The source cited (endnote #68) appears to be referring to an extract from Döllinger's History of the Protestant Revolt , Vol. I, p. 260. I was not familiar with Döllinger having written such a volume. Upon further investigation, Br. Mary's other endnotes also refer to The History of the Protestant Revolt in England and Ireland  by William Cobbett, and The History of the Protestant Reformation in Germany and Switzerland, and in England, Ireland, Scotland, the Netherlands, France, and Northern Europe , Vol. I, by M. J. Spalding. The quote in question appears to come from Pages 259 - 260 of the later volume, not Döllinger:

We here subjoin an analysis of the testimony furnished by the reformers themselves, according to the learned and accurate Döllinger, on the practical moral results of their teachings, as witnessed by themselves in their own times. If some of these testimonies are similar to those already given, the confirmation is still more forcible. As will be seen, the analysis is sufficiently thorough and searching, and its length will be pardoned to the great interest of the subject*

 *We take this excellent summary from the Dublin Review for September, 1848, which gives also the proper references to Döllinger's German work.

THE MORAL RESULTS OF THE REFORMATION. "Upon this head, few will be disposed to call in question the authority of our first evidence, the father of the Reformation himself With all his partiality for the child of his own labors, Luther is forced to admit, that it were no wonder if his beloved Germany 'were sunk in the earth, or utterly overthrown by the Turks and Tartars, by reason of the hellish and damnable forgetfulness and contempt of God's grace which the people manifest; nay, that the wonder is, that the earth does not refuse to bear them, and the sun to shine upon them any longer.' He doubts 'whether it should any longer be called a world, and not rather an abyss of all evils, wherewith those sodomites afflict his soul and his eyes both day and night' 'Every thing is reversed,' he laments, 'the world grows every day the worse for this teaching; and the misery of it is, that men are nowadays more covetous, more hard-hearted, more corrupt, more licentious, and more wicked, than of old under the Papacy.' 'Our evangelicals,' he avows, 'are now sevenfold more wicked than they were before. In proportion as we hear the gospel, we steal, lie, cheat, gorge, swill, and commit every crime. If one devil has been driven out of us, seven worse ones have taken their place, to judge from the conduct of princes, lords, nobles, burgesses, and peasants, their utterly shameless acts, and their disregard of God and of his menaces.' 'Under the Papacy, men were charitable and gave freely; but now, under the gospel, all almsgiving is at an end, every one fleeces his neighbor, and each seeks to have all for himself. And the longer the gospel is preached, the deeper do men sink in avarice, pride, and ostentation.' So utterly, too, does he despair of the improvement of this generation of his disciples, that he 'often wishes that Oxese filthy swine-bellies were back again under the tyranny of the Pope, for it is impossible that a race so savage, such a "people of Gomorrha," could be ruled by the peaceful consolations of the gospel.'

So, right off the bat, Rome's defender on the Catholic Answers forums cited a cut-and-paste from a web article that got the author and the title wrong of the book being cited. But it gets more complicated. The author of the book being cited (M.J. Spalding) actually didn't use one of Luther's writings, but rather took the information from the Dublin Review September, 1848 from their article, The Reformation as Described by the Reformers (the quote in question begins on page 216). The Dublin Review notes that it isn't one quote, but rather at least three from a German source (quotes they translated into English), Döllinger's Die Reformation: Ihre innere Entwicklung und ihre Wirkungen vol. 1 (The Reformation: It's Interior Development and Effects, 3 vols. 1846-1848). The Dublin Review provides three references to  Döllinger's Die Reformation: pp. 297, 285, 327. Broken up, the quotes are said to refer to the following from Döllinger:

1. Every thing is reversed, the world grows every day the worse for this teaching; and the misery of it is, that men are nowadays more covetous, more hard-hearted, more corrupt, more licentious, and more wicked, than of old under the Papacy… (p. 297)

2. Our evangels are now sevenfold more wicked than they were before. In proportion as we hear the gospel, we steal, lie, cheat, gorge, swill, and commit every crime. If one devil has been driven out of us, seven worse ones have taken their place, to judge from the conduct of princes, lords, nobles, burgesses, and peasants, their utterly shameless acts, and their disregard of God and of his menaces… (p.285)

3. Under the Papacy, men were charitable and gave freely; but now, under the gospel all almsgiving is at an end, everyone fleeces his neighbor, and each seeks to have all for himself. And the longer the gospel is preached, the deeper do men sink in avarice, pride, and ostention. (p.327)

Now using the references from the Dublin Review to Döllinger, we can begin to try to find the actual contexts to from Luther's writings by seeing what Döllinger was citing. For the first quote from Döllinger's Die Reformation on page 297, the reference appears to be  either to  to Walch 2680 (in which Döllinger gave a rather loose translation of Luther's comments on Galatians 5:13) or, it could be to Hauspostille Walch XIII.19. If this is the reference, it would be Luther's sermon on Matthew 21:1-9. Or, the Dublin review may have used a mixture of both. The second quote from page 285 appears to be a reference to Walch III, 2727. The quote comes from Luther's comments on Deuteronomy 9:25.  The third quote refers to Walsh hauspostil XIII 1572, 1584. These are references to Luther's House Postil sermon on Luke 16:19-31.

Conclusion
That's right: this one-paragraph quote from Luther is actually three quotes from three different sources, hence three different contexts.

This particular exercise of tedium took a number of hours to unravel. It always amazes me how one seemingly simple paragraph can be put together in such a haphazard "Frankenstein's monster" way. Rather than simply reading Luther, many of Rome's defenders would rather cut-and-paste snippets from research dating back centuries. And even visiting those old texts revealed that some of Rome's defenders were cutting and pasting way back when.  The simple thing to remember is not to take anything Rome's defenders post at face value. More often than not when it comes to these Reformation related quotes, they've never actually done the work to actually read the original contexts of what they post. Perhaps it's laziness, or perhaps it's misguided zeal, or perhaps in some cases it's a little bit of both. The participant from Catholic Answers ends with, "Lutherans, we love you. Come home." Love is not demonstrated by posting propaganda, Wherever "home" is, it certainly isn't where this person from Catholic Answers thinks it is.

Addendum
I did leave a response at Catholic Answers, and of course, when at Catholic Answers, always save a copy of what you post:

Jan 14, '16, 3:44 pm

TertiumQuid  Regular Member   Join Date: May 19, 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 895 Religion: Reformed

Re: VERY sad and telling quote from Martin Luther... Quote: Originally Posted by total Catholic  You can read more: http://catholicism.org/the-devastati...nt-revolt.html So I read more to see the reference as to where Luther said this. The link goes over to the article,Some Causes and Consequences of the Protestant Revolt by Br. David Mary, M.I.C.M., Tert. The source cited by Br, David Mary appears to be Döllinger's History of the Protestant Revolt , Vol. I, p. 260. I was not familiar with Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger having written such a volume. What's usually cited by is Döllinger's A History of the Church series. Thinking that this was the source meant, I checked vol. 1 p. 260, but the quote was not there. A quick Google search though did come upon The History of the Protestant Reformation Vol. 1 by M.J. Spalding. Page 260 has the quote being cited. A surface reading of Br, David Mary's documentation appears he got the author wrong, but it's more likely his was a poorly worded footnote. He did though get the title of the book wrong, changing "Reformation" to "Revolt." The author of the book being cited (M.J. Spalding) admits he didn't get the quotes from Luther, but rather took the information from the Dublin Review for September, 1848. The Dublin review took the quotes from Döllinger. It appears there are at least three different quotes being put together to form the paragraph as it's being cited. This might sound like nitpicking, but those were the hoops I had to jump through to see where Luther said what he is purported to have said. Luther wasn't postmillennial. While he was discouraged that the world seemed to be getting worse, his eschatological expectation can be traced back even to the early days of his Reformation work. For Luther, it was the end of the world. Things were indeed going to get worse. For him, he felt the Gospel was going to be fought against by the Devil with all his might. The true church was a tiny flock in a battle against the world, the flesh, and the Devil. He hoped the people would improve with the preaching of the Gospel, he often admitted he knew things were going to get worse because of the Gospel. One of the recent volumes of Luther's works addresses this very issue (LW 58:xx-xxii). It is well worth tracking down. They say in part, "The Reformation, as Luther understands it at the end of his life, is neither an accomplished event nor a step along the progressive way to the full purification of the Church, but it is a continual struggle, carried out through the preaching of the Law and the Gospel, to be renewed from generation to generation until the Last Day."

Martin Luther: We should throw the Epistle of James out of this school [Wittenberg]

This is a follow-up to my earlier critique of  Shoebat's Martin Luther- The Bare Truth Unfolded. Their recent hit piece includes some Martin Luther quotes Beggars All has not gone into detail on. For instance, they state the following in regard to Luther's view of James:

If there was any book in the New Testament that was more subject to attack by Martin Luther it was none other than the Epistle of James. This was simply because Luther had become an antinomian and thus wanted an easy salvation that was devoid of repentance in accordance with faith. Sounds like most of Protestantism today, doesn’t it? Let us see what his actual words are regarding the Epistle of James: “We should throw the Epistle of James out of this school [Wittenberg], for it doesn’t amount to much. It contains not a syllable about Christ. Not once does it mention Christ, except at the beginning. I maintain that some Jew wrote it who probably heard about Christian people but never encountered any.” (Lecture at Wittenberg, 54, 424-425) For Luther to blasphemously accredit the Blessed Apostle James as an unbelieving Jew who had no contact with Christianity is laughable to say the least and blasphemous at worst! No wonder we have in a number of Protestant churches and theological colleges, people who have no reverence for anything sacred and also who attack our Lord Jesus Christ and His Blessed Apostles!

Documentation
Shoebat.com cites "Lecture at Wittenberg, 54, 424-425."  Someone coming across this quote probably pictures Martin Luther lecturing to his students, and the quote is part of a documented lecture.  The simple fact is that neither the documentation nor the context asserts this. Shoebat.com is assuming it. Nor does Shoebat.com explain what "54, 424-425" refers to. Is volume 54 of whatever it is they're citing entitled, "Lecture at Wittenberg" or is it a document from some unnamed 54th source?  Well, "54" refers to Luther's Works, volume 54, English edition. Shoebat.com is in error when they state, "Let us see what his actual words are regarding the Epistle of James." Volume 54 is a collection of Luther's Table Talk utterances. The Table Talk is a collection of secondhand comments written down by Luther's friends and students, published after his death, so there is no certain proof they are his "actual words." Since the statements contained therein are purported to have been made by Luther, they should serve more as corroborating second-hand testimony to something Luther is certain to have written or said.


Context

No. 5443: Luther Has Low Opinion of Epistle of James Summer or Fall, 1542 
“We should throw the Epistle of James out of this school, for it doesn’t amount to much. It contains not a syllable about Christ. Not once does it mention Christ, except at the beginning [Jas. 1:1; 2:1]. I maintain that some Jew wrote it who probably heard about Christian people but never encountered any. Since he heard that Christians place great weight on faith in Christ, he thought, ‘Wait a moment! I’ll oppose them and urge works alone.’ This he did. He wrote not a word about the suffering and resurrection of Christ, although this is what all the apostles preached about. Besides, there’s no order or method in the epistle. Now he discusses clothing and then he writes about wrath and is constantly shifting from one to the other. He presents a comparison: ‘As the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead’ [Jas. 2:26]. O Mary, mother of God! What a terrible comparison that is! James compares faith with the body when he should rather have compared faith with the soul! The ancients recognized this, too, and therefore they didn’t acknowledge this letter as one of the catholic epistles” (LW 54:424-425).

Original text: Iacobi epistola. Epistolam Iacobi eicicimus ex hac schola, denn sie soll nichts. Nullam syllabam habet de Christo. Er nennet auch Christum nicht eins nisi in principio. Ich halt, das sie irgents ein Jude gemacht hatt, welcher wol hat horen von den christen leuten, abr nit gar zusam schlagen; vnd dieweil er hat gehört, das die christen also sehr auff den glauben in Christum dringen, hat er gedacht: Halt, du wilt in begegnen vnd schlecht die opera treiben! Wie er den thut. De passione et resurrectione Christi sagt er nicht ein wort, das doch aller apostell predigt ist gewest. Dazu ist da kein ordo noch methodus. Jht sagt er von kleidern, bald von⁹ zorn, fellet imer von einem auff das ander. Er gibet ein gleichnus: Sicut corpus non vivit sine anima, ita fides nihil est sine operibus. Ei Marge, Gotts mutter! Wie ein arme similitudo ist das! Confer fidern corpori, cum potius fides animae fuisset comparanda! Das haben auch die alten gesehen, darumb haben sie die epistolam nicht pro catholica epistola gehalten (WATr 5:157).

Analysis
1. This 1542 Table Talk utterance does reflect Luther's earlier view of James: that he was not an apostle, but rather a later Christian that came after the apostles. His earlier preface to James (1522) states, "Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle" (LW 35:395). In the Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520) Luther states, "[M]any assert with much probability that this epistle is not by James the apostle, and that it is not worthy of an apostolic spirit; although, whoever was its author, it has come to be regarded as authoritative" (LW 36:118). The editors of LW 35 point out that the "ancients" Luther probably had in mind were Eusebius and Jerome (LW 35:395, fn 47). The editors likewise posit that the "many" may have included Luther's Roman Catholic contemporaries, Desiderius Erasmus and Cardinal Cajetan. (LW 36:118, fn. 213). Interestingly, The New Catholic Answer Bible (using the NAB translation and notes) states, "The person to whom this letter is ascribed can scarcely be one of the two members of the Twelve who bore the name James, for he is not identified as an apostle but only as a slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ" (p. 1341). They also reference the fact that some scholars hold "James is a pseudonymous work of a later period" (p. 1341-1342).

2. As to whether or not Luther tried to have James thrown out of the Wittenberg school, I'm not aware of any actual non-Table Talk writings from Luther in which he wrote this. However, it is true though that Luther was bothered by the polemical Roman Catholic use of James throughout his career, so it wouldn't be much of stretch to believe he made this rhetorical comment.

3. The phrase "some Jew" sometimes wrongly gets highlighted as an antisemitic slur. See for instance the debate between Bill Rutland (Roman Catholic) and Wayne Greeson (Protestant): "Is Roman Catholic Tradition Our Authority For Faith And Doctrine." The Roman Catholic participant, Bill Rutland. appears to be referring to this Table Talk quote, but adds "evil":

The truth is…Martin Luther took books out of the Bible. Martin Luther using a Jewish Council convened in 90 A.D. called the Council of Jamnia removed the dueterocanonicals from the Old Testament. Not only did he do that but he even removed the Book of James from the New Testament calling it an ‘epistle of straw’ and claiming that some evil Jew had written it to lead Christians astray and it was put back in after the cajoling of the other Reformers (p.31).

4. The comments about works are also consistent with Luther's earlier views, but Shoebat.com is in blatant error when they say, "Luther had become an antinomian" because he "wanted an easy salvation that was devoid of repentance in accordance with faith." See my detailed link here, or scroll through my compilation of statements from Luther on faith and works. Luther taught a life under the cross, which is a life of discipleship of following after Christ. Our crosses though, do not save: they serve the neighbor. We are called to be neighbor to those around us. Detractors often selectively quote Luther’s opinion of James. Most often cited are only those comments that express negativity. If one takes the times to actually read Luther’s popular preface comments about James, he praises it and considers it a "good book" "because it sets up no doctrine of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God."

5. The comments about "no order or method in the epistle" are also consistent with Luther's earlier views.  His earlier Preface to James states, "he throws things together so chaotically that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took a few sayings from the disciples of the apostles and thus tossed them off on paper" (LW 35:397).  What Luther refers to as the unnatural order of the book, The New Catholic Answer Bible says in a more polished way:

From the viewpoint of its literary form, James is a letter only in the most conventional sense; it has none of the characteristic features of a real letter except the address. It belongs rather to the genre of parenesis or exhortation and is concerned almost exclusively with ethical conduct. It therefore falls within the tradition of Jewish wisdom literature, such as can be found in the Old Testament (Proverbs, Sirach) and in the extracanonical Jewish literature (Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Books of Enoch, the Manual of Discipline found at Qumran). More specifically, it consists of sequences of didactic proverbs, comparable to Tb 4:5–19, to many passages in Sirach, and to sequences of sayings in the synoptic gospels. Numerous passages in James treat of subjects that also appear in the synoptic sayings of Jesus, especially in Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount, but the correspondences are too general to establish any literary dependence. James represents a type of early Christianity that emphasized sound teaching and responsible moral behavior. Ethical norms are derived not primarily from christology, as in Paul, but from a concept of salvation that involves conversion, baptism, forgiveness of sin, and expectation of judgment (Jas 1:17; 4:12) (p.1341).

Conclusion
This Table Talk comment could be reflective of Luther's lifelong doubt about the canonicity of James. There were occasions though throughout his career that he referenced James, and not in a derogatory manner. Such citations are not proof that he changed his mind on the canonicty of James, but they are proof that Shoebat.com is exaggerating when they state, "If there was any book in the New Testament that was more subject to attack by Martin Luther it was none other than the Epistle of James."

At times it does appear Luther accepted James as an apostle and his book as canonical. For instance, in 1536 Luther preached on James 1:16-21. It is curious that in the sermon, Luther refers to James as “the apostle,” and it is also interesting that he does discuss the gospel and the Resurrection. Luther was also aware of the common protestant harmonization of Paul and James, and even at times offered it himself:

This is what St. James means when his says in his Epistle, 2:26: ‘Faith without works is dead.’ That is, as the works do not follow, it is a sure sign that there is no faith there; but only an empty thought and dream, which they falsely call faith [The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Vol. 2:2 (Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), p. 308].

For a broader context of this sermon, see this link.

Throughout their article, it was not entirely clear that Shoebat.com is a blatant defender of Rome and all things Roman Catholic. If they are, they would be guilty of the same sort of double standard that the typical defenders of Rome are.  Erasmus, Luther, and Cajetan formed their opinions on the canon previous to the Council of Trent’s canon declaration. They had the liberty to speculate within the Roman theological tradition. Even Luther did not mind if people disagreed with him on James: "Therefore I cannot include him among the chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him" (LW 35:397).

Questions for Walid Shoebat

Walid Shoebat (and other authors at his web-site) have been very critical of Protestantism and Luther (and Calvin) in recent years (as James Swan's posts demonstrate).

The Shoebats (both Walid and Theodore) has also had a few run-ins with Dr. White also in the past few years.

Some of the articles and some of the emphasis is right to expose the problems with violent and Jihadist/terrorist Islam and political correctness.  Also, we should pray for the ancient churches communities (Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Oriental Orthodox) and Christians and other groups such as the Yezidis who are being persecuted and slaughered by ISIS.   The Shoebats desire for justice for those communities is a good one.

He does seem to have converted to Roman Catholicism, although that is not completely clear to me either. He speaks well of the crusades, and emphasizes military action again Muslims, etc. 

Shoebat is very Pro-Israel and was (and still is, it seems, though I don't know for sure) very into Pre-tribulational and Pre-millennial theology and prophesy and Israel coming back as a nation in 1948 as a fulfillment of prophesy.

Years ago, (sometime between 1995-2000 ?), we exchanged a few emails, as we were on an email group of people doing ministry with Muslims, he got really upset with me (on an email group of people in ministry to Muslims), because I questioned his Pre-trib and pre-Millennial stuff that was always such an overemphasis on modern 1948 Zionism and Israel, etc. -  he was very similar to  Hal Lindsay, John Hagee, and Jack Van Impe type of emphasis. He later either left the email group or was kicked out of the email group. (?)

To be clear, I support Israel's right to exist and defend herself against Islamic terrorism, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the PLO.  But that is an issue of justice and fairness, (since it was the Ottoman Turks who were the political entity over Palestine for about 500 years, and they were justly punished after 1918 because of their role in joining Germany in World War 1 (so the argument that Palestine was a formal country is wrong); and the Muslims were always attacking first, and loosing more territory since 1948; and the fact that the Muslims never accepted Israel's right to exist, even the 1948 borders were rejected wholeheartedly by the Muslim world at the time.  

Hamas has quotes from the Hadith in it's charter that speak of 
"there is a Jew behind the rock and tree; come and kill the Jews"  and "fight the Jews until the day of 
resurrection". 

See here also.

 That (support for Israel)  is not an issue of whether 1948 was a fulfillment of prophesy or whether the OT land promises to Israel are still valid.   Galatians 4:26, Revelation 21-22; Hebrews chapter 4 and Hebrews 11:10; 11:16 and 12:22-23; and 13:14 seem to indicate the OT land promises were fulfilled in Christ.  (with Galatians 3:16 )  I still struggle between 2 views of the Millennium in Eschatology: is it "Historic Pre-Millennialism" (post-tribulational rapture) or A-millenialism, although I do lean toward an A-millennial view, with a somewhat positive view of much of what partial-preterism says.  

It is still hard for me to tell definitely if Walid is just supporting the militaristic history of the past of Romanism - Crusades, etc. vs. Islam, or if he really converted to Roman Catholicism (though now that I am looking more closely at his articles, it does seem he has converted.) see his article "Them Damned Catholics" at his website.   But that was in 2013; since that time, there are many more articles supporting Roman Catholicism that I have discovered since looking more at this site.  Wow.  I have not had time to digest these, and just noticed them.  It seems more and more clear that he has converted to Roman Catholicism.  Shoebat defends icons, statues, and the whole incarnational theological justification for bowing down to and venerating icons and statues.  (Sept. 20, 2015) And he defends Russia, the Orthodox church, and Putin too.   Wow.  The more I read, the more I am seeing this, Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, militancy, mixed with end-times events prophesy stuff.

Walid Shoebat - did you convert to Roman Catholicism?  Are you a traditional Roman Catholic?  (one who wants the Tridentide Latin Mass restored to official and obligatory and either considers the Popes after Pius XII anti-Popes or weak or hold to the Sedevacantist position.)    The more I look and read more at your site, the more it seems to indicate that you have converted to the more Traditional strain of Roman Catholicism.

His pre-trib. pre-Millennialism and pro-1948 Israel as fulfillment of prophesy would seem to conflict with eschatological views of Roman Catholicism and the small Middle Eastern Churches that go back to earlier more ancient churches of Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy (Coptic and other Mia-physite / Monophysite churches/ rejection of the Chalcedonian Council and Creed of 451 AD) and Roman Catholicism. (back to 500s - 600s and beyond to the modern era).

Walid, are you still Pre-trib and Pre-Millennial?  and if so, how does that fit with the Roman Catholic Church, which is more A-millennial?

If you look at his web-site, in a 2012 interview with Pat Robertson (! Charismatic, CBN - 700 Club - TV personality, but certainly not pro-Roman Catholic), he gives a fairly in-depth analysis of the connections of key people with the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic terrorism, the history and fall of the Caliphate in 1924, and desire for Muslims to re-establish the Caliphate issues and the Sunni - Shiite connections - Shoebat even predicts that Iran will attack Saudi Arabia and destroy it in the near future.   






Maybe it was sometime after 2012 that he moved more toward Roman Catholicism. That (the prediction that Iran will attack Saudi Arabia) caught my eye, because of the recent tensions between Iran and Saudi going on right now.   

See also the Wikipedia article on the history of Saudi and Iran relations and tensions.

Walid is more credible than Ergun Caner, that is for sure, as he truly does speak Arabic and was born in Palestine-Israel, and Walid is a former Muslim, who was an Evangelical for a while; and now it seems he is Roman Catholic. 

Walid's Arabic and knowledge of individual leaders in the world of Islam and Islamic terrorism seem very credible;

although his claim of being a former terrorist has some doubts and wholes in it, 

and his stuff on the bism-illa (بسم الله ) (In the name of Allah) as the sign of Anti-Christ and 666 is goofy. 

I think Shoebat is basically right in understanding the connections between the Muslim Brotherhood and other Jihadist groups (Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, ISIS), the desire for the restoration of the Caliphate, and connections to political Muslims groups in the USA such as CAIR and the Muslim Student Associations on US University campuses.  The founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan Al Banna, inspired Sayeed Qutb, who inspired Osama Ben Laden and Ayman Al Zawahiri (the current leader of Al Qaeda) and Hamas in Palestine/Israel.  Hezbollah in Lebanon is the Shiite version of Islamic Terror against the modern state of Israel. (similar to the Sunni Hamas group.)

Addendum:
After watching the interview that Walid Shoebat did with Pat Robertson again, I noticed several things.  1.  Walid was wrong about Egypt (After the Arab Spring of 2011-2012 in Egypt, Hosni Mubarak was taken down from power, and the Muslim Brotherhood was in charge through Muhammad Morsi's government for a while(June 2012-July 2013), but the people and General Al Sisi rose up and did not want them in charge.)  and 2.  he was making lots of predictions about the Islamic world and tying in Bible passages from Isaiah and Jeremiah (most of which had to do with the era of Assyria, Egypt, and Babylon Geo-politics and wars of that time period.)  Elam is not all of Iran/Persia, although there is a small province in Iran in the south, near Iraq named Elam.   The Elamites were more of Semitic group more closely related to the Arabs in the south of Iraq, but they no longer exist today.  The Persians later conquer Elam.  (Cyrus - 536 BC and forward).   Then later, Islamic conquests (632 AD to 1600s) over the past 1400 years has caused many of the Biblical peoples and boundaries to be changed.  There are Arabs in the south of Iran, but there are also lots of Persians and there is lots of ethnic mix.  I know several Iranians who have an Arab father and Iranian mother, and vice versa, and many Iranians who are Turkish in their ethnic roots.   Isaiah 19:1 and following seems to have been about God judging Egypt through Assyria (the Lord was judging Israel by Assyrian attacks from 738 BC (Tiglath-Pileser) -725-722 (Shalmanesar and Sargon) BC and beyond - trying to take Judah and the south - 701 BC - Sennacherib).  Assyria conquered Egypt in 670 BC (in between the time that Assyria conqured Israel, the Northern Kingdom, and Babylon conquered Judah, the Southern Kingdom, from 606-586 BC - G. W. Crogan, in his commentary on Isaiah, writes, "The fierce king of verse 4 has been variously identified, but there can be little doubt that the most appropriate application is to Ear-shaddon, king of Assyria, who subdued Egypt in 670 BC." (page 126, Commentary on Isaiah, in The Expositors Bible Commentary, volume 6 (Isaiah-Ezekiel), Zondervan, 1986).  Later, Babylonian invasions  -Babylon conquered Israel and destroyed the temple.  (605-586 BC)  Isaiah 19:1 - "The LORD rides on a cloud, coming to Egypt to destroy the idols of Egypt".  The context was the paganism in Egypt at the time and that God, by allowing Assyria to conquer Egypt in 670 BC; and later, Babylon to invade and conquer Judah, the southern kingdom.  Another commentary mentions Persia conquering Egypt for a while in the 500s-300s BC.  God's judgement is described as "riding on a cloud".  That is one of the big concepts that Partial- Preterists use to show that God "came" in judgment on Israel in 70 AD by sovereignly causing the Romans to attack and destroy the temple in Jerusalem.

Basic Biblical doctrine

The recent video put out by Pope Francis is a contradiction to basic Biblical doctrine, that Christ is the only way of salvation and the only way to reach God.
John 14:6
Acts 4:12
Romans 10:13-15
John 3:18

A Roman Catholic may say something like, "the Pope actually never directly contradicts those verses; he is just saying we should talk and dialogue with one another, with people from other religions, and we should consider all people "children of God"; and they are sincerely seeking for God and they "believe in love" also.  Turretinfan is correct about the proper understanding of "Children of God" ; yet the Roman apologists would probably say that the Pope means that we are all children of God in the sense of nature and creation - "brothers and sisters in humanity".  He should make that clear, if he wants to preach truth and the gospel with other people of other religions.

The failure to preach the gospel and speak the truth in this context is a failure of basic responsibilities of a pastor/elder/overseer (bishop).  He (and the doctrine of the Papal office) claims to be "the bishop over all bishops", and this is a massive failure of duty.

We can still have respectful dialogue with other religions, but we need to preach the gospel (2 Timothy 4:1-7), be involved in Christian apologetics and speak it with gentleness and respect ( 1 Peter 3:15), speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15-16), and defend the faith once for all delivered to the saints.  (Jude 3)  But the Roman Church officially rejected justification by faith alone at Trent (1545-1563) and has been adding more and more traditions of man (Mark 7; Matthew 15; Colossians 2:8) to their dogmas.

The video gives the impression that Buddhism, Judaism, and Islam are equally valid roads to God and understanding of what true love is.  The plastic baby doll Jesus as representing Christianity is typical Roman Catholic external physical emphasis that is crude and gaudy and comes across, when RCs stand before it and pray and worship, - it comes across as idolatry.  As does praying to Mary.

If post Vatican 2 theology is wrong (and it certainly seems to contradict previous RC theology, especially in the official Catechism of the Catholic Church, # 841 (Muslims worship the same God as Christians) and 847 (atheists  and pagans who have never heard of Christ can be saved), then this is another step in showing why there are the "Traditional" Roman Catholics, the "Rad-Trad" Roman Catholics and Sedevacantists, and the whole RC claim of unity is an empty promise.  And it also shows that Papal infallibility is wrong.




As John Bugay has commented on this video also, the Pope is channeling the classic liberalism of "Adolph Von Harnack"

Luther on Revelation: "I feel an aversion to it, and to me this is sufficient reason for rejecting it."

The following link popped up a few weeks ago: Martin Luther- The Bare Truth Unfolded. The hosting website is Shoebat.com, and, as far as I can tell, is some sort of Anti-Islam pro-Roman Catholic website. From time to time they put up articles blaming Luther for the evils of the world (see the Beggars All archives). This article is similar to their previous offerings. Their recent hit piece includes some Luther quotes I've never gone into detail on or have never covered. For instance, they state the following:

Denial of the authenticity of the Apocalypse/Revelation

This will surprise many of the dear Protestant Christians who hold to a firm belief in the Holy Scriptures. In fact, as a fellow Christian, I wish to extend my sympathies to such. However, facts are that the very founder of the Protestant Reformation did not have any reverence for the Holy Scripture, especially when it clashed with his subjective thinking. Before we consider this, let us consider the warning by the Blessed Apostle St. John in Revelation 22:18, 19: “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecies of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” However, we find that Martin Luther had the gall to attack even any belief in the very Apocalypse itself as inspired of God. Let us consider this quote by Martin Luther:

“to my mind, it [the book of the Apocalypse/Revelation] bears upon it no marks of an apostolic or prophetic character… Everyone may form his own judgment of this book; as for myself, I feel an aversion to it, and to me this is sufficient reason for rejecting it.”

(Sammtliche Werke, 63, pp 169-170, ‘The Facts About Luther’, O’Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p 203)

Documentation
It's within the realm of possibility that Shoebat.com didn't actually take this quote from where it purportedly came from. The form of the quote is almost identical to its use in the Luther, Exposing the Myth webpage (see my extended review of this link). If this was the source used, Shoebat.com simply added one word, "Revelation."  :

Luther teaches: "To my mind it (the book of the Apocalypse) bears upon it no marks of an apostolic or prophetic character... Everyone may form his own judgment of this book; as for myself, I feel an aversion to it, and to me this is sufficient reason for rejecting it."[61]  Sammtliche Werke, 63, pp. 169-170, 'The Facts About Luther,' O'Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p. 203.

The similarity is striking. Regardless of whether or not this was simply a typical cut-and-paste, Shoebat.com cites "Sammtliche Werke, 63, pp 169-170, ‘The Facts About Luther’, O’Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p 203)." They at least admit to taking the quote from a secondary source, Patrick O'Hare's, The Facts About Luther (Tan edition).I've mentioned this book often throughout the years (it has been a perpetual source of propaganda for Rome's defenders). On page 203 (page 208 in the 1916 edition), Father O'Hare states,

"There are many things objectionable in this book," he says of the Apocalypse; "to my mind it bears upon it no marks of an apostolic or prophetic character. . . .Every one may form his own judgment of this book; as for myself, I feel an aversion to it, and to me this is sufficient reason for rejecting it." (Sammtliche Werke [Collected Works], 63, 169-170.) At the present day and for a long time previously, the Lutherans, ashamed of these excesses, have replaced the two Epistles and the Apocalypse in the Canon of the Sacred Scriptures.

O'Hare cites "Sammtliche Werke [Collected Works], 63, 169-170." These pages can be found here.

This reference is to Luther's Preface to the Revelation of Saint John (1522). It was included in his translation of the New Testament between 1522 to 1527. The preface was rewritten in 1530 and subsequent editions of Luther's Bible use the 1530 rewrite. An English translation was included in The Works of Martin Luther Volume Six [(Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1932), p. 488-489] (pdf) and also in LW 35 398-399. An English translation of the 1530 rewrite can also be found in The Works of Martin Luther Volume Six [(Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1932), p. 479-488] (pdf).

It's highly likely Father O'Hare did not actually translate this material into English, but rather used a secondary source.  There were English sources previous to O'Hare that used a similar quote. O'Hare definitely utilized John Alzog, so he may be presenting an edited version of Alzog's similar Luther quote (O'Hare actually cites Alzog only a few paragraphs later). If this basic outline of Shoebat.com's documentation is correct, it typifies how many of Rome's defenders do research in regard to Luther- both then and now.

Context
The Works of Martin Luther Volume Six [(Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1932), p. 488-489] (pdf)

About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own ideas, and would bind no man to my opinion or judgment; I say what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and this makes me hold it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic. First and foremost, the Apostles do not deal with visions, but prophesy in clear, plain words, as do Peter and Paul, and Christ in the Gospel. For it befits the apostolic office to speak of Christ and His deeds without figures and visions; but there is no prophet in the Old Testament, to say nothing of the New, who deals so out and out with visions and figures. And so I think of it almost as I do of the Fourth Book of Esdras, and can nohow detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.

Moreover, he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly, — more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important, — and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will deal likewise with him. Again, they are to be blessed who keep what is written therein; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. It is just the same as if we had it not, and there are many far better books for us to keep. Many of the fathers, too, rejected this book of old, though St. Jerome, to be sure, praises it highly and says that it is above all praise and that there are as many mysteries in it as words; though he cannot prove this at all, and his praise is, at many points, too mild.

Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit gives him to think. My spirit cannot fit itself into this book. There is one sufficient reason for me not to think highly of it,-Christ is not taught or known in it; but to teach Christ is the thing which an apostle is bound, above all else, to do, as He says in Acts 1:8, “Ye shall be my witnesses.” Therefore I stick to the books which give me Christ, clearly and purely,

Conclusion
From the aspect of bare tedium, Shoebat.com's Luther quote consists of three sentences sifted out of three paragraphs, and those three sentences aren't exactly in the order in which the context presents them. Giving whoever translated this the benefit of the doubt, it may have been translated loosely. From the aspect of tedious consistency, I doubt that Shoebat.com actually has gone after those whom Luther refers to above, "Many of the fathers, too, rejected this book of old." The editors of Luther's Works state,

The canonicity of Revelation was disputed by Marcion, Caius of Rome, Dionysius of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, and the Synod of Laodicea in A.D. 360, though it was accepted by others as Eusebius reports. Cf. p. 400, n. 63. Erasmus had noted in connection with chapter 4 that the Greeks regarded the book as apocryphal. WA, DB 7, 646, n. 22. (LW 35:399).

Shoebat.com goes on to say that "No serious minded Christian who has the new birth from above, will ever question the authenticity of any book of the Holy Scripture, most especially the New Testament. By the words of Holy Scripture, Luther has brought damnation upon himself and this should serve as a warning to others." One wonders how Shoebat.com reads church history. It appears Cardinal Cajetan and Desiderius Erasmus were not Christians either.

From the aspect of tedious fairness, Luther above states,"Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit gives him to think." In other words, Luther didn't really care if anyone agreed with him on this. In fact, Luther's attitude toward Revelation is sparse in writings previous to 1530 (when this was written).  

Now those are the tedious reasons why Shoebat.com didn't do a fair job in presenting this Luther quote. The essential blunder though is not doing any further research about Luther's prefaces. As mentioned above,  this preface to Revelation was included in his translation of the New Testament between 1522 to 1527, but was then rewritten in 1530, and subsequent editions of Luther's Bible use the 1530 rewrite. The rewrite is hardly ever referred to within anti-Luther polemics. John Warwick Montgomery points out,

Luther’s short and extremely negative Preface to the Revelation of St. John was completely dropped after 1522, and the Reformer replaced it with a long and entirely commendatory Preface (1530). Because “some of the ancient fathers held the opinion that it was not the work of St. John the apostle,” Luther leaves the authorship question open, but asserts that he can no longer “let the book alone,” for “we see, in this book, that through and above all plagues and beasts and evil angels Christ is with His saints, and wins the victory at last.” In his original, 1532 Preface to Ezekiel, Luther made a cross-reference to the Revelation of St. John with no hint of criticism; in his later, much fuller Preface to Ezekiel, he concludes on the note that if one wishes to go into prophetic study, more deeply, “the Revelation of John can also help.” [John Warwick Montgomery, “Lessons From Luther On The Inerrancy Of Holy Writ’s,” Westminster Theological Journal Volume 36, 295.]

In the revised preface, Luther states there are different types of prophecy in Christendom. The book of Revelation is of the kind that foretells things to come. He states,

The third type does it without either words or interpretations, exclusively with images and figures, like this book of Revelation and like the dreams, visions, and images that many holy people have had from the Holy Spirit—as Peter in Acts 2[:17] preaches from Joel [2:28], “Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams.” (LW 35:400)

Luther then goes on to give a basic interpretation of the text, applying it to his times. He concludes:

With this kind of an interpretation we can profit by this book and make good use of it. First, for our comfort! We can rest assured that neither force nor lies, neither wisdom nor holiness, neither tribulation nor suffering shall suppress Christendom, but it will gain the victory and conquer at last. Second, for our warning! [We can be on guard] against the great, perilous, and manifold offense that inflicts itself upon Christendom. Because these mighty and imposing powers are to fight against Christendom, and it is to be deprived of outward shape and concealed under so many tribulations and heresies and other faults, is impossible for the natural reason to recognize Christendom. On the contrary, natural reason falls away and takes offense. It calls that “the Christian Church” which is really the worst enemy of the Christian Church. Similarly, it calls those persons damned heretics who are really the true Christian Church. This has happened before, under the papacy, under Mohammed, indeed with all the heretics. Thus they lose this article [of the Creed], “I believe in the holy Christian Church.” [LW 35:409-410]

As should be obvious, Shoebat.com's presentation of church history and the interpretation of documents is dubious. I've mentioned this before: The goal of going through particular quotes is not to defend Luther as a Protestant saint. I see the study of any person in church history as an exercise in the love of God and neighbor. How do I love my neighbor in the study of church history? There probably are many ways, but the one that applies here is in my words. If I bear false witness against my neighbor, even if he's been dead for hundreds of years, I am not loving him. Certainly Rome's defenders can challenge or critisize Luther, but they should at least do so so fairly and accurately.

Addendum
"By 1529/30, however, Luther came to have a much more favorable attitude toward the Apocalypse, as we have also noted. This new outlook toward the book of Revelation most probably originated in Luther's concern over the same situation that led to his translation of, and comment on, the book of Daniel, prepared in the same year. By now Luther was willing to acknowledge the striking relationship between these two prophetic books-at least, insofar as they both seemed to him to deal with the papacy and were both for "comfort in this last time.'' [source]

More musings on Kauffman's articles on Baptismal Regeneration in the Early Church

I linked to Timothy Kauffman's articles before, and now have some further thoughts.  This is not complete, and will probably be an ongoing increasingly larger project.  I mainly interact with Kauffman's analysis of Ignatius and Justin Martyr on the issue.

https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2016/01/02/refutation-of-baptismal-regeneration-in-the-early-church/

Beggars All: 10 Years Old

I've taken some time off from blogging these last few months, but I'm still actively engaged in the topics covered here. I do the same thing with my other hobbies as well.  

Back during the blogger-craze days, I started this back in mid-December 2005 as a place where I could keep track of some of the subjects I was interested in.  My scope of interest is typically narrow: Reformation related research. Since December 2005, I've had over a million hits  (which isn't much in comparison to many other theological blogs). But, I've never really advertised, I don't sell anything, and I typically write what I do because they are my own selfish interests, not to gain readership.

I've appreciated meeting so many of you over the years, and I'm grateful that folks stop by here to read my posts.

James

Professor Rob Plummer's Daily Dose of Greek for Christmas - Matthew 1:18-22 (more to come)

Matthew 1:18

Matt 1.18 from Daily Dose of Greek on Vimeo.

Matthew 1:19

Matt 1.19 from Daily Dose of Greek on Vimeo.

Matthew 1:20

Matt 1.20 from Daily Dose of Greek on Vimeo.

Matthew 1:21

Matt 1.21 from Daily Dose of Greek on Vimeo.

Matthew 1:22

Matt 1.22 from Daily Dose of Greek on Vimeo.


Matthew 1:23 - the quote from Isaiah 7:14, I am assuming, will be on Monday. See Professor Plummer's Daily Dose of Greek web-site. Dr. Rob Plummber is professor of NT and Greek at the Southern Baptist Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky.