Do You Have the Gift of Discernment? The Gift of Discernment in 1 Cor. 12:10

Do You Have the Gift of Discernment?
I've been in a number of conversations with Christians convinced that the Holy Spirit has endowed them with the gift described in 1 Corinthians 12 as "the distinguishing of spirits," or, sometimes referred to as the gift of discernment.  Sometimes I wonder if the claim to such a gift is simply a ploy for recognition. Or perhaps it's a type of hubris or spiritually immaturity. I'm often tempted to simply dismiss such people as violating Paul’s exhortation in Galatians 6 to boast only in the cross of Jesus Christ. It is possible, though, that sincerity is that which motivates such an assertion. Couldn't it simply be zeal for the purity of doctrine or the protection of the church that leads someone to claim this supernatural gift? Perhaps they've heard a sermon or been to a Bible study exhorting the seeking out and nurturing of spiritual gifts. Perhaps friends have noticed and encouraged their seeming ability to rightly discern spiritual issues. Perhaps a church leader has blatantly told them they have the gift of discernment. If any of these positive scenarios are true, if someone indeed has the gift spoken of in 1 Corinthians 12:10, the fault would not be admitting to it (whether boastfully or not), rather it would be not using the gift for the benefit of the church.

How should such claims to spiritual discernment be understood in the church today? Can one know if the claim is Biblically valid today? These questions cannot be addressed until related issues are scrutinized. How has the church understood this gift, and is there a consensus view? Is this gift something particular only to the infant church or has it been given throughout the centuries? What role did it play in the early church, and if still extant, what role would it play today?

What is the "Distinguishing of Spirits" According to the Early Church?
Paul doesn't explain what this gift is, nor do the Scriptures elsewhere explicitly offer any divine commentary as to what it entails. That is, the Bible doesn't say elsewhere, "This is what Paul means by the distinguishing of spirits." One may be tempted to think the earliest extra-biblical writers could provide the needed illuminating commentary or explanation. Weren't they closest in historical position to the divine authors? This is a fallacy. Simply because one is nearer in history does not mean an interpretation is necessarily more accurate. The writings of the church fathers do not provide any determining clarity. From these extant writings, often the gift is simply mentioned along with the other gifts without detailed elaboration or interpretation.(1)

In an obscure letter, Augustine refers to it as an ability to answer extra-biblical theological questions. In responding to questions related to how martyrs are able to help those who make requests of them, Augustine is convinced martyrs have abilities from the grave but he does not know exactly how these powers work. He explains that simply because he lacks understanding, this does not mean there isn't someone given the discerning of spirits who could address the issue with precision.(2)  In a secondary way, Augustine argues elsewhere that knowing Scripture will put Christians "on the alert for discerning of the spirits" in regard to false doctrine. (3)  Chrysostom blatantly speaks of the cessation of the supernatural gifts of 1 Corinthians 12. The gift of the discerning of spirits functioned to tell God’s Word apart from "soothsayers… addicted to Grecian customs." (4)

Luther and Calvin on the "Distinguishing of Spirits"
During the Reformation period, Luther saw the supernatural gifts as "necessary in the primitive church, which had to be established with visible signs on account of the unbelievers… But later on, when the church had been gathered and confirmed by these signs, it was not necessary for this visible sending forth of the Holy Spirit to continue." (5) Some of these gifts, though, have been transformed and still function. (6)   Tongues became the public reading of Scripture. Prophecy became "the ability to rightly interpret and explain the Scriptures, and powerfully to reveal therefrom the doctrine of faith and the overthrow of false doctrine." (7) He similarly alludes to 1 Corinthians 12:10 as demonstrating the ability of the early Lutherans to "handle and interpret Scripture skillfully." (8)

Similar to Luther, Calvin held there was a sense in which certain gifts still functioned even if not in the precise way they did at inception. In The Institutes Calvin admits to a cessationist view of miracles (IV:19,18). (9)   Elsewhere he refers to 1 Corinthians 12:10 as the active gift of interpreting God's word and something not to be surrendered to the papists. Calvin explained, though, in his commentary on 1 Corinthians that the discerning of spirits during the apostolic age was "a clearness of perception in forming a judgment as to those who professed to be something." Calvin states:

"It was a special illumination, with which some were endowed by the gift of God. The use of it was this that they might not be imposed upon by masks, of mere pretences, but might by that spiritual judgment distinguish, as by a particular mark, the true ministers of Christ from the false." (10)

The "Distinguishing of Spirits" Post-Reformation
Likewise admitting cessation after the apostolic age, John Owen (1616-1683) held, "the gift of discerning spirits has ceased, since no pretense to prophetic gifts is any longer asserted 'unless by some persons phrenetical and enthusiastical, whose madness is manifest to all.'"(11) John Gil (1697-1771) saw the gift as the previous ability to "discern the hearts of men, their thoughts, purposes, and designs, their secret dissimulation and hypocrisy" (12) and no longer functioning. Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) likewise understood the gifts had ceased. In his The Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God he exhorts his readers to test the spirits, noting the Spirit was now working differently:

"However great a spiritual influence may be, it is not to be expected that the Spirit of God should be given now in the same manner as to the apostles, infallibly to guide them in points of Christian doctrine, so that what they taught might be relied on as a rule to the Christian church. Many godly persons have undoubtedly in this and other ages, exposed themselves to woeful delusions, by an aptness to lay too much weight on impulses and impressions, as if they were immediate revelations from God, to signify something future, or to direct them where to go, and what to do." (13)

John Wesley (1703-1791) likewise held the gift of discernment was "The discerning - Whether men be of an upright spirit or no," (14) but held this gift along with the others only ceased later in history when "a general corruption both of faith and morals infected the church- which by that revolution, as St. Jerome says, lost as much of its virtue as it had gained of wealth and power." (15) John Darby (1800-1882) on the other hand contrarily held "The discerning of spirits is not that of a man's condition of soul - it has nothing to do with it. It is the knowing how to discern, by the mighty energy of the Spirit of God, the actings of evil spirits, and to bring them to light if necessary, in contrast with the action of the Spirit of God." (16)

Echoing back to Owen and Edwards, B.B. Warfield (1851-1921) held the apostolic gifts were given for the authentication of the apostolic message. After the deaths of those imparted with these gifts, the gifts ceased. Warfield considered the discerning of spirits "among the extraordinary items." (17) He states,

"How long did this state of things continue? It was the characterizing peculiarity of specifically the Apostolic Church, and it belonged therefore exclusively to the Apostolic age- although no doubt this designation may be taken with some latitude. These gifts were not the possession of the primitive Christian as such; nor for that matter of the Apostolic Church or the Apostolic age for themselves; they were distinctively the authentication of the Apostles." (18)

The "Distinguishing of Spirits" in the Present
The rise of Pentecostalism (including both heretical and orthodox factions) breathed new life (and confusion) into the notion of the continuation of the gifts in their fullness. Jack Hayford holds, "Discerning of spirits is the ability to discern the spirit world, and especially to detect the true source of circumstances or motives of people."(19) Derek Prince says the gift gives the ability to "lift the veil that covers the unseen spiritual world," "enables us to see as God sees," "protect us from deception," and to "diagnose people’s problems and so help them."(20) Joyce Meyer says some people believe the gift is "the discerning of divine spirits, as when Moses looked into the spirit realm and saw the 'back' of God, or when John was in exile on the isle of Patmos and had a vision of the resurrected Jesus."(21) Examples of such sentiment, differing in scope and content, have ample representatives.

Contemporary non-Reformed conservative voices tone down their interpretation of the extent and efficacy of the gifts. Billy Graham denies that prophecy in the sense of new revelation is occurring today, but explains, "We are to exercise the gift of discernment because many false prophets will appear… Thus the Christian must have those who can distinguish between false and true prophets."(22) For Graham, certain people are singled out by the Holy Spirit and gifted specifically with discernment. Contrarily, in his book Living the Extraordinary Life, Charles Stanley avoids citing 1 Corinthians 12 entirely while confidently laying out an entire method for any Christian to develop discernment. One need only regularly practice a few simple steps.(23)  Discernment ceases to be an extraordinary gift despite the title of the book.

There is therefore no shortage of explanations in broad Christendom as to what Paul meant in 1 Corinthians 12:10. The explanations produced by the church throughout the centuries run the theological gamut. In summary, at least three basic explanations have been given throughout the centuries. First, the gift was only given to the early church to discern true and false prophets before the completion of the canon. Second, the gift functioned as the first view suggests, but now post-canon completion functions differently. Third, the gift functions today supernaturally to those whom the Spirit gives it.

Exegetical Considerations of 1 Corinthians 12:10
The feminine noun "discernment" (διάκρισις) in 12:10 is found also in Hebrews 5:14 and Romans 14:1. In each of these verses, it functions along the lines of "differentiation."(24) It is related to the verb "judge" (διακρίνω) used in 1 Corinthians 14:29. There Paul gives instructions for what the Corinthians were to do after a prophet spoke: "Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment." Paul does not explicitly say that those who "pass judgment" are gifted with the discerning of spirits, nor does his comment exclude such a gift among specific people in the Corinthian church. All Christians are responsible to listen to the prophet discerningly (1 John 4:1), but, as Leon Morris states, "the ability to distinguish between spirits shows that to some was given a special discernment in this matter."(25)

To what does the word "spirits" (πνεύματα) refer, to a prophet, the message of that prophet, or both? In 1 Cor. 14:32 the word refers to the prophet being in control of his prophecy. It was not uncontrolled supernatural ecstasy. The person with the gift of discerning of spirits in 12:10 is someone who can discern the truthfulness or deviousness of that prophecy, or "spirit" of the prophet and prophecy. This has led some commentators to hold that false prophets were not simply false on their own accord. Rather, they were false because of either demon-possession or evil spirits ("the spirit of antichrist" as described in 1 John 4:1).(26)   In 2 Corinthians 11:14-15 Paul describes these people as Satan's servants masquerading as servants of righteousness. The person who was gifted with special discernment therefore, could recognize the actor behind the mask.

VII. The Canon and 1 Corinthians 12:10
Some explicitly link the gift of discerning spirits to the forming canon of the New Testament. The function of the gift was to determine which writings were actually theopneustas:

"[T]hese New Testament prophets certified to the congregation what was and what was not a divinely inspired document. In the interest of clearness let us visualize a congregation of Believers assembling in a remote, out of the way village. Into that assembly comes two manuscripts, both purporting to be written by Paul but one of them a forgery. What means would they have of detecting a cleverly written forgery? Did God leave them to their own discernment? Fortunately this was not the case otherwise they would have been open to all manner of deception. Apparently what would have happened in that congregation was that the local prophet would hear both manuscripts read. The document that was written by Paul would, by the prophet, be declared as from Paul and the forgery would be branded a forgery." (27)

While this anonymously published interpretation is certainly neat and tidy, it is read into the text rather than exegeted from the text. The factor of the canon, though, must be placed somewhere in this discussion. If indeed the canon is closed, the purpose of particular revelatory gifts becomes crucial. Richard Gaffin insightfully reminds his readers that the continuation of prophecy beyond its foundational period "would necessarily create tensions with the closed, finished character of the canon."(28) If the discerning of spirits is linked with the gift of prophecy, then it either does not now function as it did during the period of Inscripturation or it does not function at all.

VIII. Strengths and Weaknesses of Taking a View on 1 Cor. 12:10
The gift of the discerning of spirits had the same goal as the other gifts described: the common good of the Corinthian church (1 Cor. 12:7). While all the gifts were different, they each individually served to unify the church and protect the apostolic message 1 Cor. 12:1-7). If Paul intended the gift of the discerning of spirits to be linked with prophecy, the gift no longer would have any use, even if it still did exist. One difficulty for those taking this view is navigating through 1 Corinthians 12: Have all the gifts mentioned in verses 7-11 ceased? Perhaps one could almost argue affirmatively, save the one hurdle of the "gift of faith" mentioned in verse 9. On what basis does one determine that an entire listing of gifts save one no longer functions today? This isn’t an impossible problem to overcome. Exegetes distinguish it from the gift of faith given to every believer (Eph. 2:8-10). Perhaps some would be so bold to conclude this extra measure of faith in 1 Cor. 12 is no longer given by the Spirit. Was it something special related to the forming church that is no longer needed? Perhaps though, the easiest solution for someone taking this view is to simply affirm it as an exception to the list of gifts.

For modern-day charismatics believing the gift still functions today as it did when first given, that there's such diversity as to what they posit the gift entails should provoke suspicion. Because these representatives see the gift as pointing to something beyond the mundane, there are no rules as to the function of a supernatural gift in a charismatic paradigm. If the Spirit is understood to be working in an extraordinary way, the gift can refer to whatever one wants it to.

Perhaps the most attractive view are those who attempt to navigate a middle path seeing the gift as being transformed into something other than it’s original function. They likewise face a similar problem to those who think it ceased entirely: on what basis does one determine that a gift functions differently later in history? Have some of the gifts been transformed, and why only some? Can it properly be designated the same gift in its transformed state?

IX. Conclusion
God has expressly stated that He does not want the church to be ignorant on the issue of spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 12:1). The gifts were not Biblically described as optional add-ons for the Church. Rather, the gifts demonstrated the work of the Spirit in the church and helped build her. Despite her gross sin, even the Corinthian church was described as not lacking any of the spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 1:7). Paul wished to visit the Roman church to impart to them a spiritual gift to strengthen them (Rom. 1:11). The question therefore as to the identification, existence, nature, and purpose of the gift of the discerning of spirits is of no little importance. If God has gifted the church with the discerning of spirits and the gift still functions presently, we would do well to vigorously seek it out. If it was something specific to the apostolic church, a gentle response to those claiming its service needs to be prepared with either rebuke or gentleness, depending on the person.
Given the scope of interpretations throughout history, the exegetical difficulties of 1 Corinthians 12:10, and the logical problems of consistently maintaining any of the views briefly outlined above, what sort of response may be formulated to someone claiming the gift of discerning spirits?

The first response would be to point out the difficulties of achieving any sort of certain view as to the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 12:10. In essence, this is an exhortation to humility. One can appreciate a desire to discern and stop error or heresy from entering the church. This though need not be rooted in a supernatural ability. It can just as easily be the result of Christian maturity. The response therefore is to point out that humility in regard to difficult passages coupled with Christian maturity is enough to look at spiritual situations appropriately.

In this age of post-inscripturation, the second response should be to direct people back to the Scriptures. That is, if one wants to have a certain Holy Spirit-driven discernment of truth from error, savingly knowing and believing the Bible itself would be the means of accomplishing this goal. This places our faith back into God's word rather than any sort of subjective experience as the determiner of truth. Such passages as Acts 17:11 and 1 Peter 3:15 serve as a solid basis to build discernment on. Here discernment becomes a result of sanctification rather than a sudden supernatural experience or feeling of special knowledge given by God to an individual.

This would mean that those in the ministry would primarily and typically have the most discernment on spiritual matters. This does not though rule out that laymen can likewise attain a healthy level of spiritual discernment. One need not be a minister or even an apostle to say in the face of error: "Even if we or an angel from heaven preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!" One need only be faithful to placing the supernatural word of God into the heart and allow it to naturally transform and renew the mind.


Notes
1.See Origen's (184-254) comments in Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture New Testament VII, 1-2 Corinthians, ed. Thomas C. Oden (Downers Grove: Intervaristy Press, 1999), 122, "It is a spiritual gift, therefore, by which the spirit is discerned, as the apostle says: 'Test the spirits, if they are from God.'" Clement of Alexandria (150 – 250) refers to it as an attribute describing "the perfect man or those who have experienced an aspect of deep Christian truth" [The Ante-Nicene Fathers vol. 2, eds. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: WM.B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001), 433-434]. Henceforth all references to the Ante-Nicene Fathers are designated ANF. Tertullian (160-225) describes how the Spirit and His gifts were taken from the Jews and given to the church [ANF 3, 445-446]. Gregory Thaumaturgus (213-270) mentions the gifts as describing the orthodox faith [ANF 6, 47], though this writing may be spurious. Augustine simply mentions the gift in passing [The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, ed. Philip Schaff (Grand Rapids: WM.B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001), 197, 346; III, 63, 94; IV, 267; VII, 98]. Henceforth all references to the Nicene and Post-Fathers are designated NPNF.

2. NPNF III, 549-550. Augustine recommends John the Monk who was purported to have extraordinary gifts of the Spirit.

3. NPNF VII, 499.

4. NPNF XII, 168-169.

5. Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, vol. 26, ed. J. J. Pelikan (Philadelphia: fortress Press, 1955), 374. Henceforth, all references to Luther’s Works are designated LW.

6. LW 14,36.

7. Martin Luther, The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther vol. 4.1-2, John Nicholas Lenker, ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000), 213.

8. LW 40, 250.

9. "Calvin sets forth an embryonic cessationism. Conceiving of prophets as those who have a 'particular revelation,' he observes that '[t]his class either does not exist today or is less commonly seen.' However, after provisionally holding out the possibility that there could be contemporary prophets, Calvin slams the door shut by pointing out in regard to the offices of apostle, prophet and evangelist that '[t]hese three functions were not established in the church as permanent ones, but only for that time during which churches were to be erected where none existed before, or where they were to be carried over from Moses to Christ.'" [Philip A. Craig, "And Prophecy Shall Cease, Jonathan Edwards on the Cessation of the Gift of Prophecy," Westminster Theological Journal Volume 64 no. 1 (Spring 2002): 164.

10. John Calvin, Calvin's Bible Commentaries: Corinthians Part One (Forgotten Books, 2007), 326-327.

11. John Owen, The Works of John Owen vol. 4 (London: Richard Baynes, 28, Paternoster Row, 1826), 302. “These gifts are not saving, sanctifying graces—those were not so in themselves which made the most glorious and astonishing appearance in the world, and which were most eminently useful in the foundation of the church and propagation of the gospel, such as were those that were extraordinary and miraculous.”

12. John Gil, Commentary 1 Corinthians 12:10.

13. Jonathan Edwards, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 1 (London: J.R. and C Childs, Bungay, 1835), 265.

14. John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament (New York: J. Soule and T. Mason, 1818), 448.

15. Benjamin B. Warfield, Counterfeit Miracles (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1918), 8.

16. John Darby, The Present Testimony and Original Christian Witness Revived in Which the Church’s Portion and the Hope of the Kingdom vol. VIII (London: R. Groombridge & Sons, 1856), 154.

17. Warfield, 5.

18. Warfield 6-7. Warfield also discusses and refutes the view that the gifts gradually died out around the time of Constantine, thus lasting for three centuries (6-21).

19. Hayford, J. W., & Curtis, G. Pathways to Pure Power: Learning the Depth of Love's Power, a Study of first Corinthians (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1994), Libronix electronic edition.

20. Derek Prince, Called to Conquer: Finding Your Assignment in the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids: Chosen Books, 2010), 50.

21. Joyce Meyer, Knowing God Intimately: Being as Close to Him as You Want to Be, (New York: Time Warner Book Group, 2003).

22. Billy Graham, The Holy Spirit: Activating God's Power in Your Life (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), 146-147.

23. Charles Stanley, Living the Extraordinary Life (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2004), 175-178.

24. Gerhard Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament vol. 3 (Grand Rapids: WM.B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006), 949.

25. Leon Morris, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, 1 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: WM.B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), 169.

26. F.W. Grosheide, Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: WM.B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1953), 267.

27. Anonymous, “The Angels of the Seven Churches (Rev. 1:20),” Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 91 (October 1934): 439-440.

28. Richard Gaffin, Perspectives on Pentecost (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1979), 100.

Luther: "Affliction is the best book in my library"

Here's a popular Martin Luther quote making the cyberspace rounds, even finding it's way into Christian History Magazine:
"Affliction is the best book in my library." Another version says, "The best book in the library of my life is the Book of Affliction." Did Luther say it? I don't think so.

Documentation
Since this quote often appears undocumented throughout cyberspace, let's use Christian History Magazine as the source. While entertainingly written, Christian History is often lacking in regard to precise documentation. This particular quote is included in their section, "Colorful Sayings of Colorful Luther: A sample of the reformer's wit and wisdom" (Issue 34, Vol. XI, No. 2, pp.27-28), compiled by Mary Ann Jeffreys (apparently, a freelance writer if this is the same person).

What's interesting about Ms. Jeffreys is that a simple Google search of her name + "Christianity Today" (the publisher of Christian History) puts forth a number of hits to articles on or by Charles Spurgeon.  A basic Google book search of this Luther quote also puts forth a number of hits to books by Charles Spurgeon. Coincidence?  Probably not! It appears to me that the basic English form of this quote originated from a Charles Spurgeon sermon published in the nineteenth-century. Spurgeon preached,

Another reason for this discipline is, I think, that in heaviness we often learn lessons that we never could attain elsewhere. Do you know that God has beauties for every part of the world; and he has beauties for every place of experience? There are views to be seen from the tops of the Alps that you can never see elsewhere. Ay, but there are beauties to be seen in the depths of the dell that ye could never see on the tops of the mountains; there are glories to be seen on Pisgah, wondrous sights to be beheld when by faith we stand on Tabor; but there are also beauties to be seen in our Gethsemanes, and some marvelously sweet flowers are to be culled by the edge of the dens of the leopards. Men will never become great in divinity until they become great in suffering. “Ah!” said Luther, “affliction is the best book in my library;” and let me add, the best leaf in the book of affliction is that blackest of all the leaves, the leaf called heaviness, when the spirit sinks within us, and we can not endure as we could wish.

Context
I could not locate anything exactly like "affliction is the best book in my library" from Luther.  The closest I could locate was the following Table Talk utterance:

To have Patience in Suffering.

On the 8th of August, 1529, Luther, together with his wife lay sick of a fever; then he said, God hath touched me sorely, and I have been impatient: but God knoweth better than we whereto it serveth. Our Lord God doth like a printer, who setteth the letters backwards; we see and feel well his setting, but we shall see the print yonder, in the life to come: in the mean time we must have patience.

The tribulations of God-fearing christians are strong and profitable. Tribulation is a right school, and an exercise of flesh and blood: whoso is without them, the same understandeth nothing. Therefore the Psalms, almost in every verse, speaketh of nothing but tribulations, and perplexities, sorrows, and troubles: it is a book of tribulations.

Conclusion
That Table Talk quote was taken from one of the oldest modern English versions, a version published in the nineteenth-century. Included in this volume is a lengthy anthology of quotes on "Temptation and Tribulation." Did Spurgeon have this edition? During Spurgeon's time period, there was only a limited pool of Luther's writings available in English, so it's highly likely he had a copy. It was a very popular book!  It certainly would make sense that he would gravitate to those Table Talk topics that expounded on suffering. Spurgeon's sermon is about spiritual "heaviness," or rather despair. It's a fairly uncontested fact that Spurgeon suffered from bouts of depression, as did Luther.

I suspect though, Spurgeon had a flair for using the phrase, "best book," and he was not citing Luther at all.  Elsewhere, Spurgeon says:

Let me yet further observe, that YOUR FAITH WILL BE TRIED FOR AN ABUNDANTLY USEFUL PURPOSE. The trial of your faith will increase, develop, deepen, and strengthen it. “Oh,” you have said, “I wish I had more faith.” Your prayer will be heard through your having more trial. Often in our prayers we have sought for a stronger faith to look within the veil. The way to stronger faith usually lies along the rough pathway of sorrow. Only as faith is contested will faith be confirmed. I do not know whether my experience is that of all God’s people; but I am afraid that all the grace that I have got out of my comfortable and easy times and happy hours, might almost lie on a penny. But the good that I have received from my sorrows, and pains, and griefs, is altogether incalculable. What do I not owe to the hammer and the anvil, the fire and the file? What do I not owe to the crucible and the furnace, the bellows that have blown up the coals, and the hand which has thrust me into the heat? Affliction is the best bit of furniture in my house. It is the best book in a minister’s library. We may wisely rejoice in tribulation, because it worketh patience, and patience experience, and experience hope; and by that way we are exceedingly enriched, and our faith grows strong.

Notice also this comment from Spurgeon:

We learn more true divinity by our trials than by our books. The great Reformer said, "Prayer is the best book in my library." He might have added affliction as the next. Sickness is the best Doctor of Divinity in all the world; and trial is the finest exposition of Scripture. This is so inestimable a mark of the love of our blessed Lord that we might almost desire trouble for the sake of it.

Notice also this comment from Spurgeon:

LUTHER has well said that the experience of the minister is the best book in his library. I am persuaded it is so, and that God often leads his servants through peculiar states of mind, not so much for their own benefit as for the sake of those to whom they may afterwards minister.

The similarities are apparent, but no mention of Luther in the first quote, and referring to the "great Reformer" in the second, and "Luther" in the third. I suspect the "best book" was Spurgeon's phrase, not Luther's.

If Spurgeon was citing Luther, he was probably working from memory in his sermon and not citing Luther directly, perhaps summarizing the Table Talk's extensive quotes on suffering. The quote, as has been popularized, may simply also be Spurgeon's recollection of what he recalls reading Luther to have said, perhaps by Luther, or perhaps a book about Luther. Interestingly, elsewhere in the Table Talk, Luther does mention the "best book" in regard to suffering:

The Holy Scriptures are full of divine gifts and virtues. The books of the heathen taught nothing of faith, hope, or charity; they present no idea of these things; they contemplate only the present, and that which man, with the use of his material reason, can grasp and comprehend. Look not therein for aught of hope or trust in God. But see how the Psalms and the Book of Job treat of faith, hope, resignation, and prayer; in a word, the Holy Scripture is the highest and best of books, abounding in comfort under all afflictions and trials. It teaches us to see, to feel, to grasp, and to comprehend faith, hope, and charity, far otherwise than mere human reason can; and when evil oppresses us, it teaches how these virtues throw light upon the darkness, and how, after this poor, miserable existence of ours on earth, there is another and an eternal life.

Transcendental Luther: "God writes the gospel not in the Bible alone, but on trees and flowers and clouds and stars"

Did Luther say "God writes the gospel not in the Bible alone, but on trees and flowers and clouds and stars"?  If one bases their proof on the number of hits from a quick Internet search for this quote, he most certainly did! But as the axiom should go: something isn't true simply because a bunch of people in cyberspace say it is.  One blogger rightly questioned the quote, classifying it as "more stuff that Martin Luther didn't say." There was also a discussion here which  questioned the veracity of the statement.

I offer below my own investigation of the quote. It's fascinating to try and uncover if Luther actually said something. It's even more fascinating to investigate how a particular quote was attributed to Luther, or how it took on the current form it has. We'll see with this quote, Luther probably didn't say it, though he said something similar.

Documentation

Most often the quote has no meaningful documentation, if any at all. The earliest usages I could find  in its current popular form stem from the late 1800's. By searching texts on Google Books from the nineteenth-century, the quote seems to simply spring into literary existence during that period. The appearance of the quote increases in the twentieth-century books.

The earliest nineteenth-century attribution I could find of this precise English wording was from a historical novel,  or rather, "historical fiction" about the life of Martin Luther entitled, The Schonberg-Cotta Family (1862) written by Elizabeth Rundle Charles.  This author fictionally "examined the life and personal influence of the young Martin Luther on the family of his printer." In one passage, Rundle-Charles describes Luther speaking to his wife:

In spring he loves to direct her attention to the little points and tufts of life peeping everywhere from the brown earth or the bare branches. "Who," he said, "that had never witnessed a springtime would have guessed, two months since, that those lifeless branches held concealed all that hidden power of life? It will be thus with us at the resurrection. God writes His Gospel, not in the Bible alone, but in trees, and flowers, and clouds, and stars."  [source]

According to the reviews I've read of Rundle-Charles, she was a prolific author, her Luther novel though being her most popular book. Some years back I found a copy of it in a pile of disorganized books in an antique store.  I've since come across a number of copies in the same sort of setting. Her book apparently was popular enough that cheap copies are still laying around in junk stores. My copy states the following just previous to the contents page:

The portions of these Chronicles which refer to Luther, Melancthon, Frederic of Saxony, and other historical persons, can be verified from Luther’s “Tischreden;” Luther’s “Briefe, Sendschreiben und Bedenken;” edited by De Wette; the four volumes called, “Geist aus Luther's Schriften,” edited by F. W. Lomler, C. F. Lucius, Dr. T. Rust, L. Sackreuter, and Dr. Ernst Zimmermann; Tutschmann’s “Friedrich der Weise;” the “History of the Reformation,” by Ranke; and that by D'Aubigné; with the ordinary English historical works relating to the period.

I don't question that Rundle-Charles actually read these sources and utilized them for her fictional Luther account. One biography says Rundle-Charles was instructed in "numerous languages" so perhaps she really did utilize these sources for her Luther citations. Interestingly, Rundle-Charles went on to put out another Luther book: Watchwords for the Warfare of Life From Doctor Martin Luther (1869). The preface posts the same sort of bibliographical information.  In another edition the preface states Rundle-Charles did indeed do the translation work,

The selections in this volume have all been freshly translated from Luther’s own German or Latin, with the exception of the extracts taken from the sixteenth century translation of the Commentary on the Galatians. The majority of the extracts are from the Letters and the Tischreden.-The Author.

Included in this follow-up volume, Rundle-Charles includes the following excerpt:

In the year 1539, on the 11th of April, Doctor Martin Luther was in his garden, and with many a deep thought, he looked at the trees - how fair and lovely they were, budding and blossoming and growing green; he said,” Praised be God the Creator, who in the springtime out of dead creatures makes all living again. Look at the little twigs,” he said, “so sweet and full; pregnant with new life. There we have a beautiful image of the Resurrection of the dead. The winter is death; the summer is the Resurrection of the dead, for then all live again and grow green.”

I  suspect Rundle-Charles was using the same source as the quote we're searching for. Notice the similarities: both describe Luther in the springtime, both describe bare branches that begin the blooming cycle again,  both link this to the resurrection. In this later volume she mentioned the majority of her selections were from letters or the Tischreden (Table Talk). Even though a date is included leading one to assume the source was a letter, (April 11, 1539), the way it unfolds sounds much more like a Table Talk statement.

I don't know which edition of the Tischreden Rundle-Charles had, but there is a Table Talk entry dated April 11, 1539 that says:

This comment can be found in : WA 4:337 (4484) in a mixed German / Latin form. This would be a comment recorded by Anthony Lauterbach. Lauterbach was careful with his dates (LW 54:253), so it appears he was the Genesis of "April 11,1539."  The content of this Table Talk entry is very similar  to that put forth by Rundle-Charles in her 1569 book.  There's also another a Table Talk comment that has a similar thrust,   WA 4:369. This comment is from April 28-29 1539. There Luther says,

No. 4542: Pleasures of a May Day in Late April April 28, 1539
 Afterward he gave thought to the pleasant weather of the month of May, whose blooms are a parable of the resurrection of the dead. “How pleasant the trees are! How delightfully green everything’s beginning to be! It’s like a charming day in May. I don’t recall one like it. If it continues this way it will be a very fruitful year and the world will be crammed full. Ah, would that we could trust God! If God can take such delight in our earthly sojourn, what must it be like in the life to come?”) (LW. 54:351).

Conclusion
Did Luther say,  "God writes the gospel not in the Bible alone, but on trees and flowers and clouds and stars"? If the source for this English quote is indeed Elizabeth Rundle Charles, I don't think he did say it. It appears that it was her literary license with the sources she utilized to create her fictional account of Luther. In other words, she embellished Luther's comments.  Interestingly though I came across a sermon from Luther that says the following:

Such comfort is also imparted in the beautiful parable of the budding trees, which He gives them that they may all the better appropriate to themselves this consolation. In spring, He says, when winter ceases and the whole earth becomes new; when the cold departs and the warmth takes its place; when the dry trees become green and blossom again, tell me, how does all this begin? Is it not true that buds first begin to swell, then to open? Then every one says that winter is past and summer will soon be here. Let this parable be your teacher, and the trees in the field your book, that you may learn to know how to await the last day. For God has written this article of the last day and resurrection of the dead not only in books, but also in trees and other creatures. As summer surely will follow when the sap rises in the trees, and they put forth leaves; so when the earth shall quake, the heavens tremble, and the sun and moon look dark and gloomy, then be no more afraid than you are when the young leaves appear and summer is about to come. Such signs shall be to you like the sap and leaflets on the trees, that you may with joy look for the eternal summer, and know that there shall now be an end of your distress and anguish. For this wretched life on earth is like the unfruitful winter when everything dries up, dies and decays. But it shall then have an end, and the beautiful, eternal summer shall come, namely, the kingdom of God, by which the kingdom of the devil shall be destroyed, on account of which you have had to suffer so much in this world. For in this world you must live among ungodly, wicked, false, penurious people, who blaspheme and slander the gospel, and seek to bring about all manner of misfortune. This you must see and hear every day, and may expect it to become still worse. From this I will redeem you by my coming, that you may no more see nor suffer such things. 

So perhaps Luther didn't say ""God writes the gospel not in the Bible alone, but on trees and flowers and clouds and stars," rather, he preached "God has written this article of the last day and resurrection of the dead not only in books, but also in trees and other creatures."

Addendum: Other References to Luther's Comment from April 11,1539

It was really touching to witness the manner in which the most common occurrences would arouse in Luther reflections of piety on the goodness of God, on the state of man before the fall, on the life to come, and other serious topics. Thus, a beautiful bough loaded with cherries, brought and put on the table by doctor Jonas, a few fishes from the little pond in his garden, that his wife placed joyfully on the board, the mere sight of a rose, or any other equally simple incident would rouse these pious sentiments in him. On the 9th of April, 1539, the doctor was walking in his garden, attentively looking at the trees and flowers, then in all the brilliancy of spring verdure ; he exclaimed with admiration, "Glory to God, who, from the dead creation, thus raises up life again in the spring-time. Behold these branches, how strong, how beautiful they are! Already they teem, and are big with the fruit which they will bring forth. They offer a beautiful image of the resurrection of all men. The winter season represents death; the summer-tide, the resurrection. Then all things live again, all is verdant. [source]

Addendum #2
CARM discussion. 

Calvin Cites Augustine: "The Will of God is the Necessity of Things"

In chasing down a John Calvin quote, I came upon a citation of Augustine. In Institutes III.23.8, Calvin says,

Here they have recourse to the distinction between will and permission. By this they would maintain that the wicked perish because God permits it, not because he so wills. But why shall we say “permission” unless it is because God so wills? Still, it is not in itself likely that man brought destruction upon himself through himself, by God’s mere permission and without any ordaining. As if God did not establish the condition in which he wills the chief of his creatures to be! I shall not hesitate, then, simply to confess with Augustine that “the will of God is the necessity of things,” and that what he has willed will of necessity come to pass, as those things which he has foreseen will truly come to pass.

Calvin's comment here enters that controversial place many theists fear to go, God's absolute unchangeable will, God's permissive will, predestination, reprobation, and Adam's fall into sin. I was curious to see Augustine's citation in context, to see if Calvin either mis-cited or misused Augustine. Granted, this may seem in some sense like an invitation to debate or discuss God's sovereignty, but my goal is primarily academic, focusing on how Calvin cited Augustine.

Augustine: Documentation
The version of Calvin's Institutes I utilized was that translated by Ford Lewis Battles and edited by John T. McNeill. This text provides a reference:  Augustine, On Genesis in the Literal Sense VI. 15. 26 (MPL 34.350). MPL refers to Migne Patrologia Latina. Here is 34:350. The text reads:

Calvin appears to have cited last part of  the last sentence:

An English translation is available. For context, I've also included VI.14.25.

Augustine: Context

Conclusion
Calvin's comments occur in his overall discussion on predestination and reprobation primarily, but he ventures into the fall of Adam into sin. Did God permit man's fall into sin or did he ordain it? Calvin affirms the later and says, "I shall not hesitate, then, simply to confess with Augustine that 'the will of God is the necessity of things,' and that what he has willed will of necessity come to pass, as those things which he has foreseen will truly come to pass." Later in the same section Calvin states, "Accordingly, man falls according as God's providence ordains, but he falls by his own fault." If this sounds tricky, Calvin goes on to say that we should spend our time contemplating Adam as the evident cause of the fall rather than "seek a hidden and utterly incomprehensible cause in God's predestination":

Accordingly, we should contemplate the evident cause of condemnation in the corrupt nature of humanity—which is closer to us—rather than seek a hidden and utterly incomprehensible cause in God’s predestination. And let us not be ashamed to submit our understanding to God’s boundless wisdom so far as to yield before its many secrets. For, of those things which it is neither given nor lawful to know, ignorance is learned; the craving to know, a kind of madness.

What was Augustine writing about? His comments were not addressing predestination and reprobation. His comments are from a book entitled, The Literal Meaning of Genesis. His concerns are with creation and origins. in VI.14.25 tackles whether or not things were created fully formed or whether or not they developed. Augustine says "they were created with an aptitude for each mode." In the next section, Augustine applies this to the creation of Adam and says whichever way God did it, it would be his absolute will that determined it. If the creation of man was an instantaneous creation of a fully formed man, that happened by God's imposed necessity. If the creation of man was through a process of some sort, whether it be formed into the mud "in that primordial establishment of causes," that happened by God's imposed necessity. If the creation of man has the potentiality to be created either way, the way it happened is by God's imposed necessity.

Did Calvin mis-cite Augustine? I don't think so. Both Calvin and Augustine in essence agree that all things that God created conform to His sovereign necessity, however each applied it in different areas. The overarching point is God's necessity.  I see some overlap with Calvin the continuation of Augustine's comments in the next section. Augustine says we don't know if a person will grow old, but if he does, it was God's will, "who established all things" because "the hidden formula of old age is there in the youthful body" (VI.16.27). The necessity of the man growing old is because of God, "For if he wills that will of necessity be in the future, and it is those things that he has foreknown which will really be in the future" (VI.17.28). "The one who foreknows them [God] cannot be mistaken" (VI.17.28). He further refers to God adding fifteen years to the life of Hezekiah, something God knew he was going to do "before the foundations of the world (Eph 1:4) that he was going to do, and which he reserved to his own will" (VI.17.28).  "God's foreknowledge cannot be mistaken. And this is why what he foreknew would of necessity come to pass in the future" (VI.17.28).  Augustine further says that God "deliberately predetermined" Adam according to His will (VI.18.29).

Did Calvin misuse or misapply Augustine here? That's a little less clear to me.  I expected that when I tracked down the Augustine reference, the context would be directly related in some way to the issues of predestination or the fall into sin.  I was surprised to find a discussion about whether or not creation is created fully formed or whether it developed! I can certainly see how someone could be critical of Calvin's use of Augustine here, particularly since Augustine does attempt to tackle the implications of sovereignty and the fall in his writings, but not in this particular section Calvin referred to.

Addendum
For an interesting discussion of Augustine's view on man's fall into sin, see: Robert F. Brown, "The First Evil Will Must be Incomprehensible: A Critique of Augustine," JAAR 46, no. 3 (1978) 315-329. While critical, the author helpfully lays out Augustine's various answers to the origin of the fall.
This author says that Augustine came up with various explanations, including that the fall was incomprehensible to human intellect, but at times moved beyond that to  causal explanations.

Luther: "God is the author of the evil as well as the good in us, and as He saves us without any merit on our part. He also damns us through no fault of ours. All that we do is done, not freely, but through pure necessity"

Here's some anti-Protestant commentary and an obscure Luther quote I recently came across:

A Protestant is not obliged to follow the 10 Commandments or practice what he reads in the Scriptures. The founders of the Protestant revolt teach that works are useless and even injurious to salvation. Every action is a sin. 

Luther and Calvin deny the existence of free-will in man. Luther wrote a book called ''Slave Will," in which he states: ''God is the author of the evil as well as the good in us, and as He saves us without any merit on our part. He also damns us through no fault of ours. All that we do is done, not freely, but through pure necessity." (Works of Luther, vol. ii., p. 435.)

This was put together by someone, as far as I can tell, is a defender of Roman Catholicism. The points being made are: 1) Protestants don't believe in or practice good works; 2) if free will is denied, there is no such thing as human responsibility. Let's track down this Luther quote and see what's going on.

Documentation
The source provided is the ambiguous, "Works of Luther, vol. ii., p. 435." A quick search though reveals the entire two paragraphs are a reworking (a.k.a. plagiarism) of an old Roman Catholic book entitled, Christian Apologetics: A Defense of the Catholic Faith By Walter Devivier. A comparison of what this author states and what's posted above demonstrate the similarities:

Finally (it is hardly credible), a Protestant is not obliged to practise what he reads in the Scriptures, however clear it may be. For the founders of the Reformation teach that works are useless and even injurious to salvation; that faith suffices to make us the friends of God; that man once justified before God is sure of being saved, whatever crimes he may afterward commit. What is more, that it is even impossible for man to sin since he is not free. Luther and Calvin go so far as to deny the existence of free-will in man. Luther wrote a book called “Slave Will,” which may be summed up thus: “God is the author of the evil as well as the good in us, and as He saves us without any merit on our part, He also damns us through no fault of ours. . . . All that we do is done, not freely, but through pure necessity.” (Works of Luther, vol. ii., p. 435.)

The "Works of Luther, vol. ii., p. 435" appears to be a reference to the vol. 2 of the Wittenberg edition of Luther's writings. Here is page 435. The text being cited appears to be:

This is an old Latin text dating back to the sixteenth century. A clearer image can be found here.

The quote comes from Luther's De Servo Arbitrio, known in English as The Bondage of the Will. It has been translated into English in LW 33. The place where this quote is located is LW 33:70.

Context

But if we are unwilling to let this term go [free will] altogether—though that would be the safest and most God-fearing thing to do—let us at least teach men to use it honestly, so that free choice is allowed to man only with respect to what is beneath him and not what is above him. That is to say, a man should know that with regard to his faculties and possessions he has the right to use, to do, or to leave undone, according to his own free choice, though even this is controlled by the free choice of God alone, who acts in whatever way he pleases. On the other hand in relation to God, or in matters pertaining to salvation or damnation, a man has no free choice, but is a captive, subject and slave either of the will of God or the will of Satan. [LW 33:70]

Conclusion
In response to the original anti-Protestant comment which began this entry: first, there's nothing in the immediate context of Luther's words that he suggested acting against the Ten Commandments, that works were useless, and that all action is a sin. True, Luther abhorred the pseudo-works perpetuated by allegedly devout Roman Catholics. Pilgrimages, idolatry, monkery, self-denials, etc., which were considered good works one does for oneself on the road to eventual salvation. Luther plainly teaches that saving faith is a living faith,  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. Luther says,

We receive Christ not only as a gift by faith, but also as an example of love toward our neighbor, whom we are to serve as Christ serves us. Faith brings and gives Christ to you with all his possessions. Love gives you to your neighbor with all your possessions. These two things constitute a true and complete Christian life; then follow suffering and persecution for such faith and love, and out of these grows hope and patience.[Sermons of Martin Luther (Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), 1:34]

Second,  in regard to the Luther quote: it is true though that Luther spoke out against the concept of free will (his entire book the quote was purportedly taken from is about this subject). For Luther, the will is either enslaved by Satan or set free by God.  It is true also that Luther rejected performing works in order to achieve salvation: a rejection of personal merit to achieve salvation.

Third, a comparison of the purported Luther quote and the actual context shows a severe discontinuity.  As far as I can tell, there's nothing in the immediate context in which Luther directly says, "God is the author of the evil as well as the good in us." Was this meant to be a synopsis of Luther's words, "a man should know that with regard to his faculties and possessions he has the right to use, to do, or to leave undone, according to his own free choice, though even this is controlled by the free choice of God alone, who acts in whatever way he pleases"? If so, that someone would translate Luther's words in such a crude way shows a profound bias in textual interpretation. It's quite possible though whoever originally put the quote together was citing a different section of  De Servo Arbitrio altogether (see my entry here).

The purported quote goes on to say, "and as He saves us without any merit on our part, He also damns us through no fault of ours. . . . All that we do is done, not freely, but through pure necessity.”  
This seems to be similar to the lines, "On the other hand in relation to God, or in matters pertaining to salvation or damnation, a man has no free choice, but is a captive, subject and slave either of the will of God or the will of Satan." Notice in context, Luther says that humans have a limited freedom in regard to the daily things of life (but even that is subject to God's pure freedom) "a man should know that with regard to his faculties and possessions he has the right to use, to do, or to leave undone, according to his own free choice, though even this is controlled by the free choice of God alone, who acts in whatever way he pleases." This appears to have been presented as "All that we do is done, not freely, but through pure necessity"! That's certainly an abuse of Luther's words.

The main disconnect for Rome's defenders is Luther's insistence that human ability does not contribute in any meritorious way to salvation. For Luther, if the will is enslaved, it has no ability to do works pleasing to God unto salvation. Humanity, therefore is in total reliance on God's grace. Here is "ground zero" of the debate which requires one to simply read Luther's full argumentation.

Luther: I feel the old clinging dirt of wanting to deal so with God that I may contribute something

"Let anybody try this and he will see and experience how exceedingly hard and bitter a thing it is for a man, who all his life has been mired in his work righteousness, to pull himself out of it and with all his heart rise up through faith in this one Mediator. I myself have now been preaching and cultivating it through reading and writing for almost twenty years and still I feel the old clinging dirt of wanting to deal so with God that I may contribute something, so that he will have to give me his grace in exchange for my holiness. And still I cannot get it into my head that I should surrender myself completely to sheer grace; yet this is what I should and must do. The mercy seat alone must prevail and remain, because he himself has established it; otherwise no man can come before God."

Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 51: Sermons I. (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, and H. T. Lehmann, Eds.) (Vol. 51, pp. 284–285). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

50 Years After Death, St. Pio's Body Has Not Decomposed?

This picture and title was linked to this web-page.  The webpage has a plenteous supply of adds and click-bait (beware!). The hosting site "Francis Mary" uses the same picture and title here.

I admit, other than knowing the name, I don't know all that much about Padre Pio. The article though fills in some of the gaps:

"The corpse is held in such high regard due to the fact that before death the monk was able to cure the sick. He also had received visions and suffered stigmata -- bleeding from the hands mimicking the wounds of Christ. Pio could also tell the future and be in two places at once."

While the webpage doesn't document any of this, I was curious if they at least commented on their claim that Padre Pio's body "has not decomposed." Was this non-decomposition before or after the silicone mask "was placed over his face to conceal the decay" as the Washington Post mentioned?  

Revised February 2026 (dead links)

Luther Was counseled by the Devil to Stop Celebrating Holy Mass?

A participant on the Catholic Answers Forums asked about Martin Luther's interaction with the Devil:

Hello, does anybody have Luther's book “De missa privata et unctione sacerdotum” (1521) in english? I read here and in another source (a book about Holy Mass written by a Bishop in 1899) that Luther wrote about how he was counseled by a Devil to stop celebrating Holy Mass. I want to use this argument in a conversation with a protestant, however I don’t want to use argument which might be fake. Therefore I would be really glad if someone could look it up. If it was there then I would love to have a photo of that page.Thanks a lot!

Despite the fact this Roman Catholic wants to "use this argument in a conversation with a protestant," one can appreciate the caution that the story may be "fake." There are two basic affirmatives to answer this historical question.  Yes, there is a recorded conversation between Luther and the Devil about the Mass (documented and described by Luther himself), particularly, private masses, and yes, the dialog is in essence, fake.

Documentation
Let's start with the clues given in the Catholic Answers discussion, particularly the link provided. When I first visited the link, there was little content, now it has magically reappeared (if it disappears again, try accessing it via Google Cache). The link is to an article written by Anne Barbeau Gardiner, "A Colloquy with Satan, or The Spirit of Martin Luther" found in the July 14, 2016 issue of The Latin Mass: The Journal of Catholic Culture and Tradition. Gardiner's article is not an actual reading of Luther, but rather someone else's reading of Luther. Gardiner presents a review of a section from an old pro-Roman Catholic book, Abraham Woodhead's, Two discourses: the first concerning the spirit of Martin Luther, and the original of the Reformation; the second, concerning the celibacy of the clergy (1687).  Summarizing Woodhead, Gardiner says,

The core of The Spirit of Martin Luther is Woodhead's analysis of Luther's colloquy with Satan in 1522. It is unforgettable. Luther had engaged in many previous "negotiations" and "familiar disputes and conferences" with the "Enemy of mankind," but this one was crucial. In De Missa Privata and Sacerdotum Unctione (1533), he wrote of his "long experience" with Satan's "arts and practices" and of "many a sad and bitter night" spent in talks with him, but the colloquy on the Mass that took place in 1522 had such an effect on him that he never offered another Mass.  On that occasion, Satan in a "grave and strong voice" persuaded him that he had committed "idolatry" for fifteen years by adoring, and causing others to adore, "naked bread and wine."

The phrases "negotiations," "familiar disputes and conferences," "Enemy of mankind," and  "arts and practices," are not Luther's words, but rather, Woodhead's. The phrases "many a sad and bitter night," "grave and strong voice," and "naked bread and wine" are ascribed by Woodhead directly to Luther.  Gardiner has created confusion with her dates, mingling both 1522 and 1533 together. As far as I can tell, everything cited in the paragraph above appears to refer only to Luther's 1533 treatise, De Missa Privata and Sacerdotum Unctione. Furthering the confusion, I have not ascertained why the person at Catholic Answers ascribes the incorrect date 1521 to this treatise.

The Catholic Answers participant asked for the actual sources. De Missa Privata and Sacerdotum Unctione is the Latin version of Luther's 1533 treatise, Von der Winckelmesse und Pfaffen Weyhe (WA 38: 195-256). Yes, this treatise is available in English: The Private Mass and the Consecration of Priests. It can be found in LW 38:139-214.

Context

Here is an excerpt from LW 38. The entire story of Luther's conversation with devil goes on for multiple pages and is too long to post. I placed phrases used by Gardiner / Woodhead in bolded text:

I want to begin with myself and make a short confession before you sainted fathers. Grant me a good absolution which will not be injurious to yourselves. Once I awakened at midnight and the devil began the following disputation with me in my heart (for he is able to make many a night bitter and troublesome for me): “Listen, you very learned fellow, do you know that you said private masses for fifteen years almost daily? Did you not in reality commit sheer idolatry with such a mass and did you not worship there simply bread and wine, rather than Christ’s body and blood, and enjoin others to worship them?” I reply: “But I am a consecrated cleric; I have received chrism and consecration from the bishop, and, in addition, have done all this because of the command to do so and in obedience to it. Why have I not performed the consecration validly, since I have spoken the words in earnest and said mass with all possible devotion? You certainly know this.” “Yes,” he said, “that is true; but the Turks and the heathen also perform everything in their churches because of the command to do so and in earnest obedience to it. The priests of Jeroboam at Dan and Beersheba performed everything perhaps with greater devotion than the true priests at Jerusalem [I Kings 13:33]. What if your consecration, chrism, and consecrating are also unchristian and false like those of the Turks and the Samaritans?”

At this point I truly broke into a sweat and my heart began to tremble and throb. The devil knows how to muster his arguments well and to make an impression with them, and he possesses a convincing, powerful way of speaking. Such disputations do not permit time for lengthy and numerous deliberations, but the answers come in quick succession. At such times I have seen it happen that one finds people dead in bed in the morning. He can kill the body. This is one thing; but he can also scare the soul with disputes so that it almost departs from the body, as he has quite often very nearly done to me. Now he had challenged me in this dispute, and I did not really want to be guilty of such a great number of abominations in the presence of God but wanted to defend my innocence. So I listened to him to hear the grounds on which he opposed my consecration and my consecrating.

First, he said, you know that you did not rightly believe in Christ and as far as your faith was concerned you were no better than a Turk; for the Turk and I myself, along with all devils, also believe everything which is written about Christ (James 3 [2:19]), that is, that he was born, died, and ascended into heaven. However, none of us takes comfort in him or has confidence in him as a Savior; but we fear him as a stern judge. This kind of faith and no other is the one you also had when you were consecrated a priest and said mass; and all the others, both the consecrating bishop and his ordinands, also believed this. For this reason, too, all of you turned away from Christ and depended on Mary and the saints, who had to be your consolation and helpers in need rather than Christ. This you cannot deny, nor can any pope. That is why you were consecrated and have celebrated mass like heathen and not like Christians. How then were you able to effect conversion? For you were not the kind of persons who were to bring about this change [LW 38:149-150].

Conclusion

So it's true that Luther recorded a conversation with the Devil. But was it a real conversation? First, Luther says, "I want to begin with myself and make a short confession before you sainted fathers." In context, Luther's words are directed at his Roman Catholic detractors. He's making a sarcastic jab. Second, notice above, Luther says the conversation took place internally: "Once I awakened at midnight and the devil began the following disputation with me in my heart." Third, the actual conversation goes on for multiple pages in detailed arguments. How was Luther was able to transcribe such a lengthy internal conversation? None of these aspects of the dialog add up. I suspect Rome's defenders would say Luther was either deranged, a liar, or both. Woodhead's argument is that Satan deceived Luther into attacking the Roman Catholic Church. Case closed.

Perhaps though there is a much less dramatic solution. The editors of Luther's Works point out that three draft versions of  The Private Mass and the Consecration of Priests are preserved.  They explain, 

The idea of a disputation with the devil occurred to Luther while he was working on this third draft. This verbal exchange with the devil does not reflect his personal experience but is employed as an effective literary device in the first part of the book. The fact that Luther’s plan for the book changed as he developed these three outlines in succession is reflected in the rather abrupt way in which he concluded his writing as well as the remark that the book had become longer than he had originally intended it to be [LW 38:144].

Martin Brecht also points out:

And also:

This banal solution may not convince Rome's defenders. Gardiner and Woodhead don't mention it all. Their solution is far more complicated and dramatic: Woodhead says that in 1522 Luther had a disputation with Satan, based on Luther's statement in 1533 that Satan confronted Luther after he had been a priest for fifteen years (Luther was ordained a priest in 1507). In 1523, Luther released a treatise entitled, de Abominatione Missae privata, quam Canonem vocant (Of the Abomination of Private Mass, commonly called the Canon). Gardiner and Woodhead say this book was inspired by Luther's encounter with Satan (only later admitted by Luther in 1533). According to these authors, once the world found out that the earlier book was inspired by Satan, a scandal ensued among the Protestants causing some of them to go back to the Roman Catholic Church. I've yet to find any evidence though that Luther claimed that the 1533 recorded dialog with the devil was the impetus for the 1523 book. It appears to be the connecting of dots to produce a conspiracy. Gardiner sums up the conspiracy aptly:

Woodhead reflects that it was surely by the "merciful providence of God" that Luther showed the world by his "own confession" in 1533 who was "the original Founder and Abetter of the Reformation."

One other aspect of this topic should not go without mention. The topic of Luther's 1523 and 1533 treatises was the private Mass. The Catholic Answers participant asked specifically about Luther being "counseled by a Devil to stop celebrating Holy Mass." They are not the same thing. Another participant on the Catholic Answers forums pointed out the obvious: "Luther celebrated the mass throughout his life." Another stated, "He called his liturgical reform the 'German Mass'."  Gardiner appears to miss this: "...the colloquy on the Mass that took place in 1522 had such an effect on him that he never offered another Mass." 

Preterist Archive: Martin Luther's Attitude Toward The Jews

The Preterist Archive has resurrected one of my old papers: Martin Luther's Attitude Toward The Jews (2005).  I appreciate that! for the last few years, the paper has only been available via the Internet Archive. No, I'm not a Preterist (as the term is popularly understood), but the Preterist Archive does in fact have some very useful research and materials available, whatever one's eschatological underpinnings may be. I stand amazed at how long the site has been going and how often it's updated. It certainly appears to be a true labor of love on behalf of the site's owner.

The paper was a personal research project. The materials used at the time were largely those found in a number of libraries, particularly Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia).  Originally, the paper was hosted on Eric Svendsen's NTR.Min.org (still available via the Internet Archive). Svendsen took his site down some time around 2009-2010 (see my comments here).

Since 2005, there's been quite an online information explosion! I wonder what my paper would be like now if I were to compose it again. My position on Luther's attitude towards the Jews is still basically the same as that presented in 2005. However, over the years my position has changed as to whether or not Luther himself was an anti-Semite.

There have been a number of researchers who conclude Luther's later anti-Jewish tracts were written from a position different than current (or modern-day) Antisemitism. Luther was born into a society that was anti-Judaic, but it was not the current anti-Judaic type of society that bases it racism on biological factors. Luther had no objections to integrating converted Jews into Christian society. He had nothing against Jews as “Jews.” He had something against their religion because he believed it denied and blasphemed Christ. If one frames the issues with these categories, Luther was not Antisemitic.

Post World War II though, there has been much discussion about the nuances and etymology of the term Antisemitism. The contemporary use of the word "Antisemitism" does not typically have its distinction from anti-Judaism considered. The word now has a more broad meaning including anti-Judaism. The debate centers around whether the evolved use of the term is a significant step towards describing previous history or if it's setting up an anachronistic standard for evaluating previous history [see my entry here in regard to Eric Gritsch, Martin Luther's Anti-Semitism: Against His Better Judgment (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012)]. As I've looked at this issue from time to time, I'm thinking more along the lines of Gritsch's revised view rather than what I wrote back in 2005. I accept the modern definition of Antisemitism, and I think that it does include anti-Judaism. While Luther may have been primarily against the religion of Judaism, his harsh recommendations could have effected Jewish people as human beings as well. 

Dr. Nathan Busenitz' course on Historical Theology from a Protestant/Reformation Viewpoint

This is the first of 25 lectures on Historical Theology from the early church up to the Reformation.  I have not listened to them all, but jumped around some; and still have a long way to go.  Overall, it looks really good.  See the side-bar on You Tube for the rest of the 25 lectures.  He also has a Part 2 of Reformation and forward Historical Theology course.  (see under the You Tube Page of The Master's Seminary)  I look forward to working through them.

Dr. Busenitz also has a book on Sola Fide, showing the earlier aspects and elements of the doctrine in church history before Luther.  Called "Long Before Luther".

Long Before Luther

PS. There is a also a course by Carl Trueman on the Reformation, there at the Master's Seminary (Founder: John MacArthur) You Tube Page, that even a Roman Catholic like Alan Ruhl admitted was excellent.