Luther Says: "Mary is Our Mother" An Exercise in Compare & Contrast

I'm about halfway through the latest volume of Luther's Works (Sermons on the Gospel of St. John Chapters 17-20). In reading Luther, I enjoy his sermons the most. This volume is a wonderful collection of insight, exhortation, and the Gospel.

Commenting on John 19:25-27 ("Woman, behold, this is your son!".... then he said to the disciple, "Behold this is your mother!"), on pages 261-263, Luther says, "Deservedly, Mary is our mother." I've quoted this source, Roman Catholic style: no context.

But there is a context, and I have it. Unfortunately, it doesn't do much to expound on exactly what Luther means, but we still can compare it to something like this: Mary is Our Mother, Catholic Online. In this contemporary article, "Mary is our mother" means the following:

1. The Virgin Mary is a personal, spiritual mother. Only recognizing her as our true Spiritual Mother will lead to an authentic response to Mary. Roman Catholics love, revere, and honor her and seek her intercession and protection. In the human family, a mother is not optional. So too, in the spiritual family of the Mystical Body of Christ, Mary, our Mother is not optional.

2. In John 19:25-27, John is symbolic of all humanity. When Jesus says, "Behold your mother" this means Jesus from the Cross gave His Mother to every human person for all time. Mary doesn't become our mother, she is our mother, and we are her children. Jesus is the head of the body of believers. So, if she gave birth to the head, she must have given birth to the entire body of believers.

3. A mother doesn't give birth to a child only to abandon the child. She nurtures, feeds, teaches, guides, and protects her child. God entrusts Mary with these tasks. Mary's children should turn to her confidently with love and devotion for protection, guidance, and assistance in their hours of gravest need. To do this, is to do as Jesus did. She had given birth to Him, nurtured, fed, guided, and protected Him. To put our trust and confidence in her will always be pleasing to God because everything she does will always lead us closer to Him.

Now with this in mind, here's Luther's words from his 1529 sermon:

The dear Lord Christ wants to say His final farewell to the world and depart from it entirely. He has nothing else on earth, neither money nor possessions, neither tunic nor clothing; rather, He hangs bare upon the cross. He has nowhere to lay His head, neither has He even a foot of earth upon which to die. He is not lying on a bed but hangs suspended in the air. He has only His mother and His most beloved disciple. Now He departs from the world altogether and gives away His mother and His most beloved disciple, who reclined on His breast at the Last Supper [John 13:23]. It is immensely painful when someone departs in this way and refuses to concern himself any longer with either mother or disciple or anything else on earth. The dear Lord must think no good of the world to give it such a complete farewell.

To His mother He says, "Woman, behold, this is your son." To the disciple He says: "Behold, this is your mother." And from that hour the disciple took her to himself. That is as much as to say that John the disciple took Jesus' mother as his own mother, took her into his home, looked after her and cared for her, and provided for her so that she had a place where she could stay as a solitary widow now robbed even of her only Son.

In the papacy, Mary was made into an idol on the basis of this text. Even in the Passion, when they preached about Christ and His sufferings, they preached about the mother, Mary, namely, that she has been given and committed to us by Christ to be our mother. We want to hold the dear Virgin and holy mother in all honor, as she certainly deserves to be honored. Yet we will not so honor her as to make her equal to her Son, Christ. For she was not crucified nor did she die for us; neither did she pray for us on the cross. But it was Christ who was crucified and died for us and with tears offered supplications and prayer for us on the cross [Heb. 5:7]. Therefore, let each one honor the mother Mary as he will—provided only she is not honored with the honor due to Christ. And this is also the reason why the Lord separates His mother from Himself: so that He will be the only one to whom we should cling.

But the pope with his monks does the opposite, sending Christ the Son away and clinging to the mother. Christ abandons everything for our sake—the earth, His mother, His disciples—in order to save us. Therefore, we should cling to Him alone and give the honor that is due Him to no one else. For since He Himself gives His mother away and does not want to be with her on earth, 'nor to cling to her, neither should we cling to the mother and forsake the Son. Deservedly, Mary is our mother. But if we wanted to rely upon her, taking away Christ's honor and office and giving them to His mother, that would be a denial of the sufferings of Christ.

So, does Luther mean the same thing as "Catholic Online"? Hardly. Luther opposed Romanist idolatry then, and not much has changed.

By the way, lest anyone think Luther often said "Mary is our mother," the editors of Luther's Works say, "In (apparently) the only other place in which Luther affirms the formula that Mary is "our mother," it is in connection with Christmas and the Christian's identification with the Christ Child: see sermon for Christmas Day, December 25, 1530, WA 29:655."

The Dynamics of Facebook

I'm still trying to deicde how I feel about Facebook.

At first, the majority of people that were "friends" were simply people that either read my blog, or read the aomin blog. I probably didn't even know 80% of them. In fact, I initially joined Facebook because I noticed people were linking to my blog from Facebook, and I was curious to find out why.

Then, some of my current cyber contacts became "friends." This was actually interesting. It's finding out a bit more about the people who either write blog articles I enjoy, or whom I've met in cyberspace over the years. I've never met most of these people in person, but I've known some of them for many years.

Then, people started surfacing from my past. This is where it gets a bit tricky. Some of these people I haven't seen in over 20 years. It was quite a shocker to get a Facebook message from a girl I took on a date in 6th grade, or a friend request from a person I hadn't seen or heard from since 8th grade. Similarly,a few high school people began tracking me down, some of them, sorry to say, I did not remember at all. Then, various people from my past began surfacing.

Some of you probably think, "what's the problem here?"

Going through Facebook is a bit like, "THIS IS YOUR LIFE". I'm not the same person I was 20 years ago, and neither are they. In a sense, we really don't know each other. We're all arrested in each others' minds, whenever and wherever we left off. I'm sure many of the people who track me down don't find someone they remember, or maybe even like now.

And then, there are the people you know are on Facebook, but they don't send a friend request, and you wonder if you should, but then you wonder if they haven't sent it because they don't want to know you anymore.

I have more thoughts on Facebook, but this enough for now.

Did Jerome Change His Mind on the Apocrypha?

Matthew said: Did you forget that St. Jerome ended up upholding those books as Scripture. You mislead people by your remarks.

A present for Matthew: Guest Blog: Did Jerome Change His Mind on the Apocrypha? by Ray Aviles (who should be on my blogging team, but refuses to comply with my wishes).

xx

Steve Ray Explains Luther and the Apocrypha

Romanist apologist Steve Ray recently posted Sola Scriptura and the Canon of Scripture. He made a few historical statements about Martin Luther.

Steve Ray: "There is no doubt that the Septuagint was known to and used by Jesus, Paul and Timothy and yet, in the 16th century, Martin Luther removed these seven books from the Bible because they contain passages that support distinctly Catholic doctrines like praying for the dead and purgatory—doctrines which he rejected. Luther justified his action in part upon the fact that the some Jews themselves rejected the Deuterocanonicals as part of their canon."

Martin Luther's translation of the Bible contained the "seven books." As to the reasons he classified them as apocrypha, Mr. Ray should actually read Luther's prefaces to the apocryphal books. He could start by looking at Luther's preface to 2 Maccabees. He could also take a look at my review of Catholic Apologist Gary Michuta's examination of Luther and the Apocrypha (Part 2) .

Steve Ray: "Martin Luther used their doubt [some Jewish leaders about the apocrypha] to justify his own."

Yes, but he also referred to St. Jerome as well. Was Jerome trying to justify his own doubt? Luther classified the apocrypha as not held equal to the Holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read. With this distinction, Luther acted similarly to Athanasius and Cyril of Jerusalem.

Steve Ray: "Luther picked that truncated canon for the same reason the rabbis did: in order to undermine the teachings of the Catholic Church which did not fit his new theology."

So, why then did Cardinal Cajetan, and even some of the Catholic scholars at the Council of Trent reject the apocrypha?

What I find interesting in statements like those put forth by Steve, is that the issue really surrounds the proof text Roman Catholics use from 2 Maccabees to support purgatory and prayers for the dead. They are typically hard pressed to explain why Luther classified the entire apocrypha as not held equal to the Holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read. Perhaps a Catholic apologist could actually go through the apocrypha, pick out distinctly Catholic doctrines, and then explain why Luther rejected each book. That would be honest.

Rome Wooing Anglicans and Traditionalists

It appears that Rome is bending the rules a bit to lure in some Anglicans:

Pope establishes structure for Anglicans uniting with Rome

I wonder how the Traditionalists that Rome is also wooing will feel about this development:

Vatican announces start of dialogue with traditionalist group

The Sinfulness of Interpretation

Here's a footnote from the new LW 69 that points how how the sinful mind works to justify whatever it wants to:

Judicial torture, a feature of Roman law, had been reintroduced in canon law by the 1252 bull Ad exstirpanda of Innocent IV (d. 1254).

The Catholic Encyclopedia also provides a some information. The CE points out, "Torture was to be applied only once, and not then unless the accused were uncertain in his statements, and seemed already virtually convicted by manifold and weighty proofs."

Like any document, Ad exstirpanda needed to be interpreted. The CE states,

"The general rule ran that torture was to be resorted to only once. But this was sometimes circumvented — first, by assuming that with every new piece of evidence the rack could be utilized afresh, and secondly, by imposing fresh torments on the poor victim (often on different days), not by way of repetition, but as a continuation."

I spent about an hour yesterday going through a section of Roman Catholic apologetics dedicated to Biblically defending the immaculate conception. The arguments put forth reminded me very much of the interpreters of Ad exstirpanda: one will find what one needs to in any document. For instance, the document I read argued if the translation of Luke 1:28 is "highly favored," Mary could have become highly favored at her conception in her mother's womb. Or, if one uses the translation "full of grace," there's nothing in the Bible that contradicts the notion that Mary became "full of grace" at her conception:

"If Mary is “full of grace,” as the Catholic translation says, then the question is: When did she become full of grace? One can make the argument that it was at the moment of her conception that she became full of grace and there is nothing in Scripture to contradict that argument."

"Or, if she was “highly favored,” then at what point did she become highly favored by God? Could it not have been at her conception?" [source]

Let us always be careful not to use argumentation that stretches a document to accommodate what we want it to.

My Underground Bunker

The mystery Gibson....in action (mp3).

This is my "comfy chair" in my home office... seated: the Chapman Stick. Here's an MP3 of the stick in action. Here's a rough mix cut from a 4 track demo I did with my friend Alice some years back. It was Stick/ Acoustic guitar/ mandolin trio. Here's my Les Paul and Fender P-Bass in action.

I don't have any rations stored in my bunker, but I've got plenty to read. I've got two other walls of books (to the left, and in front of the camera) not in the picture.

I keep a small office upstairs, all the books and junk stay in the basement. Now with so many books and resources on the Internet, who needs to keep a room full of books? Off to the basement, ye ol' takers up of space.

If anyone can identify the two guitars (manufacturer and model), I'd be impressed. The Chapman Stick lives upstairs. There's also a few other guitars around, plus a bunch of those those 200 pound amps that I don't know how I ever carried around.

An Argument Against An Infallible Papacy, Luther Style

Recently Concordia Publishing House released Luther's Works Volume 69. It's a new English translation of Luther's writing not previously available in English. While the volume is primarily a verse by verse commentary of John 17-20, interspersed are some interesting apologetic arguments against Romanism. (A word of caution: if you follow the above link to Concordia Publishing and fill out the form to receive the new volume of Luther's Works, it may arrive at your door in a few days, without paying for it first. The invoice arrived a day before the book showed up at my front door. Only fill out the form if you plan on buying the book).

One such argument concerns the papacy and infallibility. Without anything explicit establishing either Biblically, Roman Catholics read much into such texts like Matthew 16. Without anything explicit, the argument is typically one of inference. For instance, Catholic Answers states, "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 16:19). Here Peter was singled out for the authority that provides for the forgiveness of sins and the making of disciplinary rules." " It was Simon, weak as he was, who was chosen to become the rock and thus the first link in the chain of the papacy." Of course, Luther dealt with similar arguments. The following is his response from Luther's Works, Volume 69, pp. 178- 181. Luther is commenting on John 18:13, concerning Annas and Caiaphas, the Jewish high priests.

But I want to come now to theology and doctrine. We should learn here that no one should place his trust in men, even if he is in an estate ordained by God. But if we are not to believe nor to put our trust in Annas and Caiaphas, how are we to believe or trust the devil, the pope in Rome, the monks in monasteries, or the godless bishops? God so thoroughly forbids putting trust in any man that one should not even trust in those who are in the highest, best, and most secure estates. For no estate on earth has been so gloriously confirmed as was the estate of Annas and Caiaphas. If Annas and Caiaphas became scoundrels in their order and estate, even though it was the most exalted on earth, then you should learn from this not to esteem any man on the basis of his estate or see. The papal jurists exalted their pope and said, "Non est praesumendum, quod tantae altitudinis apex possit errare"- "It is not to be presumed that the pope in such a lofty station can err." Against this claim I set the following: Annas and Caiaphas occupy a loftier position and sit on a greater throne than do the pope and the emperor. Yet they not only err but also are scoundrels and knaves-the worst scoundrels and knaves ever to have lived on earth, for they crucified the Son of God. We know this from the wicked things they did to Christ, so that we hold them in scorn whenever we speak their names. But we should recognize that they were the most exalted people according to Gods ordinance, and their estate was the holiest and highest that ever was. Therefore, I should not hesitate to pull off [anyone else's] mask and say, "I must not put my trust here, even if it is what the pope or a cardinal or the emperor says,for even the most exalted of men can err and go astray."

But if you now say, "Whom, then, are we to trust and believe?" read the First Commandment: "I the Lord your God am a jealous God"[Exod. 20:5]. There it is clearly written whom you are to trust: namely, the Lord God alone. So now if the pope says something, I am not obligated to hold to it unless,to be sure, he brings God's Word. For God says that we are to fear and trust Him only, even if He speaks to us through a donkey [cf. Num. 22:28-30]. For this reason you should say: "Dear pope, you are high, holy, learned. But that you cannot err on that account-that I don't believe." If, indeed, they say, "Do you think the councils can err?" answer them this: "Haven't you read about two men, Annas and Caiaphas by name, who were scoundrels? Now if such eminent people, in such a high, holy estate, ordained and instituted by God, have fallen away even to the point of crucifying God's Son, it follows that other men can also fall and err." Annas and Caiaphas were much more learned and wise, and the obedience due them was much greater than that due the pope. This is evident in that though everyone else among the Jews heard Christ's preaching and saw His miracles, no one dared acknowledge or follow Him publicly [John 12:42]; and when Christ was taken captive, no one dared to make himself known, so great were the respect and obedience accorded the high priest by the whole people.

So note well John's words: "Caiaphas was high priest for the year." And yet that same high priest may be such a scoundrel and knave that he crucifies the Son of God. The office of high priest was, indeed, the highest office and the most glorious title, and yet the worst scoundrels held this office and title. Now, since the high priests have done such things, we should not henceforth believe any man unless he brings with him God's clear, pure Word. St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 4[:2], "Nothing is more requisite of stewards than that they be found faithful." You should pay close attention to whether such a one is faithful, for all kinds of shortcomings in a preacher or bishop can be tolerated, but unfaithfulness cannot and should not be tolerated in them.... Is it possible for the pope not to err when these two, Annas and Caiaphas, who were instituted in office by God much more gloriously than any pope, not only erred but lapsed so shamefully that they condemned the Son of God to death?

This was the glory of the high priests: that the people had been commanded to accept everything they said [Deut. 17:12].133 The pope does not possess such a glory. Now, if you conclude from this as follows: "The high priest's judgment must be accepted; Annas and Caiaphas are the high priests of the people, and they judge and decide that Christ must be slain; therefore, one must accept this judgment of the high priests"-then you have been deceived already! Therefore, the Holy Spirit put this here to teach the contrary-that Annas and Caiaphas were high priests at the time, and yet Christ was condemned to death by their judgment?so that no one would put his confidence in any human being, no matter how high and holy he may be.

Bishops, cardinals, and the entire papal clergy rest on this foundation: "The Christian Church cannot err; therefore, the pope likewise cannot err since he is the head of the Church." But you, forearm yourself against this and say: "Pope this, pope that! If Caiaphas could err, so also can the pope." And he proves this with his deeds as well. For the pope denies Christ and kills Him, just as those high priests denied Christ and sentenced Him to death. We would not have expected to read that the high priests Annas and Caiaphas crucified Christ. Rather, it should say, "Barabbas crucified Christ." But the evangelist says 'that Christ was led bound, first to Annas, and then to Caiaphas, who was the high priest for the year, in order to indicate this extraordinary and astonishing fact: that the highest and holiest of people on earth are often God's worst enemies. For this reason we should not put our trust in any human being, even if he occupies a high office and a position of great glory.

The John Calvin Quiz

The Calvin Quiz

Well, I got 9 out of 10. I did have to guess a few, as I haven't been involved in anything substantially "Calvin" for quite a while. I was scored a "certified Calvin scholar." LOL

Henry VIII’s Letter to Pope Leo X on the subject of his book “Assertio Septem Sacramentorum”

http://keysofpeter.org/henry8/h8%20letter.htm

"So, when we learned that the pest of Martin Luther's heresy had appeared in Germany and was raging everywhere, without let or hindrance, to such an extent that many, infected with its poison, were falling away, especially those whose furious hatred rather than their zeal for Christian Truth had prepared them to believe all its subtleties and lies; we were so deeply grieved at this heinous crime of the German nation (for whom we have no light regard), and for the sake of the Holy Apostolic See, that we bent all our thoughts and energies on up­rooting in every possible way, this cockle, this heresy from the Lord's flock."

Recent "Blueprint For Anarchy" Quotes & Some Quotable Sippo's

"As many of you may know, I have defended what I believe to be Church teaching on this matter and have taken the position that these acts were immoral and unjustified according to Catholic moral theology and particularly just war thinking." [Source]

R. Sungenis: “Conflict” with a bishop is common in Catholic history, because not all bishops protect and defend the Catholic faith.[Source]

My bishop, unfortunately, like you, believes and promotes the heresy that the Old Covenant is somehow still valid for the Jewish people.[Source]

"Bishop Ratko Peric, who has led the Diocese of Mostar-Duvno since 1993, has emphasized that the alleged apparitions and messages of Medjugorje are not to be treated as “worthy of faith.” [Source]

“Brothers and sisters, let us not act as if these 'apparitions' were recognized and worthy of faith,” he said. “If, as Catholics, devoted sons and daughters of the Church, we want to live according to the norms and the teaching of the Church, glorifying the Holy Trinity, venerating Blessed Mary ... and professing all the Church has established in the creed, we do not turn to certain alternative 'apparitions' or 'messages' to which the Church has not attributed any supernatural character.” [source]


The Quotable Sippo

"In reality Sola Ecclesia has a valid meaning but it is not the slander that Pcoma insinuates. It is only in the Church that the Bible, Tradition, and the superintendence ofhte Holy Spirit are meant to operate. Outside the Church there is just teh wailing and hte gnashing of teeth as mere men seek to justify themselves with their own preferences masqueradig as faith." [source]

"Protestantism is NOT Biblical. It is a hypocritical sham that is obvious to anyone who has the personal integrity to admit the truth." [Source]

Did Luther Believe Salvation Can Be Lost?

I haven't come across a lot of material on whether or not Martin Luther believed a Christian can lose salvation.  It's not surprising to find quotes from him that appear to advocate a "perseverance of the saints" as well as quotes suggesting loss of salvation. On a basic contextual level, Luther's use of paradox does allow for such differing statements. I am aware that current Lutherans do say a Christian can "fall from faith." Also, I'm aware of statements like these saying similarly:

Although Luther agreed that the merits of Christ were the sole basis of a man’s justification, and that it did not depend in any way on a man’s deeds, Luther still thought that a man could lose his justification if he totally and finally turned away from Christ. Since God’s gift of forgiveness of sins and eternal life was appropriated by faith, if a man decided not to rest his eternal destiny in Christ, and totally turned against Him, Luther believed that only then would a man lose his salvation. In other words, the only sin that Luther thought would cause a man to lose his salvation was the sin of unrepentant apostasy (Catholics and Protestants: Do They Now Agree?, John Ankerberg and John Weldon).

I've followed the interpretive pack and have agreed that Luther held a Christian can actually lose salvation due to disbelief or a reliance on works righteousness. On the other hand, it really isn't as simple as some make it out to be. Many Lutherans are rightly agitated when the Reformed try to present Luther as a five-point Calvinist. However, I as a Reformed person tend to be agitated by those who ignore evidence, or don't ask interpretive questions about contexts. I'm particularly not fond of attempts to wiggle out of Luther's strong statements in The Bondage of the Will regarding predestination. I've had a few Lutherans tell me certain English translations of the book aren't accurate, or that Luther went too far, or that later in his life he took a different position. I'm well aware of Luther's many exhortations not to probe into the secret council of the hidden God, but as to doctored English translations and Luther changing his mind, I've not seen convincing proof.


Luther Believes in Losing Salvation
Here are a few Luther statements I've come across. This website, dedicated to advocating the possibility of a believer's loss of salvation uses the following statements from Luther (bolded emphasis theirs):

Even Martin Luther, who is claimed by Calvinists as one of their own, acknowledged the possibility of a Christian falling away into unbelief. Here are a few quotes, beginning with Luther's comment on the statement of the Lord's prayer, "lead us not into temptation."

"We have now heard enough what toil and labor is required to retain all that for which we pray, and to persevere therein, which, however, is not achieved without infirmities and stumbling. Besides, although we have received forgiveness and a good conscience and are entirely acquitted, yet is our life of such a nature that one stands to-day and to-morrow falls. Therefore, even though we be godly now and stand before God with a good conscience, we must pray again that He would not suffer us to relapse and yield to trials and temptations. ... Then comes the devil, inciting and provoking in all directions, but especially agitating matters that concern the conscience and spiritual affairs, namely, to induce us to despise and disregard both the Word and works of God to tear us away from faith, hope, and love and bring us into misbelief, false security, and obduracy, or, on the other hand, to despair, denial of God, blasphemy, and innumerable other shocking things. These are indeed snares and nets, yea, real fiery darts which are shot most venomously into the heart, not by flesh and blood, but by the devil. Great and grievous, indeed, are these dangers and temptations which every Christian must bear, even though each one were alone by himself, so that every hour that we are in this vile life where we are attacked on all sides, chased and hunted down, we are moved to cry out and to pray that God would not suffer us to become weary and faint and to relapse into sin, shame, and unbelief. For otherwise it is impossible to overcome even the least temptation. This, then, is leading us not into temptation, to wit, when He gives us power and strength to resist, the temptation, however, not being taken away or removed. For while we live in the flesh and have the devil about us, no one can escape temptation and allurements; and it cannot be otherwise than that we must endure trials, yea, be engulfed in them; but we pray for this, that we may not fall and be drowned in them." (Martin Luther, Large Catechism XII, On the Lord's Prayer, 6th Petition).

"Through baptism these people threw out unbelief, had their unclean way of life washed away, and entered into a pure life of faith and love. Now they fall away into unbelief" (Martin Luther, Commentary on 2 Peter 2:22).

"Verse 4, "Ye are fallen from grace." That means you are no longer in the kingdom or condition of grace. When a person on board ship falls into the sea and is drowned it makes no difference from which end or side of the ship he falls into the water. Those who fall from grace perish no matter how they go about it. ... The words, "Ye are fallen from grace," must not be taken lightly. They are important. To fall from grace means to lose the atonement, the forgiveness of sins, the righteousness, liberty, and life which Jesus has merited for us by His death and resurrection. To lose the grace of God means to gain the wrath and judgment of God, death, the bondage of the devil, and everlasting condemnation." (Martin Luther, Commentary on Galatians, 5:4).

As to the first quote from Luther's Large Catechism, I don't see anything particularly against a saint persevering. In fact, if you note the words they emphasized (in black), the point being made is the Devil is he who seeks to "tear us away from faith, hope, and love and bring us into misbelief" and to the "denial of God [and] blasphemy."

As to the second quote from Luther's Commentary on 2 Peter 2:22, Luther is expounding on false teachers, and these he takes to be initially those from "the schools of higher learning." He describes them as having a false faith. He also will apply these verses to the papacy, monks, and priesthood. In commenting on "even denying the master who bough them," he states:

"Behold, what powerful words St. Peter uses! He says: “They deny the Master who bought them.” They should be under Him as under a Master who owns them. But now, even though they believe that He is a Lord who has ransomed all the world with His blood, yet they do not believe that they are ransomed and that He is their Master. They say that although He ransomed and redeemed them, this is not enough; one must first make amends and render satisfaction for sin with works. Then we say: “If you take away your sin yourself and wipe it out, what, then has Christ done? You surely cannot make two Christs who take away sin. He should, and wants to, be the only One who puts sin aside. If this is true, I cannot make bold to wipe out sin myself. But if I do this, I cannot say or believe that Christ takes it away.” This amounts to a denial of Christ. For even if they regard Christ as a Lord, yet they deny that He redeemed them" [LW 30:171].

The quote being utilized is tied together with Luther's understanding of baptism (which I've outlined here). It doesn't have anything to do with a Christian walking in true faith for countless years, and then losing that faith.

As to the third quote from Luther's Commentary on Galatians, this is the only bone given that has some meat on it. If one reads through the entire passage, it indeed does appear Luther's is saying that if one falls from grace, one loses salvation. Luther goes on to say:

These words, “You have fallen away from grace,” should not be looked at in a cool and careless way; for they are very emphatic. Whoever falls away from grace simply loses the propitiation, forgiveness of sins, righteousness, freedom, life, etc., which Christ earned for us by His death and resurrection; and in place of these he acquires the wrath and judgment of God, sin, death, slavery to the devil, and eternal damnation. This passage is a powerful support and reinforcement for our doctrine of faith or the doctrine of justification; and it gives us marvelous comfort against the ragings of the papists, who persecute and condemn us as heretics because we teach this doctrine. This passage really ought to strike terror into all the enemies of faith and grace, that is, all the partisans of works, to make them stop persecuting and blaspheming the Word of grace, life, and eternal salvation. But they are so calloused and obstinate that “seeing they do not see, and hearing”—this horrible sentence pronounced against them by the apostle—“they do not hear” (Matt. 13:13). Therefore let us let them alone, for they are blind leaders of the blind (Matt. 15:14) [LW 27:19].

Here's one other Luther quote I found being put forth on a Reformed web page, one wonders if a believer could actually chose unbelief (is Luther speaking rhetorically?):

Even if he would, he could not lose his salvation, however much he sinned, unless he refused to believe. For no sin can condemn him save unbelief alone. All other sins, so long as the faith in God’s promise made in baptism returns or remains, are immediately blotted out through that same faith, or rather through the truth of God, because he cannot deny himself if you confess him and faithfully cling to him in his promise. But as for contrition, confession of sins, and satisfaction, along with all those carefully devised exercises of men: if you rely on them and neglect this truth of God, they will suddenly fail you and leave you more wretched than before. For whatever is clone without faith in God’s truth is vanity of vanities and vexation of spirit [Eccles. 1:2, 14]" [LW 36: 60].

An interesting analysis of this quote can be found here. The quote though that settles the matter is article 40-43 of the Smalcald articles:

40 In the case of a Christian such repentance continues until death, for all through life it contends with the sins that remain in the flesh. As St. Paul testifies in Rom. 7:23, he wars with the law in his members, and he does this not with his own powers but with the gift of the Holy Spirit which follows the forgiveness of sins. This gift daily cleanses and expels the sins that remain and enables man to become truly pure and holy.

41 This is something about which the pope, the theologians, the jurists, and all men understand nothing. It is a teaching from heaven, revealed in the Gospel, and yet it is called a heresy by godless saints.

42 Some fanatics may appear (and perhaps they are already present, such as I saw with my own eyes at the time of the uprising)1 who hold that once they have received the Spirit or the forgiveness of sins, or once they have become believers, they will persevere in faith even if they sin afterwards, and such sin will not harm them. They cry out, “Do what you will, it matters not as long as you believe, for faith blots out all sins,” etc. They add that if anyone sins after he has received faith and the Spirit, he never really had the Spirit and faith. I have encountered many foolish people like this and I fear that such a devil still dwells in some of them.

43 It is therefore necessary to know and to teach that when holy people, aside from the fact that they still possess and feel original sin and daily repent and strive against it, fall into open sin (as David fell into adultery, murder, and blasphemy), faith and the Spirit have departed from them.

44 This is so because the Holy Spirit does not permit sin to rule and gain the upper hand in such a way that sin is committed, but the Holy Spirit represses and restrains it so that it does not do what it wishes. If the sin does what it wishes, the Holy Spirit and faith are not present, 45 for St. John says, “No one born of God commits sin; he cannot sin.” Yet it is also true, as the same St. John writes, “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.”

Luther Believes The Saints Will Persevere
Now, on the other hand, I recently read through Luther's sermons on John 17. Here are a few interesting quotes suggesting a perseverance of the faith in the heart of a true believer.

But to this He adds "to those whom You gave Me from the world." For just as no one reveals this and causes it to be preached except Him, so no one is able to understand or accept this revelation except those who have been given to Him. The rest despise it or take offense, persecute and blaspheme it. All this is now said for our sakes, who have the Word of Christ and cling to it. And it is an excellent, comforting text for all timid, fearful consciences,especially for those who are troubled and afflicted with high temptations concerning their predestination.

If anyone wants to know whether he is elect or how he stands with God, let him simply look to the mouth of Christ, namely, to this passage and ones like it. For though one cannot say with certainty who will be [called] in the future or who will finally endure, it is nonetheless certain that those who have been called and have come to hear this revelation (that is, Christ's Word), as long as they also accept it seriously (that is, they regard and believe it as entirely true). They are the ones given to Christ by the Father. Those who are given to Him He will uphold and protect so that they will not perish, as He says in John 6 [:39]: "This is the will of the Father, who sent Me, that I should lose nothing of all that He has 'given Me." And later in this chapter [John 17:12]: "Those whom You have given Me I have guarded, and not one of them has been lost except the son of perdition" Again, in John 10 [:28], He speaks of the sheep who hear His voice: "I give them eternal life. and they shall never perish, and no one shall tear them out of My hand."

For you must assuredly believe that there is no higher grace and divine work than that someone comes to hear the Word of Christ gladly with all his heart and takes it seriously, regarding it as great and precious. For, as has been said. not everyone concerns himself with this, nor does it come from human understanding or choice. It takes more than reason and free will to be able to grasp and accept it, as Christ says in John 6 [:44]: "No one can come to Me unless the Father draws him" And again [John 6:45]: "Whoever hears it and learns it from My Father comes to Me." These words, even though they sound harsh toward false Christians, are, nevertheless, sweet and comforting to upright hearts that hold His Word dear, if one looks into Christ's heart and mind from which they flow. For He wants to indicate, as has been said, that it is not man's will and intention that make one cling to Christ and become His disciple, but it is God's work and power.

This is readily proved by looking out into the wide world and seeing how few there are who value Christ's Word and hold it dear, particularly where might, wisdom, holiness, etc., rule. There is nothing more despised or accursed on the face of the earth than the dear Gospel. The world in its wisdom is able to censure it so masterfully, to mock and scorn it so disdainfully, to libel and slander it so venomously and sharply, to persecute it so fiercely and bitterly, that, in sum, no folly, no vice, no aberration, no devil is so hated as Christ is. Man is able to tolerate, ignore, excuse, and prettify all sorts of sects, blasphemy of God, public shame, and vice. But Christ must take all this upon Himself and bear it; on Him all people pour out their venomous, insatiable hatred and resentment. Therefore, do not take it as a small comfort but as a sure and certain one that if you feel that you love Christ and His Word and with all your heart desire to abide steadfast in it, you are among the little flock that belongs to Christ and shall not be lost.

Now if you are also tempted by such thoughts as, "Yes, even though I hold Christ dear and gladly hear Him, who knows whether I am reconciled with the Father in heaven?"—this, too. He will clear away, saying: "You fool, you would be entirely unable to delight in My Word or revelation if this had not been given you by the Father! Don't you hear that it is His own work and grace? For He has already taken you out of the world and given you to Me; that is. He has put it into your heart to hear Me gladly and hold My Word in love and esteem. There you have everything. What more is there to look for? Only take heed lest you fall away." In sum, whoever is clinging to Christ possesses sheer grace and cannot be lost, even if out of weakness he should fall like St. Peter, so long as he does not despise the Word like the crude spirits who boast of the Gospel yet pay no attention to it. For no one may apply this comfort to himself except poor, distressed, tempted hearts that desire to be reconciled with God, and hold Christ dear, and do not willfully set themselves against His Word but are sorry that it is blasphemed or
persecuted. [LW 69:50-51]

For you must assuredly believe that there is no higher grace and divine work than that someone comes to hear the Word of Christ gladly with all his heart and takes it seriously, regarding it as great and precious. For, as has been said. not everyone concerns himself with this, nor does it come from human understanding or choice. It takes more than reason and free will to be able to grasp and accept it, as Christ says in John 6 [:44]: "No one can come to Me unless the Father draws him" And again [John 6:45]: "Whoever hears it and learns it from My Father comes to Me." These words, even though they sound harsh toward false Christians, are, nevertheless, sweet and comforting to upright hearts that hold His Word dear, if one looks into Christ's heart and mind from which they flow. For He wants to indicate, as has been said, that it is not man's will and intention that make one cling to Christ and become His disciple, but it is God's work and power.

This is readily proved by looking out into the wide world and seeing how few there are who value Christ's Word and hold it dear, particularly where might, wisdom, holiness, etc., rule. There is nothing more despised or accursed on the face of the earth than the dear Gospel. The world in its wisdom is able to censure it so masterfully, to mock and scorn it so disdainfully, to libel and slander it so venomously and sharply, to persecute it so fiercely and bitterly, that, in sum, no folly, no vice, no aberration, no devil is so hated as Christ is. Man is able to tolerate, ignore, excuse, and prettify all sorts of sects, blasphemy of God, public shame, and vice. But Christ must take all this upon Himself and bear it; on Him all people pour out their venomous, insatiable hatred and resentment. Therefore, do not take it as a small comfort but as a sure and certain one that if you feel that you love Christ and His Word and with all your heart desire to abide steadfast in it, you are among the little flock that belongs to Christ and shall not be lost.

Now if you are also tempted by such thoughts as, "Yes, even though I hold Christ dear and gladly hear Him, who knows whether I am reconciled with the Father in heaven?"—this, too. He will clear away, saying: "You fool, you would be entirely unable to delight in My Word or revelation if this had not been given you by the Father! Don't you hear that it is His own work and grace? For He has already taken you out of the world and given you to Me; that is. He has put it into your heart to hear Me gladly and hold My Word in love and esteem. There you have everything. What more is there to look for? Only take heed lest you fall away." In sum, whoever is clinging to Christ possesses sheer grace and cannot be lost, even if out of weakness he should fall like St. Peter, so long as he does not despise the Word like the crude spirits who boast of the Gospel yet pay no attention to it. For no one may apply this comfort to himself except poor, distressed, tempted hearts that desire to be reconciled with God, and hold Christ dear, and do not willfully set themselves against His Word but are sorry that it is blasphemed orpersecuted. [LW 69:50-51]

I am praying for them, and I do not pray for the world (John 17:9)
From this let us also take comfort, be joyful and of good cheer, and in firm faith conclude that those for whom Christ is praying will certainly be delivered and preserved against the devil's fury and rage, as well as against sin and every temptation. [LW 69: 61-62]

The ones You have given me (John 17:11)
Thereby we know that God himself has led us to hear Christ, and our salvation does not depend on ourselves but is in God's hand, "from which no one can snatch them [John 10:29]. Therefore he means: "Since You gave them to Me that they might become my disciples and have called them to true holiness, I pray that You will henceforth preserve them in it, that they may not become unsanctified or polluted and be misled in any error" [LW 69:75].

John 6: 38. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me;39. and this is the will of Him who sent Me, that I should lose nothing of all that He has given Me, but raise it up at the Last Day.

The fatherly will of which Christ speaks here includes and teaches that He, the Lord Christ, will not lose any of those who come to Him and are given to Him, that is, those who believe in Him, but that all of them will be saved and live eternally. Thus Christ says at another place: “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the Last Day” (John 6:40). This surely does not mean to be cast out, but to be kept with Him. This is a far different will from what the Law demands of us. It is necessary, therefore, to distinguish between the wills of God. The will of God reflected in the text is this, that no believer in Christ is to be lost. It pictures God as kindly disposed to us and banishes all lightning, thunder, hail, yes, all wrath and disfavor of God. It reveals God’s gracious resolve that all who see the Son and believe in Him shall be preserved, saved, and well supplied. God does not deal with them according to justice and its just verdict and punishment, but He entertains a gracious will toward them. God does not come to punish, but His will in Christ is only the gracious will of the Father, which kindly invites us to come to Him. [LW 23:63].

Summary
It does indeed appear Luther believed in the loss of salvation. Even with those strong comments from LW 69, he includes statements like "Only take heed lest you fall away" and "so long as he does not despise the Word." On the other hand, my understanding is that Luther did indeed attribute double predestination to the "hidden God,"so in some sense for Luther, there are a specific determined number of people God chooses to save, that will be saved, and it can not be otherwise, and it has nothing to do with their "free" choices. Note this explanation by Paul Althaus:

“For Luther the assertion that God is God implicitly includes the fact that God alone works all in all together with the accompanying foreknowledge…. This determines not only man's outward but also his inner fate, his relationship to God in faith or unfaith, in obedience or disobedience. Here too man is completely in God's hands. Luther finds the biblical basis for this particularly in I Corinthians 12:6, "God works all in all." Luther expands the sense of this passage far beyond Paul's meaning in its original setting. It appears very frequently in Luther's thought.

The Bible in addition bears witness, and experience confirms the fact, that men actually relate themselves differently to the word of God. Some are open to faith; others remain closed to it. Accordingly, the Bible expects human history to end in a twofold way. Not all will be blessed; and many will be lost. Luther can, in the context of his assertion that God works all in all, find the ultimate cause in God himself, in his intention, and in his working. This decision is not made by man's supposedly free will, but only by God's willing and working. He chooses some to be saved and he rejects the others without an apparent reason for either choice. He gives faith to one through the working of His Spirit; and he refuses to give faith to others so that they are bound in their unbelief. Salvation and destruction thus result from God's previous decision and his corresponding twofold activity. God's choice is not based on the individual's condition; it establishes this condition. This means an unconditional, eternal predestination both to salvation and to damnation.

Luther does not reach this conclusion on the basis of philosophical speculation about God, but finds it in the Scripture. He experienced it in God's relationship to him personally; and the God whom he thus personally experienced is the very same God who speaks and is proclaimed in the Scripture. Paul especially testified to Luther that God makes this twofold decision and that he hardens those who are lost: "God has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills" (Rom. 9:18). Paul illustrates this with the picture of the potter making vessels of honor as well as dishonor out of the same clay (Rom. 9: 20 ff.). In addition, Paul quotes Malachi, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" (Rom. 9:13). And Paul specifically refers to God's treatment of Pharaoh (Rom. 9:17)

The position Scripture thus presented to Luther was also the inescapable result of his understanding of God. He even cites man's innate rational concept of God as an additional proof. It seems blasphemous even to think that God does not work man's decision to believe or not to believe, as though God could be surprised by man's choice and men might be saved or lost without God knowing it. Whoever so thinks denies that God is God and makes fun of Him as though he were a ridiculous idol." Whoever speaks seriously of God must necessarily teach his foreknowledge and his unconditional determination of all things.

Luther thus finds a twofold will of God in the Scripture. Together with statements about God's all-inclusive grace are other statements which express another willing and working of God which stands with his willing and working of salvation. Together with grace stands wrath, a wrath which rejects and which is no longer a part of love; and this is found not only in the Old but also in the New Testament. Luther did not draw a two-sided picture of God from his own imagination, but he saw it already present in Scripture. The God of the Bible is not unequivocally the God of the gospel. The God of the Bible is not only the God of all grace but is also the God who, if he wills, hardens and rejects. This God even treats a man equivocally: he offers his grace in the word and yet refuses to give his Spirit to bring about his conversion. He can even harden a man—in all this Luther does not go in substance beyond the difficult passages of Scripture which describe God as hardening a man's heart.

Luther, however, summarized the substance of such scriptural statements in the sharpest possible expressions. In The Bondage of the Will he teaches that God has a double will, even a double reality. The God revealed and preached in the gospel must be distinguished from the hidden God who is not preached, the God who works all things. God's word is not the same as "God himself." God, through his word, approaches man with the mercy which (according to Ezekiel 33) does not seek the death of the sinner but that he turn and live. But the hidden will of God, the will we must fear, "determines for itself which and what sort of men it chooses to enable to participate in this mercy offered through the proclamation." God "does not will the death of the sinner, that is, according to his word; he does, however, will it according to his inscrutable will." God revealed in his word mourns the sinner's death and seeks to save him from it. "God hidden in his majesty, on the other hand, does not mourn the sinner's death, or abrogate it, but works life and death in everything in all. For God has not limited himself to his word but retains his freedom over everything. . . . God does many things that he does not show us through his word. He also wills many things his word does not show us." [Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966) pp. 274-276].

Addendum (2018)
This blog entry is a revision of an entry I posted back in 2009. The original can be found here. Because so many sources are now available online, I'm revising older entries by adding additional materials and commentary, and also fixing or deleting dead hyperlinks. Nothing of any significant substance has changed in this entry from that presented in the former.

Reformation & Who Gets the Money

Another tidbit from a Roman Catholic on the CARM boards:

I also believe in history. I think the motive to stop paying those big taxes to Rome played a lot in protecting Luther in Germany. It also went a long way in his creating a religion that HE could live with. And profit from!!

Ah yes, history. Here's some comments from my old notes:

During the middle ages, political life had been focused on the Holy Roman Empire as a universal institution. To understand how nations developed, one must study the phenomenon of "Centralism," which was a widespread political trend during this time period, and previous to it. Monarchs and nobles were competing for the money of the middle class, allowing “nation states” to emerge and become prominent in Europe. Monarchs were trying to “centralize” power in their own hands in their own nations. Certain countries had already "centralized": Spain, France, and England.

Certain nations had a tough time in "centralizing." Italy for instance, had the south of the country under Spanish control. The central regions were under the Papacy. The north was divided into several states. It was worse in Germany. The Holy Roman Empire had divided her into hundreds of city-states and princely territories. Germany was a loosely associated group of territories meeting in parliamentary diets, where various leaders met to debate policies suggested by the emperor, and vote up or down his desire to raise money for troops for various policies. The Emperor’s authority in the internal affairs of Germany were very limited and restricted. The emperor was eager to centralize power, but territorial princes blocked this, and wanted power to stay in their own hands (decentralized).

The papacy had been a leader in centralization of power for Europe. They had increased power in there own hands at the expense of the national churches and the local bishops. They had achieved a “Papal monarchy” in the church. They had unlimited centralized church powers. They had an effective form of administration. They were the first to develop an international form of diplomacy of ambassadorial representatives; developed an effective form of communicating with the papacy, and they were well managed. They did though have one major problem: they had a constant problem raising money.

Pressure to raise money created corruption: The sale of church offices, and the sale of spiritual remedies (indulgences). Political infighting also caused trouble because the Papacy wanted to control more of central Italy. The popes were often seen to be as greedy and ambitious as many of the monarchs in Europe, this undermined their spiritual claims (Innocent VIII, Alexander VI, Julius II, Leo X).

The sale of indulgences at the time was simply another example of a need for funds. The papacy had quite a history of exploiting the German people for such funds. History does show Rome exploited countries like Germany for building projects. So when you say, "I think the motive to stop paying those big taxes to Rome played a lot in protecting Luther in Germany," you imply it was a bad thing, whereas, I would argue quite the opposite. German leaders protected Luther against a corrupt papacy that had been exploiting the German people. True, Luther was a means to their ends. Some of the rulers were Godly men, wanting the best for their territory, some were not Godly men. Others simply wanted more power at the expense of the German people.

Sungenis: "Leave it to Shea to twist the facts"

Interesting stuff, Including, "Either Mr. Shea is a liar or he is losing his wits."

Luther's Income

...A tidbit from a Roman Catholic on the CARM boards:

"You can pray for a soul in purgatory and never spend a dime! But how is the selling of Luther's bibles any different? He put the money in his pocket. Show me where he did differently. The Catholic Church would read "the words of God" to the poor and illiterate and explain anything they didn't understand. NO CHARGE! But Luther sold "the words of God" in bible form. This is better?"

Luther preached for many years, doing just as described above: reading "the words of God" to the poor and illiterate and explaining anything they didn't understand.

Luther didn't really make much money (if any) from any of his books, the publishers did. On the specifics of Luther's income, see this link, page 367.

"[Luther's] view of property is thoroughly mediaeval. It is identical with that of the scholastic doctors. Nummus non paret nummum (Money does not produce money), was for him, as for them, a fixed principle. Any effort to make money productive seemed to him to be sinful, contrary to the law of nature, and a violation of the laws of God, contained in the Old and the New Testaments. It had its roots in avarice, and the fruit of avarice is usury. That many of the practices which he rebuked are fundamentally dishonest, is a fact that no one will deny; but it is also a fact that Luther had no more idea of economic laws, as we understand them, than he had of the law of gravitation.

In estimating his views, we have also to take account of his own personal attitude toward wealth. Few men have ever lived who were more utterly indifferent to money. For him it was not a thing to be striven after, but only a means of livelihood and a resource with which to relieve the necessities of others. For this reason he was sure to see avarice where others might see only prudence."- editors comment, Works of Martin Luther, Volume IV (Philadelphia: The Muhlenberg Press, 1931),10.

Roman Catholics followed Luther's lead, and likewise published Bibles during the 16th Century. In fact, in one case, a Roman Catholic published a Bible in which he plagiarized Luther's translation:

Ever since its first publication in 1522 Luther’s translation of the New Testament had been drawing not only wide approval but also certain narrow and often envious criticism. Among his sharpest critics was the notorious Jerome Emser (1478–1527), theologian, lawyer, and for over twenty years secretary to Duke George of Saxony. Like certain other rulers in the empire, Duke George had forbidden the circulation of Luther’s German New Testament in his territory. However not to be left without a New Testament in German, the Duke had commissioned Emser to provide a reliable Roman version. Emser obliged and, in the year of his death, lived to see the publication of his traditionalist version of the New Testament in German.

Outwardly it looked almost identical with the folio edition of Luther’s translation, even down to some of the Cranach woodcuts. But its introductions and glosses were all designed to cancel out those which accompanied Luther’s version. The text of Emser’s New Testament was based not on the original Greek text of Erasmus, which Luther had used, but on the Latin Vulgate and the late medieval German Bible. With these traditional sources as his base, Emser proceeded to “correct” the errors in Luther’s German New Testament; he did not claim to offer wholly a “new” version.

Emser’s translation, however, was not as traditional as might be supposed. Actually he had plagiarized much of Luther’s translation and then palmed off the finished product as his own. Hence the deep scorn and hostility which surges through Luther’s [Open letter on translating]. (LW 35:179)

Context doesn't matter when you own the book

My Eastern Orthodox debate partner David made an astonishing statement the other day that I would like to share.

The original post was on a different topic, but that's OK. I don't ordinarily mind derailing a comment box, but this one got pretty far afield, and I liked the post and its feeble responses from a couple of atheists, so I'll be diverting the EO-related discussion to this and another future post.

Anyway, what led up to the statement was that David had claimed that EOdoxy offers a better answer to the materialist atheist than my presuppositional approach and argumentum ad absurdum offered in the post. (He still hasn't let me know exactly what that answer is.) I challenged that, naturally, especially given the fact that he is a biblical errantist and accepts the theory of evolution as usually stated by the modern neo-Darwinists (or so he has implied). He pointed in due course to a webpage detailing some experiences EO martyrs have suffered at the hands of Soviet communists. I read some of them, including this one:

The overthrow of the Tsar, "he who restraineth" (2Thes.2:7) opened the way for the servants of Antichrist to exterminate the spiritual powers of Russia, and first of all -- the clergy.

David defended this:

Do you disagree that the Czar restrained the Atheist Communists? Or that Atheist Communists are the servants of the AntiChrist? 1&2 John are very clear about who the AntiChrist is... And Atheist Communists fit the bill.

My reply set up my favorite statement from him so far:

Nice leap there. Context much?
2 Thess 2:1 Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, 2 that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. 3 Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God. 5 Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things? 6 And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way. 8 Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming; 9 that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders, 10 and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. 11 For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, 12 in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.

It's pretty reckless Left-Behind-type eisegesis to apply those contemporary events to 2 Thess 2's prediction. I didn't think Tim LaHaye had a lot of pull in the EO community.

Then the kicker from David:

Their use of this particular phrase from Scripture is not somehow "official Orthodox doctrine." The Scripture is a living document and the possession of the Church; they chose to use a phrase from our Book.

Now, I presume that the Bible is a "living document" to David b/c, as all organisms have evolved from a common ancestor, the Bible itself is evolving as well, hopefully in the direction of perfection (depending on the mutations it suffers and the natural pressures it experiences that will govern whether it survives or not), but it's not there yet.

No response to the obviously bad exegesis performed by the author of the blurb who was no doubt expressing EO popular piety unto one of her martyrs. All this preceding talk about the unity of the Church, but when an EOdox expresses a view that David apparently doesn't feel like defending, and all of a sudden, the site is a private individual expressing a private opinion, not Orthodox doctrine. Whom am I to believe is a more reliable purveyor of Orthodox doctrine - David the layman 20-something-year-old errantist or the website of the ROCOR parish All Saints of North America?

Even more pointedly, David is evidently vicariously sidestepping an EOdox's responsibility to properly interpret Scripture. Why? Because it's "our Book" - we'll thank you not to lecture us on how badly we used it, since it belongs to US, not you! If we want to take 2 Thessalonians ludicrously out of context and ape Hal Lindsey, we're gonna do it and we don't need no guff from youse guys.
Given this mentality, is it really any surprise that it's nearly impossible to find any actual biblical support for most EO distinctive dogmas?

Fan Club Testimonials

"Why do so many Protestants spend so much time using extra-Biblical sources to prove their beliefs? For instance, one guy named James Swan spends hours culling through Martin Luther's writings, and writings about his life; leaving no stone unturned to defend his hero. Every time he gets a new book on Luther he has to tell everyone about it on his blog. The guy has been dead for close to 500 years. Isn't this a form of veneration? Heavens no, far be it for the Protestant. After all, if you spend hours and days reading, writing and defending a man who shares your religious beliefs, we couldn't call that veneration could we?" [source]

Luther: The Book of James Is Nonsense

"If nonsense is spoken anywhere, this is the very place. I pass over the fact that many have maintained, with much probability, that this epistle was not written by the apostle James, and is not worthy of the spirit of the apostle." ('Pagan Servitude of the Church,' ed. Dillenberger, p. 352.)

This Luther snippet was being used on a discussion board by a Roman Catholic. It probably originated from this page: The Truth About Martin Luther and Why So Few Read His Works. The ironic thing about this web page is that it isn't Roman Catholic, but vehemently against Roman Catholicism. The man who wrote this web page appears to be a radical KJV only advocate.

I've documented a number of times that Luther didn't think the apostle James wrote the book of James, but rather a post-apostolic Christian wrote it. Luther wasn't alone with this sentiment. His contemporaries, Erasmus and Cajetan felt the same. That's two fairly reputable Roman Catholic scholars. From a Romanist perspective, these three men held their opinions previous to Trent's dogmatic canon declaration. Thus, within the confines of Romanism, they had liberty to say such things. Also, Luther, Cejetan, and Erasmus had some important voices of history on their side as well: "Eusebius classed it among the antilegomena or contested writings. Jerome (circa 340–420) says it was regarded as pseudonymous in the Latin church" (LW 36:118). For Roman Catholics to cite Luther's opinions on the non-canonicty of James really boils down to a gross double standard. Their own system allowed him the freedom to hold his opinion.

The part of this Luther snippet that most interested me is the first part: "If nonsense is spoken anywhere, this is the very place." If you read this quote at face value, it appears Luther is saying the book of James is nonsense. Now if you read Luther's preface to James, recall he praises James and considers it a “good book” “because it sets up no doctrine of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God,” and that he would "not prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him." So the part about James being "nonsense" jumped out at me immediately.

Documentation
The web page cites the quote as being from 'Pagan Servitude of the Church,' ed. Dillenberger, p. 352. "Dillenberger" is a reference to Martin Luther: Selections From His Writings, ed. by John Dillenberger, New York: Anchor Books, 1962. It a small collection of Luther's writings (used copies are fairly cheap). My copy is from 1961, and the quote isn't on page 352, it's on page 351 (There appears to be a 1962 edition). "Pagan Servitude of the Church" is more popularly know as The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, 1520. In fairness, I've got to give this radical fundamentalist credit. He actually provided a reference that more or less made sense. Even if I didn't have Dillenberger's book, I had enough information to track down a context in Luther's Works, or even an online resource. If only Roman Catholic polemicists could do likewise.

Context
Dillenberger actually provides a good portion of the context. His translation is from The Reformation Writings of Martin Luther, volume 1, The Basis of the Protestant Reformation, translated and edited by Bertram Lee Woolf (London: Lutterworth Press, 1953), pp. 208-329.

Luther writes:

The Sacrament of Extreme Unction
The theologians of the present day have made two additions, well worthy of themselves, to the ceremony of anointing the sick. In the first place,they call it a sacrament; and in the second, they make it the last. Thus we have nowadays a sacrament of extreme unction which is only to be administered to those who are on the brink of death. As the theologians are very acute in argument, perhaps they relate it to the first unction of baptism, and the two subsequent unctions of confirmation and ordination. This time, they have something to throw in my face; it is that, on the authority of the apostle James, here are both promise and sign: things by which, as I have hitherto contended, a sacrament is constituted. The apostle says: "Is any among you sick? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save him that is sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, it shall be forgiven him" [Jas. 5:14 f].Behold, they say, the promise of forgiveness of sins, and the sign of the oil.

My reply is: If nonsense is spoken anywhere, this is the very place. I pass over the fact that many have maintained, with much probability, that this epistle was not written by the apostle James, and is not worthy of the spirit of an apostle. Nevertheless, no matter who may have been the author, it has the authority due to custom. Yet, even if it were by the apostle James, I would say that no apostle was licensed to institute a sacrament on his own authority, or, to give a divine promise with an accompanying sign. This pertains to Christ alone. That is why Paul says that it was from the Lord that he received the sacrament of the Eucharist [I Cor. 11:23]; and that he had not been sent to baptize, but to preach the gospel [I Cor.1: 17]. Nowhere in the gospels is there any mention of this sacrament of Extreme Unction. But, allowing that to pass, let us look at the actual words of the apostle, or whoever was the author, and we shall see, at once, that those who have multiplied the sacraments have paid no real attention to his words.

As the context shows, it isn't the book of James that is nonsense, rather it is those who argue for the sacrament of extreme unction using James. Luther explains what he means. Notice in his argumentation, he treats James as the writing of an apostle.

Firstly, if they hold that what the apostle said in the present instance is true, and ought to be kept, by what authority have they changed and restricted it? Why do they make an extreme unction, to be administered only once, out of what the apostle intended to be of general application? It was not the apostle's intention that it should be extreme, or that it should be given only to those at the point of death. Rather he says, purely and simply: "Is any among you sick?"; he does not say: "Is any among you at the point of death?" I shall ignore the sapient remarks on this subject in Dionysius's Ecclesiastica Hierarchia; the apostle's words are plain; Dionysius and the Romanists alike rely on them-but without obeying them. It appears, therefore, that, without any other authority than their own choice, they have wrongly interpreted the words of the apostle, and transformed them into the sacrament of Extreme Unction. This has been to the harm of the other sick persons whom they have deprived, on their own authority, of the benefit of the anointing as appointed by the apostle.

Here is a nicer point: the promise of the apostle expressly says: "The prayer of faith shall cure the sick, and the Lord will grant him recovery", etc. [Jas. 5:13-15]. You will have noticed that, in this passage, the apostle commands anointing and prayer in order that the sick man may be made well and recover, i.e., not die; and the anointing, therefore, is not that of extreme unction. This point is also proved in that, to the present day, while the Romanists are administering the last unction, prayers are said asking for the sick man's recovery. But the Romanists maintain, in spite of those prayers, that the unction is only to be administered to the dying, i.e., not in order that such a person may get well and recover. If this were not a serious matter, who could help laughing at this pretty, neat, and sensible comment on the apostle's words? Do we not here plainly detect that stupid sophistry which, both in this passage as well as in many others, affirms what Scripture denies,and denies what it affirms? Shall we pass a vote of thanks to these egregious masters of ours? Surely I was right in saying that nowhere else have they spoken such utter folly as in dealing with this passage!

Furthermore, if Extreme Unction is a sacrament, there should be no doubt that it is (as they say) an efficacious sign of what it signifies and promises. Now, it promises the health and recovery of the sick man, as the words plainly say: "The prayer of faith shall cure the sick, .and the Lord will heal him"[Jas. 5:15]. But every one knows that this promise is seldom,or never, fulfilled. Scarcely one in a thousand is restored, and then no one thinks it is by the sacrament, but by the help of nature or medicine. Indeed, they attribute to the sacrament the opposite effect. What, then, is our conclusion? It is that either the apostle did not speak the truth when he made this promise, or else that this unction of theirs is not a sacrament.A sacramental promise is certain, whereas this is usually fallacious.

But let us again take cognizance of the care and insight of these theologians; we may note that they mean it to be "extreme unction" just in order that the promise shall not hold good, or, lest the sacrament be a sacrament. For if it is extreme,it does not heal, but increases the infirmity. If it healed, it would not be extreme. Thus, it comes about, according to the exegesis of these masters, that James is to be understood to have contradicted himself: he instituted a sacrament to avoid instituting a sacrament! and the Romanists wanted to have the unction just in order that it should be untrue that the sick were healed by it, as James decreed! If this is not talking nonsense,then what is?

Today in the Mail... Luther's Works Volume 69

Today I received my copy of Luther's Works Volume 69, a new volume of Luther's writings translated into English. I do have a question. The last volume to be published was 55. Where are volumes 56-68? Is there a special "Lutheran math" I'm not aware of?

I'm hoping this volume will be digitized and added to the LW CD ROM at some point.

I ordered this book via Concordia. One word of caution: if you fill out the online form, don't be surprised if you find this book in your mailbox a day or two later. I simply gave them my address, and the book showed up. An invoice arrived a day earlier. So if you really want it, fill out the form, but keep in mind, they expect you to pay for it.

Yes, my Siamese cat ripped the top corner of the red cover slip. I had it unpacked less than two minutes.

Beckwith: Aquinas Was Close Enough on Mary's Immaculate Conception

"During my September 3 dialogue with Timothy George at Wheaton College, we briefly discussed St. Thomas Aquinas' denial of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, which later became a dogma of the Catholic Church. One of the points I made was that St. Thomas' understanding of Mary's holiness was far from the Protestant view. In fact, for St. Thomas, Mary, though not conceived without original sin, it was removed by God after she was conceived (technically, after she was "animated"). She was also was the recipient of an abundance of grace so that she may be protected from all actual sin. So, St. Thomas' view, though not the view currently held by the Church as dogma, contained within it some of the same logic on which the Church's dogma is based." [source]


Well, if you rub the edges of a square down for a while, you can eventually fit it in the round hole.

Sungenis: Late Advice To a Former Pope

"As for John Paul II's unofficial statement in 1996 that 'evolution is more than a hypothesis,' although the pope should have been more discrete, the fact is, a hypothesis is on the lowest rung of authority, for it means that, to explain the evidence, someone hypothesizes an answer, but the answer has no evidence to support it." [source]

Here's a rather unique video of a visitor to a Roman Catholic service. Ah well, a Presbyterian church I passed by the other day was having a "bless your pet" day.

TurretinFan: Harold Camping's Achilles Heel: Why Family Radio's Date for the End of the World is Wrong

I forgot to mention, I had the privilege of co-interviewing Turretinfan last week on Iron Sharpens Iron. The mp3 can be found here.

Luther's View of Money

"His view of property is thoroughly mediaeval. It is identical with that of the scholastic doctors. Nummus non paret nummum (Money does not produce money), was for him, as for them, a fixed principle. Any effort to make money productive seemed to him to be sinful, contrary to the law of nature, and a violation of the laws of God, contained in the Old and the New Testaments. It had its roots in avarice, and the fruit of avarice is usury. That many of the practices which he rebuked are fundamentally dishonest, is a fact that no one will deny; but it is also a fact that Luther had no more idea of economic laws, as we understand them, than he had of the law of gravitation.

In estimating his views, we have also to take account of his own personal attitude toward wealth. Few men have ever lived who were more utterly indifferent to money. For him it was not a thing to be striven after, but only a means of livelihood and a resource with which to relieve the necessities of others. For this reason he was sure to see avarice where others might see only prudence."- editors comment

Source: Works of Martin Luther, Volume IV (Philadelphia: The Muhlenberg Press, 1931),10.

More Internet Luther Books....

I came across another collection of Luther's writings, Ebooks of the author Martin Luther. The same website has a John Calvin page .

Cracking the Code: Editions of Luther's Works

If you've come across obscure Luther quotes and can't understand the documentation, this entry is for you. Often, those who cite Luther polemically can't provide a context, and the references they provide look like an unknown code. Below is a bit of the code book, so to speak. The above graphic comes from Luther's own statements concerning his teaching and its results by Henry O'Connor, page 164. It's typical of the anti-Luther books that Roman Catholics put out in the late 1800's- early 1900's. The sources O'Connor refers to are usually out of reach for a typical English speaking blogger. Google Books has made it somewhat easier to locate some of these type of old sources, but even if you find them, there's still the question of reading German and Latin.

Sometimes O'Connor will mention a specific treatise title, often he won't. It makes tracking down Luther quotes and putting them in context very tedious and difficult. Of course, if your typical Roman Catholic Internet warrior would read the actual sources available now, and quote Luther via those sources.... ah, never mind. That's wishful thinking.

Below are some of the main collections of Luther documents referred to by friends and foes of the Reformation. This is only a brief look. Citations in older books like O'Connor's and Patrick O'Hare's are often sparse, cryptic, fragmented, or in a foreign language. If you come across someone using an obscure Luther quote with a reference you don't understand:

1. If you're aware that it's a primary source from long ago, let them know you're in awe that they have had access to such a rare book. Tell them it's an honor to dialogue with someone who's read things like de Wette or Walch, and you look forward to being their pupil.

2. Ask them what the reference means. Chances are, they might not be able to tell you. That's a good sign they have swiped the quote from a secondary source, and haven't a clue as to the context.

3. If they can identify the reference as coming from an actual collection of Luther's works, ask them what specific treatise it's from and if they know any of the background as to the writing of the treatise.

4. If they do link you to an old Google Book in German or Latin, ask them if they can read either German or Latin.

5. Remember, if someone uses a quote, it's their responsibility to provide the context, not yours. If they can't provide an actual context and an historical context, their conclusions and interpretation are worthless.


Luther's Works
Usually referred to as LW. English edition, published by Concordia Publishing House. You can usually find this set (54 volumes with the 55th book index) in a good library. Single volumes are relatively inexpensive and can bought new or used. There is also a CD ROM of this set. I've had this CD ROM for a number of years, and it's proved invaluable. Concordia is also releasing new volumes of Luther's Works.

Works of Martin Luther: With Introduction and Notes
Often referred to as PE. The Philadelphia Edition (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press). Sometimes called the Holman Luther, since it was originally published by A.J. Holman Co. This is an English set in 6 volumes. No need to go out and buy these, you can find them on line. They were published in the early 1900's.

WA: Weimar Edition of Luther's Works. 1883-.
Usually referred to as WA. D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe; Weimar, 1883. This is the largest set of Luther's works, in German. It's arranged in four parts: Writings (WA),11 volumes of Letters (WA Br, or Briefe), 6 volumes of Tabletalk (WA TR or Tischreden) 9(or 12?) volumes of the German Bible (WA DB). This set was supposed to follow a chronological sequence, but more Luther material was found after the set had been put in motion. When newer items are found, or better source documents of previous material, they are be released in volumes entitled, Archiv zur Weimarer Ausgabe (AWA). The numbering of the Weimar set can be very confusing, like "WA 10, I, 2".

The Erlangen Edition
Usually referred to as EA. 1826-1857. Sometimes this set is referred to as "Dr. M. Luthers Samtliche Werke" or "E". The set includes German and Latin writings from Luther. The 68 German volumes were published 1826-1857, and revised later that century. The 38 Latin writings are specific to biblical interpretation (Exegetica Opera Latina, sometimes referred to as E op ex and Opera latina varii argumenti). They likewise were published in the 19th Century. This set includes 18 volumes of Luther's letters edited by E.L. Enders, and were also published separately. It also includes Luther's commentary on Galatians in 3 volumes.

Walch: The Walch Edition
1740-1753. 24 topical volumes. This was a set of Luther's works published 1740-1753 by Johann Georg Walch. This set is German, and Walch translated many of Luther's Latin writings into German. Sometimes this set is referred to as the St. Louis version, the St. Louis-Walch version, or the Halle edition, or Luthers Samtliche Werke, herausgegeben von J. G. Walch. It may be Abbreviated as "St.L" This set also includes writings by others, friends and foes of Luther. The set was revised from 1885-1910 (in St. Louis), and may not match up with the earlier set. Sometimes the revision is referred to as St.Lb. Volumes 15-17 contain rare Reformation history texts, and contemporary letters.

Dr. Martin Luthers Briefe, Sendschreiben und Bedenken (Dewette)
5 volumes of Luther's letters in German edited by Dr. Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette. "The best collection of his Letters was edited by De Wette (5 vols., Berlin, 1825-8), with a supplementary volume by Seidemann (1856)" (source). "The Letters of Luther were separately edited by De Wette, Berlin, 1825, sqq., 5 vols.; vol. VI. by J. C. Seidemann, 1856 (716 pp., with an addition of Lutherbriefe, 1859); supplemented by C. A. H. Burkhardt, Leipz., 1866 (524 pp.); a revised ed. with comments by Dr. E. L. Enders (pastor at Oberrad near Frankfurt a. M.), 1884 sqq. (in the Erl. Frankf ed.). The first volume contains the letters from 1507 to March, 1519. For selection see C. Alfred Hase: Lutherbriefe in Auswahl und Uebersetzung, Leipzig, 1867 (420 pages). Th. Kolde: Analecta Lutherana, Briefe und Actenstücke zur Geschichte Luther’s. Gotha, 1883. Contains letters of Luther and to Luther, gathered with great industry from German and Swiss archives and libraries" (source).

Br:The Braunschweig Edition. 10 volumes of devotional writing, published 1889-1905.

The Clemen (ClL) or the Bonn Edition (BoA). 1825-1828. 8 German volumes. The first four contain complete treatises, 5-8 are selections from early lectures, letters, sermons, and tabletalk. The text is said to be superior to WA.

The Munich Edition (Mu). 6 German volumes, with 7 supplement volumes (Mu Erg), published in the 1900's.

Luther Deutsch (LD). 11 volumes, with 3 volumes of commentary.

The New Calwer Edition. 12 volumes in modern German.

Martin Luther Studienausgabe. 6 German volumes.

The Wittenberg Edition. 1539-59. contains 12 German and 8 Latin volumes. The material was topical, at the request of Luther. This volume contains some of the writings of Luther's opponents as well.

The Jena Edition. 1555-1558. 8 German and 4 Latin volumes, 2 supplementary volumes. John Aurifaber, one of the chief collectors of Luther's Tabletalk was one of the editors of this set.

The Allenburg Edition. 1661-1702. A poorly edited 11 volume German set.

The Leipzig edition. 1729-1740. 23 volumes in German, arranged topically.